There are many ways of telling folks about your priorities.

This is one of them.

One wonders what group Dubya wants to meet with that is More Important.

Posted by: Don at July 8, 2004 12:12 PM

This simply isn’t Bushie’s base. In a close fight, the tactic might be to shore-up/mobilize key parts of his base (evangelical christians) rather then extend an olive branch to African-Americans, which could (potentially) be a waste of time and resources as 90% voted democrat in 2000.

One also has to wonder if the Bush camp is courting the Muslim-American vote—78% of which voted Republican in 2000 and which are seen as crucial swings in FLA and MI— as heavily as it did in the previous election.

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at July 8, 2004 12:27 PM

This is good decision. The NAACP is really not his friend, they showed their true colors with their anti Bush ads in the last election.

So, why bother? Why waste his time speaking with people who are dead set against him. Frankly, the decision does much to diminish the stature of the NAACP in the eyes of many.

good call.

Posted by: skip at July 8, 2004 01:52 PM

At some point, the NAACP and other interest groups need to pay a price for their overt partisanship. It’s refreshingly honest for Bush to not go along with what would be a fraud. I only wish they hadn’t hidden behind a “scheduling conflict”.

Posted by: TL at July 8, 2004 02:07 PM

In 2000, Bush was jeered and heckeld at the NAACP convention, and his opponents accused him of all sorts of lies (“Bush will undo Brown v Board of Education if he wins”, for instance).

President Bush has a good memory, and a better sense of where he should spend his energy and time.

Posted by: DJDrummond at July 8, 2004 02:08 PM

The African American support the president does have also would not be well represented at the NAACP convention.

Posted by: I collect political items at July 8, 2004 02:49 PM

Dear Mfume,

The comments posted at COMMAND POST accurately reflect my position with regard to your invitation.

As President of the United States, I theoretically represent and serve the American people, including those who advocate for changes that I disagree with. However, for reasons of political expedience, I have chosen to abdicate the Presidency with regard to African-Americans during this election year.

My rejection of the NAACP’s invitation has nothing to do with my interest in trying to serve the nation’s African-Americans better because I have none. I’ve done such a lousy job that there is nothing I can say to protect myself from your scorn. I would just end up getting booed and exposing myself to be a hypocritical ass again.

I really could care less whether I’m actually doing my job by upholding the high standards of the office I hold. I ran for President as as a “uniter, not a divider” but I’ve done such pathetic job that there’s just no possible way I can afford to sustain the lying hypocrite act I pulled last time and still win the Presidential election.

So, I’ll be blunt. You know full well that 90% of African-Americans did not and will not vote for me. Man, listening to you of your ideas or accounting for the offensive actions I have taken that have alienated the NAACP isn’t a good use of time. So, hear this: “(You all know what goes here.)”

The unity thing was a grand rhetorical illusion while it floated but the bubble’s burst and I don’t give a hoot about being humbled or uniting America any more. My sincerest desire right now is to be re-elected by whatever slim margin I can beg, borrow, or steal. And if I can steal some African-American votes, well, you know I can’t talk about that.

Respectfully,

George

P.S. I am NOT arrogant, rude, or vengeful.

Posted by: Scott at July 8, 2004 04:40 PM

so, meanwhile, back to the politics of this decision.

The NAACP really is treading on thin Ice. If they do get involved in the political arena they could lose their tax exempt status I’m not certain, but I imagine that they are a 503©. If they use contributions to further a political agenda, they stand a chance of being a target.

Of course there are political overtones to this and nobody does the victim dance better than the NAACP, so if the IRS does take action, they’ll be whining and moaning like there’s no tomorrow.

Still they say rude things about Mr Bush on a regular basis, they actively oppose him and the behave like the lap dogs of the democratic party, which they are.

So no, Scott’s nonsense aside, there’s nothing to be gained and much to be lost by speaking at this convention.

Now, how important an organization is the NAACP if they can’t get the President to speak at their convention. I’m sure Bush doesn’t speak at those Trekkie confabs either. Perhaps there’s a pattern?

Posted by: skip at July 8, 2004 05:12 PM

Skip - I concur.

Pres. Bush would have accepted the invitation IF there was any possibility that he would have received a half-way favorable reception. No need to give the Kerry team a “Kodak Moment” for use later on in a campaign ad.

Posted by: Jim at July 8, 2004 07:54 PM

Great idea, Skip. Let’s make sure everyone understands how politically irrelevant the NAACP is. The President’s declining to speak before the annual convention of this 500,000 member organization that registered 2,000,000 people to vote in 2000 helping create the highest African-American voter turnout in 20 years because he has nothing to offer them not only models inspired presidential leadership, but brilliant political strategy!

In fact, the NAACP is so unimportant that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and I’m sure many others covered this non-story. All of the non-stories noted that the last President to try to win an election without appearing before the NAACP was Herbert Hoover. Of course, the convention hasn’t happened, yet, so there’s bound to be more helpful spin coming out of there next week. Now, that’s inspired campaigning!

I’m sure some COMMAND POST readers found your descriptions of the NAACP as doing “the victim dance” and “lap dogs” to be lucid and informed political commentary. The conservative movement is certainly fortunate to have such an articulate understanding advocate diligently exercising his citizenship on their behalf. They must be very proud of the kind of political genius that sits around patting itself on the back for a decision to punt away 10 million votes on second down in the second quarter because it doesn’t have any other plays in its playbook.

Posted by: Scott at July 8, 2004 09:08 PM

Scott-
Don’t make the mistake of assuming the civil rights establishment speaks for all “people of color”. It doesn’t. And believe it or not, some “people of color” don’t feel like victims, and don’t want to, despite the righteous indignation of those who think it is their inescapable natural state.

Posted by: marymcl at July 8, 2004 11:32 PM

Just because the black community has allowed the NAACP leadership to abuse its trust in the past does not mean it will continue in the future. We are starting to see responsible voices like Bill Cosby (not exactly a Thomas Sowell conservative) challenge the tired excuses historically peddled by the NAACP.

GWB has correctly refused to further empower the NAACP’s current leadership. thus demonstrating that political power is a 2-way street — let them spend 4 more years on the outside looking in. In the meantime, they can either get serious about solving social problems within their communities or be replaced by serious organizations with leaders committed to their minority constituents.

In the interim, I would like to see a campaign directed to minority communities empahasing that when the curtain is drawn in the voting booth, each person is free to vote his conscience. So for example if they support school vouchers (and polling suggests that many do) they owe it to their kids to seriously consider voting Republican because the Dems will never support it — and no one will ever know. Now that’s a political vision that could work.

Sadly we can probably expect to see another 11th hour James Byrd-type ad by the NAACP — a guaranteed if despicable method of generating voter turnout. Perhaps this time fewer will respond to those appealing to their worst instincts. I hope so.

Posted by: ter0 at July 9, 2004 02:36 AM

Dear marymcl,

Of course you are right. I do not assume that the NAACP represents all African-American political viewpoints. However, I believe that presenting some basic facts about the organization’s considerable political influence in the African-American community was an appropriate counterpoint to Skip’s flip statement about “How important can they be…?” Now he knows.

It was Skip, not I, who characterized the NAACP as doing the “victims dance.” Personally, I have no idea what he’s talking about unless he’s inaccurately trying to belittle their work to ensure enforcement of the anti-discrimination provisions of US employment law, enfranchise African-American voters, or reduce criminal recidivism by African-American prisoners. He certainly couldn’t be referring to their economic, financial, or youth empowerment projects, all of which are aimed at enhancing personal and community self-reliance.

There is plenty of righteous indignation going around these days. There might be a little less on my part, I think, if compassionate conservatives didn’t try to justify their movement’s lack of knowledge, policy, and communication about and for African-Americans by tossing off the first piece of misinformation or vacuous put-down that pops into their head. Anybody who compares the organization that gave America Rosa Parks to a Star Trek gathering in an open public discussion about politics is inviting reproach and deserves a much stronger dose of righteous indignation than I have applied.

But, I thank you kindly for your constructive comments, mary.

Dear ter0,

Right, the NAACP abused its trust as a major partner in the fight for Brown vs. Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and registering millions of African-American voters in each election cycle. Like Skip, the strategic shift in the NAACP’s programmatic focus to economic empowerment and entrepreneurship seems to have escaped you entirely.

Perhaps we should compare the long-ago resolved organizational mismanagement of the NAACP with President Bush’s violations of trust. John Kerry and Dick Gephart say he lied to them. I’ll bet you have an explanation for that one. And please defend the underhanded tactics that earned your leaders chants of “Shame, shame!” in the House today, too. That’s a rhetorical challenge, ter0. There’s so many of ‘em there’s whole books on the subject out now. One, by Republican, John Dean, says they’re so bad Bush should be impeached. Republican Kevin Phillips isn’t too kind to Bush either. Perhaps people who live in glass houses shouldn’t cast so many stones.

And thank heaven we have another celebrity joining Arnold in the political fray on the side of the conservatives. I’m glad you have found another billionaire actor/comedian to bash African-American kids born into poverty to replace Ronald Reagan. I’m hoping that you put the “liberals in bed with Hollywood” nonsense to rest now and convince some of your famous rich friends to pony up a little more of their dough so we can stop Bush’s slashing of programs for dropout prevention, recreation, crisis pregnancy and school counseling.

I think your notion about an issues and values based campaign in black communities is the germ of a very good idea to promote your point of view. Too bad nobody’s listening and you don’t have an organizational partner like the NAACP who can execute it. If your movement were smarter, you’d look at the information provided about the NAACP provided here, figure out that there is tons of common ground, and think even bigger. And, frankly, I wish you would. I’m in this discussion to help make America better, not score political debating points for any Party.

I’m sorry the NAACP ran a bad ad. It happens. Like the conservative ad comparing Kerry and Hitler speaking appealing to mans higher nature. I love how that log looks in your eye.

Posted by: Scott at July 9, 2004 05:29 AM

For me the issue raised in the posting is whether GWB’s decision to decline the NAACP’s invitation was appropriate or not? Whether Kevin Phillips is a Republican or whether the NAACP once had a noble purpose are other issues.

GWB’s chances of enlisting the NAACP as an organizational partner have always been slim but he reached out in good faith anyway early in his presidency (in spite of the Byrd ad) and his good faith was met with the ugliest of disparaging treatment and lack of respect for the office. Absent some change of tone on the NAACP’s part or evidence of good faith beyond the invitation itself I am convinced that declining the invitation was a good idea.

That the current NAACP leadership squandered the good reputation built by the work of civil rights heroes of the past and chooses to fight frivolous, symbolic battles rather than address substantive solutions to social problems only underscores need to shun them politically. On that score, I would support a Democrat (or even a Democrat activist wing like the NAACP) with a results-oriented approach to those problems. Unfortunately all I see is talk, political posturing, and wasteful spending proposals.

Posted by: ter0 at July 9, 2004 09:55 AM

Dear ter0,

Thank you for keeping us on point. I think if we talked long enough, our positions would converge into some important points of principled agreement and we would find ourselves discussing reasoned differences about national policy affecting African-Americans.

Of course avoiding the NAACP convention is the only move Bush can make. The point I’m making about the article and all the commentary about Bush’s “wise” decision to avoid the convention is that Mr. Bush is in an untenable position because he has utterly failed heal his own self-inflicted wounds. The total disconnect between him and the vast majority of African-Americans vividly illustrates why a lot of people think he’s been a lousy President.

As you say, Bush’s chances of partnering with the NAACP have always been slim. The main reason is the breach he caused with them in the 2000 South Carolina primary. You may recall that was where fresh from a trouncing in New Hampshire Bush was desperately shooting his wad trashing John McCain with a barrage of low road tactics that left many Republicans very bitter. To gain victory, Bush actively opposed the NAACP’s position and tactics with regard to the State’s use of the confederate flag and visited Bob Jones University in a blatant appeal for South Carolina’s racist vote. You can call that (or the NAACP) frivolous and symbolic if you want and I would, regretfully, have to say that, like Bush, you are woefully out of touch with how most African-Americans feel about these matters.

President Bush has done nothing to earn the NAACP’s support. You can credit the President for offering an “olive branch” speech to the NAACP in 2000 as a profile in courage if you like. But, after the damage he did himself, it is utterly naïve to expect that Bush could win over the NAACP with a bunch of empty words and not even a token offering of policy initiative to address their agenda. He offered nothing, picked up his presidential ball, and went home. All the NAACP has heard from him since is his opposition to affirmative action and preference for segregationist judges nominated from a very safe distance.

I agree that a change in tone from the NAACP would be a positive step in opening a dialogue. But, if the President of the United States can’t figure out a way to negotiate a resolution to that relatively minor problem in three-and-a-half years, he certainly doesn’t inspire my trust to employ the statesmanship needed to negotiate peace in the much more complex environment of the Middle East. And, of course, I could blow hot about all that, too.

I think you would agree that it’s deplorable for all of us that we’ve come to shunning and shaming one another. This is not “a kinder, gentler America.”

I agree with your view that the NAACP’s prospective support of Senator Kerry appears like they’re settling for political posturies to me too. I don’t support Kerry for this, any many other reasons, either.

In that 2000 speech, Mr. Bush said that discrimination is still very much with us in the 21st Century. I agree with that, too. In my opinion, the government’s lack of policy and massive disinvestment in innr-city and rural areas in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and obscene levels of spending for the defense department contribute to perpetuating conditions, occasioned by history, that we have yet to fully resolve as a society. These are matters that responsible politicians from both sides of the aisle should address with the same urgency as whether or not to declare July 9 “Ballpark Frank” Day.

Posted by: Scott at July 9, 2004 03:57 PM

I guess I’m just going to have to disagree with you there Scott. You see in my way of thinking the NAACP is out of step with its constituency and deserves no credibility enhancement of any kind until it can show it is serious about something other than self-promotion through incitement of racial tension. I;m all for conciliatory gestures and compromise if there is some reasonable prospect of agreement or at least progress toward agreement. I see none in the NAACP. So I guess that’s where we part company.

But I will agree with you on your analogy to the Mid East situation. Arafat and the PLO are unwilling and probably incapable of governing responsibly and consequently GWB has refused to deal with them. Good for him. When the Palestinians are ready for a solution as opposed to seemingly neverending violence they will choose responsible leaders — until then they will continue to suffer largely self-inflicted pain. The analogy to the NAACP couldn’t be more vivid — a failed organization more interested in self-promotion and conflict than actual solutions. Because in the final analysis, when the colored people have advanced they won’t need Julian Bond to tell them who to vote for or what to think.

Posted by: ter0 at July 9, 2004 06:03 PM

The NAACP is only out of step with the seedier elements of a more broadly well intentioned conservative movement. The NAACP’s efforts in voter registration, affirmative action, criminal justice reform, gaining legal protection against predatory lending practices, opposing judges they don’t trust, and sponsoring local economic, educational, and entreprenuership initiatives are commendable and worthy of presidential recognition. Look at Bush’s web site for heaven;s sake. The government is funding and Bush is touting half of the stuff the NAACP is doing under the heading of “compassion.”

The President’s failure to acknowledge and appreciate the NAACP’s efforts as a partner in making a better America reflects the President’s lack of vision, near-sighted dependence on a core of racist voters, a governing philosophy based on selective neglect, and a personal arrogance that is completely ill-suited to serving the vast majority of African-Americans. He exhibits an insulting disinterest in these matters in favor of other priorities, some of which I find truly offensive. And because the NAACP and the President actually have many social objectives in common, this overall attitude represents three-and-a-half years of squandered opportunity for your movement.

I would love to engage with you on the subject of the President’s mishandling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but this is not the place. You’re right, though, that when the colored people have advanced to where they want to be, they won’t need the NAACP to advocate and mobilize the community into a powerful voting block. In the meantime, conservatives can pride themselves in knowing that President Bushs’s “compassion” has been likened by the President of the NAACP as “treating the black community like prostitutes.” It didn’t have to turn out that way.

Again, I’m all for any Party that can help America. In that regard, my tough-love advice for you is to dump Bush and put McCain on top before you find yourself on the outs.

Posted by: Scott at July 9, 2004 10:52 PM

John McCain huh? Is that what this is about?

Posted by: ter0 at July 9, 2004 11:48 PM

Confirmation that the tide may be turning against NAACP?

Leonard Pitts on Bill Cosby’s statements (confession — I’m not sure I have ever agreed with Pitts on anything) says in the Detroit Free Press:

You have only to visit the schoolhouse or jailhouse to see the flames. And one need not be blind to racism’s role in the equation to know that we bear some accountability, too, that elements of black pop culture are toxic, that some of us have undervalued fatherhood, disinvested in education, rationalized dysfunction.

It should make us all sick to our souls to watch our children die — spiritually, intellectually, physically — knowing that black people can do and indeed, have done, so much better than this.

Granted it’s only a start, but the black community acknowledging responsibility for some (any) of its problems is the first step toward solution and a rejection of the NAACP’s culture of blaming others.

Now who will be the first black spokesperson to acknowledge that blind support of Democrats is self-defeating and recommend rejecting them in the November election? Vouchers anyone? Anyone?

Posted by: ter0 at July 10, 2004 07:48 AM