Bush And The NAACP

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,282
Location
Edge's beanie closet
Until I read credible evidence to the contrary, I don't believe at all that the President is racist. However, he seems to be "afraid" to speak there -I guess they might say things he doesn't want to hear :|

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/12/naacp.convention.ap/index.html

Leaders of the Baltimore-based group are upset that President Bush has no plans to attend the convention. Bush spoke at the 2000 NAACP convention when he was a candidate but has declined invitations to speak in each year of his presidency, making him the first president since the 1930s to skip it, officials said.

:eyebrow:
 
There is certainly an implication that if one doesn't accept the invitation, then they are racist.

Besides, there doesn't seem to be a relationship there to begin with...
 
So are you saying nbc that in order for their invitation to be "genuine", they can't speak out against him?

Just wondering :)

I'd have respect for President Bush if he would speak there in spite of the fact that they disagree w/ his policies. As for Kerry, I don't see where what he said is anything more than politics as usual.
 
I assume Reagan spoke at these conferences even though the NAACP certainly wasn't a fan of his.
 
I thought that Bonds encouraged people to not vote for Bush after he declined the invitation, and partly because of that (and his history).

I'm starting to see a trend with Bush and the 1930's.....worst economy since the Great Depression....and now the first president since then to turn away from the NAACP. (Not to mention his social policies are about as advanced as they were 70-some years ago. Trying to outlaw abortion and gay rights, geez...) :tsk:
 
Bush acknowledged in an interview with Pennsylvania newspapers that he had had difficulty with a core Democratic group he has tried at times to court: African Americans. He said he declined an invitation to address the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People annual conference that starts today in Philadelphia because he was upset at that group's criticisms of him. The president said he was largely estranged from the civil rights organization.
 
He got what, 9% of their vote the last time around?

I suppose he's happy to settle for even less this time. He's not going to even bother with this constituency. I think it would be awesome if they cost him the election in a hotly contested state.
 
anitram said:
He got what, 9% of their vote the last time around?

I suppose he's happy to settle for even less this time. He's not going to even bother with this constituency. I think it would be awesome if they cost him the election in a hotly contested state.

I dont think they will cost him the election and although I am really not into politics, I think President Bush was justified in making his decision. After all, the NAACP does not support him.
 
Maggie1 said:
I really dont why but assume it is because he does not support the same political ideas as the NAACP.

Neither did most of the Rep. presidents in the past but they tried to make some connection. I think it's rather arrogant of Bush not to speak to them because "they don't support him", that or he's afraid he can't connect with them. Either way they are the people he runs this country for and they invited him, it's somewhat of a slap in the face given the history.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Neither did most of the Rep. presidents in the past but they tried to make some connection. I think it's rather arrogant of Bush not to speak to them because "they don't support him", that or he's afraid he can't connect with them. Either way they are the people he runs this country for and they invited him, it's somewhat of a slap in the face given the history.

Then it is equally as arrogant to expect a President to speak at your meeting, or perhaps more so. Is the NAACP on an equal level with the office of the President?
 
nbcrusader said:


Then it is equally as arrogant to expect a President to speak at your meeting, or perhaps more so. Is the NAACP on an equal level with the office of the President?

No, if you see my quote, I said given the history...it's a slap in the face.

I'm the first to admit the NAACP is often extreme, as are the majority of political groups, but the NAACP are a vital and important group to this country's history and hopefully the future.
 
Maggie1 said:


I dont think they will cost him the election and although I am really not into politics, I think President Bush was justified in making his decision. After all, the NAACP does not support him.

He's the President of the whole country, not President of those who support him. Politicians shouldn't try to isolate themselves from their constituents, no matter how much those constituents may disagree with them.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


He's the President of the whole country, not President of those who support him. Politicians shouldn't try to isolate themselves from their constituents, no matter how much those constituents may disagree with them.

I agree, especially if it has been tradition for Presidents to accept the invitation.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:
He's the President of the whole country, not President of those who support him. Politicians shouldn't try to isolate themselves from their constituents, no matter how much those constituents may disagree with them.

That's nice. But with 293 Million constituents, you can't meet with each one.

And why should we really be surprised? Politicians pick and choose their audiences all the time. Invitations are declined all the time.
 
nbcrusader said:
That's nice. But with 293 Million constituents, you can't meet with each one.

The President may not be able to meet with each individual constituent, but it's not unreasonable to expect him to meet with an organisation which represents a large section of the electorate. Politicians who attempt to isolate themselves from their constituents have an unfortunate tendency to ignore the impact their policy decisions have on the people they were elected to serve.
 
Bu$h had better things to do, like pushing for divisive and inflammatory constitutional amendments for political gain. He can rot in hell, far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure that most of black America thinks so too--hence, the reason why Bu$h would never speak with the NAACP. It would be like Pat Robertson speaking before a group of atheists.

Melon
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:
He's isolating himself from the millions of people the NAACP represents.

I think you are fooling yourself to think the NAACP represents all African Americans (assuming that is what you meant by "millions of people").
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom