July 18, 2004
Nadir of Congressional Black Caucus?
(Ooops, early senility had me misidentify CBC as NAACP, an understandable error, NOT because they “look alike” in the evil stereotype, but because they share a coarse chip-on-shoulder partisanship of a community interest group diminished into a hectoring clique of establishment left-PC-ism.) Anyway: if this is what passes for constructive dialogue within the progressive left in campaign season, I am almost glad to be part of the mean-spirited right, and proud that Bush refused to speak to the similarly over-partisan NAACP. It looks like the Congressional Black Caucus reached its nadir, so to speak, with Ralph Nader, who was reportedly called an “arrogant white man” and then tossed out amidst Cheneyesque political colloqualisms.
Posted by Matthew Hogan at July 18, 2004 02:50 PMYou are blaming the NAACP for the actions of the Congressional Black Caucus.
As I noted in my comment in the middle column,
Bush should have had the cajones to go in front of the NAACP and defend his policies. If they shouted him down, then he would have every right to complain. Now we can fairly conclude that he can’t take the heat.
Let’s not forgetr the chilling series of video clips from Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 showing the black political leaders trying to get Senate support for legislation to look into the Florida 2000 vote fiasco.
I think the black political leaders in our country have a right to be angry with our political process - which sometimes spills over to them being angry with our political leaders.
Posted by: Cameron Barrett at July 18, 2004 03:48 PMI can’t believe that Matthew has mixed up the CBC and the NAACP.
I also can’t believe that this column keeps quoting NewsMax stories. Might as well quote the Weekly World News as far as I’m concerned. First, was it an “obscene racial epithet”? No- there was a mild racial epithet (he was called “white”) and an obscenity used for emphasis. Did this reporter bother to ask what Nader said to prompt such an angry reaction? Apparently not, but Nader is pretty notorious among the left for not having a black constituency to speak of at all - perhaps he is prone to insensitive comments himself? Who knows. This is all “he said/she said” reporting as far as I am concerned.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 18, 2004 04:20 PMIt looks like you’re trying to justify a lack of constructive racial dialogue here, Mr. Hogan. Not much use in that. The question is, who can say they have the grievance? The NAACP, an organization with a long and proud history, or Bush, who doesn’t want to speak to any group not already primed to give him a standing ovation. This is a president who would rather be insulated from than integrated into the community.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2004 04:52 PMI demand that Kerry speak at the John Birch Society. And if he doesn’t must be afraid and he’s dividing America!
A poll on their own NAACP website says Bush isn’t, “disrespecting the black community by continually refusing to speak at the NAACP convention?” 55% to 43%
Well, they got one thing right about Nader anyway…
“He ain’t playing with a full deck,” said Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., who also serves as vice chairman of the Democratic caucus. “I don’t think he gets it,” said Rep. Albert Wynn, D-Md.Posted by: Eric 'the Straw Man' Simonson at July 18, 2004 05:25 PM
The question is, who can say they have the grievance? The NAACP, an organization with a long and proud history, or Bush, who doesn’t want to speak to any group not already primed to give him a standing ovation. This is a president who would rather be insulated from than integrated into the community.
You’re right, the NAACP does have a long and proud history. There was a time in this country where a black man couldn’t own a business, or even vote. Because of the tireless work and fearless sacrifice of men and women long ago, blacks can own businesses, and do. Blacks can vote, and do. Blacks can even be elected to office, and they are. The NAACP, unfortunately, has decided that hate speech is okay if your skin isn’t white. And they’ve decided that running false ads about then-Gov. Bush is okay. The NAACP may feel left out, but it is they who should be apologizing to Bush, not the other way around. Come to think of it, they owe an apology to all of us over here in “the Taliban wing” of the GOP.
Posted by: Dale Thompson at July 18, 2004 05:46 PM> I demand that Kerry speak at the John Birch
> Society. And if he doesn’t must be afraid
> and he’s dividing America!
1) Have they invited him or any other President or Presidential candidate (besides Goldwater) to speak?
2) The John Birch society is a fraction of the size of the NAACP in pure membership, and the NAACP of course represents many many more non-members (people who support in their hearts if not with their dollars).
3) Kerry is not the President yet.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 18, 2004 06:20 PMThe NAACP, unfortunately, has decided that hate speech is okay if your skin isn’t white.
Got an example?
Posted by: Woody Mena at July 18, 2004 06:23 PMUmmmm…where in the article was the NAACP mentioned?
V. Edward
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at July 18, 2004 11:10 PMAnd they’ve decided that running false ads about then-Gov. Bush is okay. The NAACP may feel left out, but it is they who should be apologizing to Bush, not the other way around.
Hahaha! You guys kill me with that “Bush is a victim” stuff. Keep it up. :)
You have to read the follow up: Donna Warren’s reply to the Caucus in Nader’s defense? MmmHmmm.
Posted by: jo at July 20, 2004 01:39 AM
