That Bush is so dumb, or perhaps so insensitive, that in his recent speech to the NAACP convention he, according to Washington Post columnist Colbert King, “play[ed] his audience cheap” by speaking to the 2200 assembled delegates
as if they were strictly a narrow special-interest group concerned only about his administration’s work in Katrina relief, the new Medicare drug benefit, the No Child Left Behind Act, funding for historically black universities, home ownership, small business loans, AIDS funding at home and in Africa, and the Voting Rights Act.
In other words,
Bush chose to assume the role of the “panderer” rather than “commander”-in-chief, putting his audience in a box and talking to its members about what he thought they would like to hear.
What gall! What disrespect! The man actually spoke to the delegates about “what he thought they would like to hear.” How dare he!
“Bush failed,” in short,
to also see the conventioneers — and the people they represent — as Americans, 75 percent of whom live above the poverty line and pay taxes, and many of whom have relatives, friends and neighbors contributing directly to the nation’s defense.
On the other hand, if the voters of a state — whether California or Washington or, I hope, Michigan — ever dare to amend their fundamental law to ensure that all citizens are treated equally, “as Americans,” they are accused of being dumb, or insensitive, or even racist for not recognizing that blacks (and some Hispanics) are different and that their difference entitles them to favorable treatment because their very presence provides the precious and educationally necessary benefit of “diversity” to others, others who would suffer immeasureably if deprived of the opportunity to be exposed to them.
Well, at least King’s column clears things up for those of us who, like Bush, are too dumb or insensitive to understand: blacks want to be treated just like everyone else, “as Americans,” except when doing so deprives them of preferential treatment.
If Bush had spoken on some subject other than those the NAACP usually says they are interested in, these same people would be characterizing him as “insensitive to issues affecting African Americans” or some such thing. In other words, President Bush cannot win.
The objections to Bush’s speech are illogical. And sharon is right, nothing he could have said would have made black people happy. blacks will not vote republican. Bush wasted his time going to the NAACP. there was nothing he said that people there wanted to hear, except that republicans are racist. It was pandering alright, pointless pandering.
What gall! What disrespect! The man actually spoke to the delegates about “what he thought they would like to hear.” How dare he!
Not according to Paul Krugman and the rest of the angry left. He mentioned the estate tax (“which only affects 59 blacks”), but not poverty. He didn’t talk about what black people care about.
Bush Derangement Syndrome in full force. It’s bad if he talks about black issues because that’s pandering, and it’s bad if he doesn’t talk about black issues because that’s ignoring black issues.
If members of the NAACP don’t want to be addressed as anything other than Americans, what’s the point of their group?
John writes:
>>>”Well, at least King’s column clears things up for those of us who, like Bush, are too dumb or insensitive to understand: blacks want to be treated just like everyone else, “as Americans,” except when doing so deprives them of preferential treatment.”
Except John, in America, African Americans are treated WORSE than White Americans. You can’t deny history. You can’t deny facts, statistics and collegiate studies on everything from lending to law enforcement today. And if your readership isn’t aware of them, I happily provide that information. :-)
You will, however, for the sake of your cause, try to morally equivocate Affirmative Action, an entry level preference, with the overwhelming TSUNAMI of WHITE PREFENCES that created the schism to start with.
The problem with Bush and his puppeteer–er…handlers and speech writers, is that ACTIONS speak louder than words.
Though some of your posters would accuse us of being 15% less intelligent than whites, we’re smart enough to see that No Child Left Behind was an unfunded mandate. We’re smart enough to see Katrina for what it was regarding race, and the gentrification effort going on right now in the reconstruction.
Sharon writes:
>>>”If Bush had spoken on some subject other than those the NAACP usually says they are interested in, these same people would be characterizing him as “insensitive to issues affecting African Americans” or some such thing. In other words, President Bush cannot win.”
Who says Bush has to “win?” Like it or not, George W. Bush is President of the United States of America…not President of White America, Christian America, Corporate America or NASCAR America, Fox News America or any combination of the above. This man is Commander-in-Chief, responsible for committing thousands of black and brown faces into battle right alongside the white ones, at greivous risk to their lives and welfare. He presides over budgets and bills that affect the lives of ALL Americans, not just those of white people in the highest tax bracket. If this President can’t bring himself to talk to the largest organization of African Americans, especially when he will no longer be campaining again, then why on EARTH do you have confidence in this person to represent America on the world stage, where there are BILLIONS of non-whites to deal with, many of whom a helluva lot more hostile to him than Julian Bond?
–Cobra
Though some of your posters would accuse us of being 15% less intelligent than whites, we’re smart enough to see that No Child Left Behind was an unfunded mandate.
Well, you’re 0-2, which makes you better than your usual batting average. It was neither “unfunded” nor a “mandate.”
David writes:
>>>”Well, you’re 0-2, which makes you better than your usual batting average. It was neither “unfunded” nor a “mandate.”
I think you oughtta check the box score on my line again, my friend.
>>>”Connecticut on Monday became the first state to challenge the No Child Left Behind law in court, arguing that the centerpiece of President Bush’s education law amounts to an unfunded mandate from the federal government.
“Our message today is give up the unfunded mandates, or give us the money,” said Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.
The lawsuit raises the stakes in a heated fight between states and the Bush administration over the law, and experts say Legislatures around the country will be watching the case carefully. Experts expect that states could vote to join the lawsuit or file their own.
The lawsuit argues that No Child Left Behind is illegal because it requires expensive standardized tests and other school programs that the government doesn’t pay for. It asks a federal judge to declare that state and local money cannot be used to meet the law’s goals.
U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings has repeatedly denied requests from Connecticut for more flexibility.”
Learned Opinions agree with Cobra
But not to get off track, tell me again why Bush was afraid to speak to large groups of his African-American countrymen for so long? Could it be that it doesn’t play well with the Southern Strategy?
–Cobra
“Who says Bush has to “win?””
OK, let’s put it this way: regardless of the subjects George Bush talks about, the NAACP will carp that it’s not the “right” subject or complaining about some completely unrelated policy. That’s what I mean by “win.” I guess it’s beyond this generation of vipers to consider a president making a speech in front of their group as being a privilege they should be courteous about.
“If this President can’t bring himself to talk to the largest organization of African Americans, especially when he will no longer be campaining again, then why on EARTH do you have confidence in this person to represent America on the world stage, where there are BILLIONS of non-whites to deal with, many of whom a helluva lot more hostile to him than Julian Bond?”
Why should he speak to any group so close-minded and hostile as to accuse him of lynching a man because he wasn’t for hate crimes legislation? It’s absurd.
“But not to get off track, tell me again why Bush was afraid to speak to large groups of his African-American countrymen for so long? Could it be that it doesn’t play well with the Southern Strategy?”
Or it could be because the NAACP, and Bond in particular, has become so noxious as to make it unreasonable to expect any non-Democrat groveller to speak to them. This is the same man who said Republicans wanted to “write bigotry back into the Constitution” and accused Republican leaders of wanting to fly the “Confederate swastika” beside the American flag. A better question is what idiot would WANT to speak to an organization like that? Even people who came to hear Bond’s speech left.
Sharon writes:
>>>”I guess it’s beyond this generation of vipers to consider a president making a speech in front of their group as being a privilege they should be courteous about.”
I don’t get it. Everybody saw the reception President Bush was given. Everybody saw that the President was not “shouted down”, but bestowed the respect due the Office. Much akin to EVERY OTHER President this half of the 20th Century, including Reagan, Bush was shown every courtesy. That fact doesn’t play well with some in the homogenized right, but it’s the truth.
Sharon writes:
>>>”Or it could be because the NAACP, and Bond in particular, has become so noxious as to make it unreasonable to expect any non-Democrat groveller to speak to them.”
More noxious than the GOP pilgrimage to Bob Jones University, where its Presidents has said such beauts as:
>>>”For eight decades, BJU has been led by three generations of Bob Joneses — preachers who pioneered a combative and highly political form of fundamentalism that gave rise to the “Christian Right.” The Joneses became famous touting politicians they liked — George Wallace, Barry Goldwater, George W. Bush — while hurling thunderbolts of quotable vitriol at apostates, back-sliders and liberals.
Bob Jones, the hellfire-and-brimstone evangelist who founded the nondenominational Protestant school in 1927, railed against the Catholic Church, which stands, he said, “for ignorance and superstition and the slavery of the human soul.”
Bob Jones Jr. pilloried Secretary of State Alexander Haig as “a monster in human flesh” and publicly prayed that God would “smite him hip and thigh, bone and marrow, heart and lungs.”
Bob Jones III denounced Ronald Reagan as “a traitor to God’s people” for the sin of choosing as his vice president George H.W. Bush, whom Jones called “a devil.”
Bob Jones U is a tougher crowd than the NAACP
I guess it’s just a matter of whose team you’re rooting for.
–Cobra
Your probably right, Cobra. I’m rooting for the American team. Which team are you rooting for?
Sharon writes:
>>>”Your probably right, Cobra. I’m rooting for the American team. Which team are you rooting for?”
Two points:
1) Rooting for Bush is not synonymous with rooting for America.
2) America has not always rooted for people who look like me. IMHO, America attracts a whole lot of front-running, fair-weather fans.
–Cobra
“Rooting for Bush is not synonymous with rooting for America.”
Actually, I didn’t say it did. My point was that you obviously think speaking at Bob Jones University is a worse offense than tarring and feathering President Bush (and by extension Republicans) as wanting to “write bigotry back into the Constitution,” etc. I do not.
“America has not always rooted for people who look like me. IMHO, America attracts a whole lot of front-running, fair-weather fans.”
Ahh, neither has American “always rooted for people who look like me.” Of course, I could be referring to a wide variety of traits there, but I think you get the idea. I don’t hold it against anyone. I just went on with my life.
Sharon writes:
>>>”Ahh, neither has American “always rooted for people who look like me.” Of course, I could be referring to a wide variety of traits there, but I think you get the idea. I don’t hold it against anyone. I just went on with my life.”
Sort of a philosophy of appeasement, huh? Interesting.
–Cobra