Does the Democratic Party take African-American votes for granted?
That’s the question President Bush asked during a refreshingly blunt address before the Urban League:
“I know, I know, I know,” Bush added. “The Republican Party has got a lot of work to do. I understand that,” prompting laughter and louder applause and apparently provoking a vigorous nod of the head from the Rev. Jesse Jackson who was sitting in the crowd.
“You didn’t need to nod your head that hard, Jesse,” Bush said, triggering more laughter.
And he asked some questions African Americans should also ask themselves:
“Is it a good thing for the African-American community to be represented mainly by one political party?” the president asked. “How is it possible to gain political leverage if the party is never forced to compete?”
Now, I believe that any attempt to discredit Bush’s appeal would make me guilty of taking the African-American vote for granted. I actually look forward to the day when party affiliation is based on ideology and not race (or even sexual orientation).
But there’s a realworld measure of the GOP’s dedication to including African Americans in their party that they need to work on:
African Americans currently serving in Congress
Democrats: 38
Republicans: 0
I love straight talk from politicians. Good for Bush.
Are you serious?
That’s so disrespectful to all the African-Americans that work for the GOP and especially in Bush’s administration. The highest ranking African Americans in history work for Bush.
I am dumbfounded…
I am dumbfounded…
Me too. Why are there no African-American Republicans in Congress? It’s baffling to me as well.
The facts are biased.
(stolen line from the Daily Show)
“Me too. Why are there no African-American Republicans in Congress? It’s baffling to me as well.”
Something to do with both policies, and treatment. Why did J. C. Watts decide to retire? Why was Trent Lott Majority Leader? How many powerful Republicans also are casual about associating with neo-Confederates (note: it’s only a small number, but it’s a significant small set; I am not saying that either the plurality of Republicans in Congress or office have such beliefs, nor that a huge number of Republican voters have such beliefs; they do not.)
The hypocrisy of how the last Republican convention pretended to have a significant number of minority members, by putting a bunch of unrepresentative tokens on the platform, hardly went un-noticed.
It’s grand that Bush has some leading minority folks in leading positions (although statisically, one of the lowest proportions of women in some years), but this isn’t matched down the ladder; Bush got an entire 8% of the “black” vote last time.
On the other side, the Democrats do often take the “black” vote for granted, and could certainly do better with numbers in office, as well. Barak Obama, if elected, will be the only Democratic “black” Senator.
And by the way, Edward. With that title are you implying African Americans are…? I don’t want to say what but it includes allusions to the words forced; oral; and sex.
“Gagging on the Donkey, Not Yet Ready to Swallow the Elephant”
Worst. Mental Image. Ever.
Why are there no African-American Republicans in Congress? It’s baffling to me as well.
Democratic party dominance in inner-cities goes a long way to explain this partially. Between that, and the neoconfederate shenangians, and a tradition of skepticism in the community – that’ll do it.
And for the record, where ever Carsick’s train of thought is going, I’m getting off at this stop.
“With that title are you implying African Americans are…?”
Some kind of snake, I assumed. What other animal could accomplish the description?
Blame Bush. The title comes straight from his speech. And yeah, that’s in interesting interpretation of “straight talk.”
“What other animal could accomplish the description?”
Gojira!
The Greens should really consider using Godzilla as their animal mascot.
Edward, is it possible that the statistic perhaps has something to do with the very topic of the speech?
How many powerful Republicans also are casual about associating with neo-Confederates
That would be a big zero.
I heard the speech. Thought it wuz fantastic! Good for Bush — the GOP needs to reach out better to attract black voters, and make ’em feel comfortable in their natural/historical party.
Or as Al Sharpton said ’bout bein’ a perpetual mistress ” in USA Today 9/7/03:
We must not be in a relationship with a Democratic Party that takes us for granted. We must no longer be the political mistresses of the Democratic Party.
A mistress is where they take you out to have fun but they can’t take you home to Mama and Daddy. Either we’re going to get married in 2004 or we’re going to find some folks who ain’t ashamed to be seen with us.
Couldn’t have said it better myself:)
Timmy, you might want to check out the number of Republicans who’ve been rubbing elbows with the Council of Conservative Citizens over the last decade or so.
As to the general subject of this thread, yes, Democrats have come to take the black vote for granted, and yes, it would be better for everyone if both parties were competing for African-American and minority votes. The problem is that Bush isn’t presenting this as “Hey, my party needs to come up with policies that actually help out the black community,” he’s presenting this as “Hey, wouldn’t it be nice if you starting voting for me instead of voting for John Kerry, because he just expects you to vote for him anyway?”
It’s great to have black representation in government. It’s great that Bush has made black cabinet appointments. What else has he done, exactly, for African-Americans? He chose MLK day to urge the Supreme Court to undo affirmative action – and a year later used the same occasion for a recess appointment of that bastion of multiracial harmony, Charles Pickering. To say nothing of the tax breaks he’s thrown to the ultrarich at the expense of funding education for the working poor, or his continuing opposition to the safe sex education that would reduce teen pregnancy. If Bush wants African-American votes, I’m all for him trying to get those votes – by making sane policy that actually helps blacks and the working poor.
Sure, and ANSWER had nothing to do with the recent peace movement.
Alas, no. Trent Lott. Phil Gramm, David Funderbunk, Pat Buchanan, Jesse Helms, Dick Armey, for instance. Strom Thurmond is now dead, and Bob Barr is out of office, but some guy named John Ashcroft is still around.
(Then there’s also the Washington Times.)
There’s plenty of documentation of this stuff; it helps to deny it and not read about it, to be sure, to be able to say it isn’t so.
I saw Bush’s speech on C-SPAN tonight. It was truly bizarre. First of all, Rove must have told him, “Act humble.” Bush took on this tiny, imploring tone, with none of the face-thrusting belligerence that usually accompanies his oratory. But what was really jarring was hearing some applause for his lines, but when the camera panned the audience, it showed 98% frowny scowls and arms folded across chests.
Don’t look for big B-C pickup among black folks this November. Whatever Bush was selling, they weren’t buying.
Yep, blame Bush. Seems so logical. From the speech: “Do you remember a guy named Charlie Gaines? Somebody gave me a quote he said, which I think kind of describes the environment we’re in today. I think he’s a friend of Jesse’s. He said, ‘Blacks are gagging on the donkey but not yet ready to swallow the elephant.'”
Where’s Harley to complain that someone is commenting on a thing that they haven’t read?
Edward, is it possible that the statistic perhaps has something to do with the very topic of the speech?
Well, that was my implied question as well. I mean, Bush’s cabinet is racially balanced, so it’s not like he’s not doing his part with that. So for him to state “The Republican Party has got a lot of work to do” (short of addressing some funnybusiness in Florida, mind you, which I don’t think he was) the best interpretation I can think of is in those statistics.
First of all, Rove must have told him, “Act humble.”
I thought that right away as well. Must say though, he did a very good job. Which tells me when it comes to dealing with Europe, he’s capable of acting more humbly, he just doesn’t care to.
Yep, blame Bush.
Joe, I think you’re being a bit too sensitive about this. I don’t think anyone was out-and-out saying the statement was in anyway disrespectful, just, well, odd.
Gary, the amusement level was excellent, the definition of rubbing elbows even better, especially if one is ever inteviewed by a right of center magazine (I’m not familar with Southern Partisan but I’m sure it is right of center; I wonder is the Nation left of center).
Can one be expansive and talk about South Boston and as a neo-Confederate bastion in the 70s and 80s. Given your definition, I believe you can.
I’m now going to use this as the “Gary Metric”, should generate hugh dividends when discussing Kerry.
BTW, Pat Buchanan isn’t a Republican, and except for Ashcroft, none of those mentioned is “powerful” JFTR.
“I’m not familar with Southern Partisan but I’m sure it is right of center”
It’s a heck of a lot more than that. It’s fully neo-Confederate; I’d suggest you familiarize yourself with it, if only so as to be able to respond in knowledgeable fashion on this topic, if you so desire.
“South Boston and as a neo-Confederate bastion in the 70s and 80”
Not at all; South Boston was somewhat racist, but never defended the Confederacy as having nothing to do with slavery. “Neo-Confederate” and “racist” are not synonymous. It’s likely you are somewhat of the latter, consciously or not (generally, not conciously), but certainly most racists aren’t neo-Confederate.
“I’m not familar with Southern Partisan but I’m sure it is right of center”
It’s a heck of a lot more than that. It’s fully neo-Confederate; I’d suggest you familiarize yourself with it, if only so as to be able to respond in knowledgeable fashion on this topic, if you so desire.
“South Boston and as a neo-Confederate bastion in the 70s and 80”
Not at all; South Boston was somewhat racist, but never defended the Confederacy as having nothing to do with slavery. “Neo-Confederate” and “racist” are not synonymous. It’s likely you are somewhat of the latter, consciously or not (generally, not conciously), but certainly most racists aren’t neo-Confederate.
“I wonder is the Nation left of center”
Of course it is, but the equivalent would be if The Nation were Leninist, and the politician was a major supporter of it and the Communist Party. I trust you read all the articles; we’re not just talking about SP magazine.
Incidentally, what did you make of Reagan kicking off his campaign in ’80 in Philadelphia, Mississippi? (Please don’t tell me you don’t know the significance of the place.)
The barriers to African Americans supporting the Republican party are both real and perceived and it’s not just a matter of seeing the light.
The first, real, genuine barrier is the Republican Party’s acceptance of the Wallace Democrats back in the 70’s. The GOP may not have courted them but they absolutely accepted them and that’s what set the stage for the Reagan presidency and Republican majorities in the House and Senate right now. I can’t forgive the party for it and it’s one of the main reasons I’m not a Republican. I suspect that this is going to require a generational change.
The second is one of policies. The Republicans may not need to change their policies but they’re going to need to do quite a selling job to convince African Americans that the policies (set-asides, affirmative action, aid programs, etc.) that they’ve backed all their lives are ineffectual. Good luck.
Third is one of atmospherics. I don’t honestly know what the answer to this one is. Ask Jack Kemp. He’s nearly the only Republican who seems to have a handle on it. I think it will take a sincere identification of race as an important issue and a commitment to helping things along that’s not there now.
Dave, do you think dumping Cheney and running with Powell would make any difference?
It wouldn’t hurt but it’s certainly not the whole answer. The disdain with which both Gen. Powell and Dr. Rice are considered within some segments of the African American community show the depth of the problem that Republicans have in drawing African American voters.
Pat Buchanan isn’t a Republican, and except for Ashcroft, none of those mentioned is “powerful”
Buchanan may not be a Republican now, but not long ago he was getting about a third of the vote in Republican presidential primaries. Trent Lott is not powerful? Well, less than he was. Dick Armey was majority leader before his retirement. And Gary forgot to mention Haley Barbour.
This is sort of silly, but here’s my contribuiton….
Sentator Byrd.
Arguably STILL a powerful and respected Dem leader in the U.S. Senate.
And didn’t some other DEM just praise him for being a great leader in the U.S.
I can’t remember if they were referring to the time when he was in the KKK or not
I can’t remember if they were referring to the time when he was in the KKK or not
Past tense, meet present tense.
“Neo-Confederate” and “racist” are not synonymous.
Then the Ashcroft reference was superious then.
Bernard Yomtov, the verb is, is present tense, not past, as compared to was. I hope you get it.
So using the Gary metric, if you were ever interviewed by Pravada, Gary what would that say about you. This guilt by association is a two edge sword I would say.
Finally, yes I am fully aware of the significance of Philadelphia,Mississippi. Are you aware of this man and is that the Medal of Freedom around the neo-confederate’s neck? Yes, I believe it is. I wonder which President gave him the award.
So using the Gary metric, if you were ever interviewed by Pravada, Gary what would that say about you. This guilt by association is a two edge sword I would say.
If you were ever interviewed by Der Sturmer, Timmy, what would that say about you? Huh? Huh?
Unless you’re willing to assert that Gary actually was interviewed by Pravda, your hypothetical is pointless at best — and I’d rather not say what it would be at worst, since I suspect that would be a violation of the posting rules.
Then the Ashcroft reference was superious then.
The word is “superfluous”, Timmy, and “not synonymous” is not synonymous with “independent”. AFAIK (and Gary is free to dispute this as he sees fit) the majority of neo-Confederates are racist; it’s the failure of the reverse implication which breaks the equivalence.
[Which I’m sure you knew, but apparently it needs to be spelled out.]
“Sentator Byrd.
Arguably STILL a powerful and respected Dem leader in the U.S. Senate.”
The difference is that Senator Byrd is not presently paling around with neo-Confederates, the Concerned Citizen’s Council, and so on.
But I don’t think much of Senator Byrd’s history on race, to put it mildly, and I’ve blogged about that.
“Then the Ashcroft reference was superious then.”
That’s possible. It might also be blergle. Or perhaps it’s literatious.
WTF?
“So using the Gary metric, if you were ever interviewed by Pravada, Gary what would that say about you.”
That I was willing to be interviewed by a newspaper with bad journalistic standards. What would it say to you?
“Are you aware of this man and is that the Medal of Freedom around the neo-confederate’s neck? Yes, I believe it is. I wonder which President gave him the award.”
I’m not following your point. How recently was William Fulbright campaigning in a manner that sent positive signals to racists?
How recently was Ronald Reagan campaigning in a manner that sent positive signals to racists?
Was Ronald Reagan, by choosing Philadelphia, MS, sending a deliberate positive signal to racists?
Timmy, are you working off some sort of knee-jerk Republicans-can-do-no-wrong, or what is it? I mean, I can talk at length about the vast history of racism in the Democratic Party in the 20th century. Are you simply in denial about these few contemporary Republicans who recently or currently are coyly taking advantage of racism as they can? (While the overwhelming majority of Republicans, of course, do not.)
Lott and Barbour are powerful now, Timmy. Not a big zero at all.
“Then the Ashcroft reference was superious then.’
Superious. And you’re giving grammar lessons. Neo-Confederate and racist are not synonymous, but neo-Confederate is a subset of racist. Is that too hard for you?
And as for interviews with Pravda, wouldn’t it depend on what the interviewee said? If someone said Stalin was much maligned and Communism was wonderful then you would be entitled to criticize. That’s roughly what Ashcroft said to Southern Partisan about Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy.
“‘Neo-Confederate’ and ‘racist’ are not synonymous. It’s likely you are somewhat of the latter, consciously or not (generally, not conciously), but certainly most racists aren’t neo-Confederate.”
Oh, my, that came out all wrong, and I didn’t catch it until now. My apologies to Timmy. I thought I had typed “If you are the former, you are likely somewhat of the latter, consciously or not (generally, not conciously), but certainly most racists aren’t neo-Confederate.”
Which is still horribly awkward; I can only plead pain, tiredness, and the fact that my line was dropping every two minutes at that time.
If you are a Neo-Confederate, you are most likely a racist; if you are a racist, you certainly need not be, and probably are not, a Neo-Confederate. That’s what I was trying to say.
I certainly was not in any way trying to call Timmy a racist.
“And as for interviews with Pravda, wouldn’t it depend on what the interviewee said? If someone said Stalin was much maligned and Communism was wonderful then you would be entitled to criticize.”
Um, Pravda hasn’t been a communist paper for well over a decade. It’s been a weird mix of reasonable newspaper, and the Weekly World News, for a great many years. See here.
Gary after you introduced to Mr. Punctuation, I had a pretty good idea what you were saying and you certainly weren’t saying anything about me (except, a little more investigation on neo-confederates might be warranted, which was fair enough, although I’m going to pass).
On Ashcroft, the link that I read talked about an individual in Missouri, who was worried about white people in Saint Louis, which I related to the good people of South Boston. Thus, if the people from South Boston couldn’t be neo-confederates, neither could the individual from St. Louis given the general parameters of the Civil War and all (Missouri remained in the Union and all).
introduced me to Mr. Pun………
“Um, Pravda hasn’t been a communist paper for well over a decade.”
Yes Gary. I know that. So what? If you make the statements I describe to Pravda, or the NYT, or the Weekly World News, you are open to criticism.
And may I add a personal note on usage? I for one find the “Um,…” style incredibly annoying. It’s an insult delivered in a tone of phoney politeness. The message it conveys is, “I’m really sorry to have to tell you this, but you are amazingly stupid.”
Nothng personal, Gary. I know it’s widespread. I just wish it would disappear.
From various descriptions of a recent CBS/BET poll of black voters (pdfs freeze this computer so I can’t look at the internals):
11% approve, 85% disapprove of Bush presidency
6% think country’s on right trac, 92% wrong trac
9% think Bush shares priorities, 84% don’t
8% think Iraq war was worth loss of life & costs, 90% don’t.
more than 4 in 5 think Bush did not legitimately win the 2000 election.
two thirds think deliberate attempts were made to prevent black voters’ ballots from being counted.
Who could be the culprit?
“Not surprisingly, most supervisors in counties with the highest ballot rejection rates were Democrats, given that these were also the most heavily black counties.”
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/3798.html
Good piece, Blue. I join you in supporting its overall facts, and the conclusion:
The article well supports the irrelevance of the line you quoted; I join you in supporting the author’s evaluation:
I’m glad we can agree about this.
Gary,
What the heck is your deal? Why do you insist on saying things that I didn’t say? I am not sure why you have that need.
Disagree with me all you want, but what benefit is their in trying to make me say things that I am not saying.
All I pointed out was that it is hard to label the Rep’s as the culprit for their disenfranchisement when the county surpervisor’s were Dem’s.
The fact that you practice correct grammar on the web only says to me that you are uptight… not that you communicate any more effectively than anyone else… and certainly not that your reading comprehension is above the rest of us.
Do you criticize the black or spanish community for their slang? Do you practice the Queen’s English? Could they not criticize you if they wanted to for bastardizing English?
But since we clearly agree alot… where’s the NAACP on this issue. I mean there must be alot of black voters in FL with a story to tell about how they couldn’t vote… or from the linked report… why are the NAACP and the Dem’s being so lazy?
Do you really think that I think the Dem’s conciously threw out their votes knowing that they might need them.
Blue meet Gary Farber. Gary meet Blue.
Now shake hands real nice like.
Do it…
You both have really interesting points to make, doing so without the personal bits makes it all much more enjoyable for everyone else here…
I pointed no fingers of blame at supervisors or any other officials, but called for studies to determine the causes of disparate treatment of black voters in Florida.
-The disparate treatment by whom.
-Democratic officials and supervisors run the polling places, design the ballots, count the votes and managed the voter registers.
-The Florida minority vote was at record levels in 2000.
So exactly what do you intend to study. Just asking.
So exactly what do you intend to study.
Ooo, ooo, ooo…Me! Let me guess…: “What Jeb Bush was doing during all this?”
(Huh! I can hear you groaning from here.)
It is an unfortunate coincidence that the state so closely contested was GWB’s brother’s. If such a thing had happened in any other country in the world, we’d all be going “Uh huh, Su-u-u-u-ure it was legit. Su-u-u-u-ure there was no funny business. Yep. And I’m Marie of Romania.”
Just saying…
the majority of neo-Confederates are racist
I don’t know, but if you say so Anarch, I won’t argue with you and your point is?
If such a thing had happened in any other country in the world, we’d all be going “Uh huh, Su-u-u-u-ure it was legit. Su-u-u-u-ure there was no funny business. Yep. And I’m Marie of Romania.”
There was a very funny series of points circulating at the time on just that point – that if an election elsewhere had fallen over to that degree, Jimmy Carter would have been offering to head teams of electoral observers.
In fact, I seem to remember that Russia and other countries did offer (tongue in cheek) to send teams of electoral observers, since it was evident Florida could not manage to run a fair election. Which at the time I just found very amusing. Doesn’t look quite so funny now.
Timmy: I don’t know, but if you say so Anarch, I won’t argue with you and your point is?
I already said it. What’s more, I said it in the very post you quoted:
Anarch @ 6:51pm: The word is “superfluous”, Timmy, and “not synonymous” is not synonymous with “independent”. AFAIK (and Gary is free to dispute this as he sees fit) the majority of neo-Confederates are racist; it’s the failure of the reverse implication which breaks the equivalence.
Alternately (and somewhat simplistically) phrased, the point about Ashcroft’s appearance in the neo-Confederate magazine is not “superious” (or even “superfluous”) because a) neo-Confederates are generally racists, b) Ashcroft’s a high-up in the Republican Party, and c) the subject of this thread is why African-Americans are under-represented amongst Congressional Republicans. All of which is a long-winded way of saying i) Gary’s point about Ashcroft and SP remains both relevant and undemolished, ii) Gary’s semantic point about the non-equivalence of “racist” and “neo-Confederate” remains both relevant and undemolished, and iii) you’ve been in error on this topic throughout the thread.
By the way, on a personal note: would you mind at least attempting to engage what I write — even if it’s something as simple as “I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here”, which is a perfectly fair response — rather than failing to even acknowledge it? It’s an immensely irritating little quirk of yours, in part because it’s massively disrespectful towards your interlocutors. I’m making a good faith effort to engage you in debate here, which includes reading your responses to discern your intended meaning; the least you can do is return the favor.
Well you know Anarch, you are absolutely right. I used the edit key and only read the first part of Gary’s link (the individual in St. Louis) and didn’t read farther down.
So I apologized for any pain you endured related to my comments for my not reading the entire link.
Good grief! Isn’t ridiculing someone for a typo or a poor word choice just a tad petty? Wouldn’t a considerate response involve simply asking for clarification or politely suggesting a correction?
Anyway, I thought he meant “spurious”.
You know, rather than lecturing blacks on how they ought to vote Republican, maybe Bush would do better lecturing Republicans like John Pappageorge not to talk about suppressing the “Detroit vote” – when Detroit is 88% “non-white”. (cite) It would show rather more sincerity if there were some repercussions for Republicans who make casually racist statements when running for office – rather than just a half-assed apology from Pappageorge that he hadn’t meant to sound racist. (Via Electrolite.)
“I know, I know, I know,” Bush added. “The Republican Party has got a lot of work to do. I understand that,” prompting laughter and louder applause and apparently provoking a vigorous nod of the head from the Rev. Jesse Jackson who was sitting in the crowd.
The Republican Party has got a lot of work to do. I understand that
Was that intended to be a response to my post, MNP?
Jesurgislac: You know, rather than lecturing blacks on how they ought to vote Republican, maybe Bush would do better lecturing Republicans like John Pappageorge not to talk about suppressing the “Detroit vote” – when Detroit is 88% “non-white”.
Wasn’t the primary purpose of Bush’s speech to scare African-Americans away from the polls anyway? The parts I heard essentially sent the message that neither party cares about African-Americans, so they shouldn’t vote Democratic.
It’s very difficult to give a direct response to someone who believe he was lecturing when they invited him to give a speech that even his critques found entertaining and to someone who says he was trying to scare them away from the polls.
Mnp, I was making what I believe is a legitimate point: if Bush thinks that the Republican Party isn’t doing enough and that it ought to be more representative of black voters, well, there’s one white Republican, John Pappageorge, making a comment publicly perceived as stupidly racist (“suppressing the Detroit vote”) who deserves… what? A pat on the back for a half-assed apology? Or a public blast for making comments like that about black voters?
Sebastian Holsclaw wrote an excellent post on this blog not so long ago about the need for Republicans to acknowledge their party’s racism in order to change it. (Well, okay, it was about a lot more than that, I remember as I re-read the post, but it was a direct acknowledgement that Republicans do have a problem with racism, and a problem about not repudiating the racist Republicans in their midst.) Worth reading.
Jes,
Sorry, but you said… he was “lecturing” and I think that is unfair and distracts from any point you might have.
Not to get off topic, but it is the double standard that many apply that really bothers me. Where is all the outrage when people from the NAACP attack Bush so viciously? It is hard to take this criticism seriously when it isn’t applied evenly and certainly no apology at all has been made. Atleast, this guy offered something.
If he really didn’t mean it in a racist way, what kind of apology would suffice for you? I think it is unfair to call it half-assed if he wasn’t intentionally making a racist comment.
“In the context that we were talking about, I said we’ve got to get the vote up in Oakland (County) and the vote down in Detroit. You get it down with a good message. I don’t know how we got them from there to ‘racist,’” Pappageorge said. “If I have given offense in any way to my colleagues in Detroit or anywhere, I apologize.”
I tell you what… you right a letter to the NAACP asking them to apoligize to President Bush for their unfair attacks and I will write one to Bush asking him to take a more proactive stance on Rep’s who say things without thinking about how they might be interpreted.
“It is hard to take this criticism seriously when it isn’t applied evenly and certainly no apology at all has been made.”
Are all debates resolved by finding that the truth is 50/50 down the middle?
Are all debates resolved by finding that the truth is 50/50 down the middle?
Of course. It’s the Law Of Conservation Of Douche-Baggery (pseudo-tm Jon Stewart).
Where is all the outrage when people from the NAACP attack Bush so viciously?
Where is all the outrage from the Republican party when it became clear that the end result of Jeb Bush’s machinations in Florida was tens of thousands of black voters illegally disenfranchised? Shades of Jim Crow – and no storm of protest from Republicans.
Where is all the outrage from the Republican party that George W. Bush refuses to meet with the president of NAACP to rebuild bridges?
If he really didn’t mean it in a racist way, what kind of apology would suffice for you? I think it is unfair to call it half-assed if he wasn’t intentionally making a racist comment.
Oh, come off it. The “Detroit vote” is a standard shorthand in Michigan to mean the black vote. If I know that (and I’ve never lived in Michigan, though I have friends there) then I’m damn certain John Pappageorge knew that. If (and by me it’s a big if) he didn’t mean to say “suppress the black vote” then he shouldn’t have said what he knew would be interpreted as a racist comment. (And where the hell is he coming from, anyway: if he wants to be elected democratically, it’s legitimate for him to want to get the vote up from places likely to vote Republican, but there’s no way it’s legitimate for him to want to have fewer people vote from places likely to vote Democrat.)
Why I think it’s half-assed: I don’t know how we got them from there to ‘racist’ – of course he knows. Wanting fewer black people to vote? Yeah.
I tell you what… you right a letter to the NAACP asking them to apoligize to President Bush for their unfair attacks
Certainly, if you’ll tell me what unfair attacks they’ve made on President Bush. I’m not aware of any attacks they’ve made that I would consider to be unfair. Naturally they’ve criticized him: are you suggesting that it’s unfair for them to do so? He’s the President. That’s what happens in a free society.
Are all debates resolved by finding that the truth is 50/50 down the middle?
Wouldn’t that lead to (what I suspect is Karl Rove’s secret weapon anyway) stating your position a good 200 yards to the right (or left) of what would actually make you happy, so that when your opponents meet at 50/50 you’re actually not compromising at all?
That is so loaded. I guess if you hate Bush anything is fair.
Likewise people, even the President are free to identify the leaders of the NAACP as extremist and bad for black people as a whole and not support them in any way without it being considered racist.
The outrage over FL wasn’t there because there is no proof that there was any organized effort to prevent blacks from voting. As “sort of” noted above many of the problems were in counties that were administered by democrats. Hence, maybe the NAACP should really protest the democrats. But, as has also already been pointed out an extensive study pointed the finger at no one.
Maybe, it’s because the NAACP is obviously the most high profiled racist organization in America. I imagine it’s members are well meaning, but at the top of the organization they seem to be hate mongers. The NAACP served a great purpose in the U.S. But, that day is long gone.
High level members have made anti-Semitic comments about Joe Lieberman…
And crap like this:
NAACP board chairman Julian Bond, indulging in a bit of ‘hate’ speech, attacked George W. Bush while speaking before delegates at the NAACP convention being held in New Orleans. Among other nonsensical comments, Bond criticized some of Bush’s Cabinet choices, saying “He has selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing, and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection.” That he wasn’t laughed off the stage after less than subtly charging that Bush and Republicans want to return to the days of slavery only goes to show how successful Bond and his ilk are at convincing the constituency that the rhetoric is dangerously real.
And crap like this:
Gatewood added that the attacks may have come from foreign forces that view the American government and current administration as a ‘threat to justice everywhere’.
And crap like this:
Mfume calls black conservatives puppets
And crap like this:
The NAACP’s top leadership lashed out Saturday at several of the major Democratic candidates for president, calling their intention to skip Monday’s candidate forum an ”affront” to the nation’s oldest civil rights organization.
NAACP: “BUSH TREATS BLACK LIKE PROSTITUTES”
“…ad clearly painted then candidate Bush as somehow complicit in the dragging death of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas. How was he complicit? Why he had not supported hate crime laws in Texas as governor. No matter that under his governorship the scum who committed this atrocity were caught, tried, and sentenced to death. ”
“Mfume provided a choice example of destructive political dialogue last week when he urged Bush to reconsider his decision and in the same breath suggested that if Bush only agrees “to meet with those who agree with him, we are getting closer to the previous regime in Baghdad than we are to a democracy.”
Kweisi Mfume said, “We’re concerned, but not shocked,” about Dubya’s behavior since taking office in January. We’re not surprised; we always knew he was a fascist, you can almost hear in the undertone.
So I imagine that you may not have a problem with comments like these and maybe even support them, but I would tell them to go jump in the lake if I was Bush. I think they deserve a public rebuke similar what Cosby did. Maybe, if they offered a public apology I would go speak to them. I bet if they did Bush would also.
The leader of the NAACP [Julian Bond] criticized President Bush and his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, for challenging race-conscious admissions in colleges and vowed to work to unseat the president in 2004 . . . [Bond] also said the group intended “to uproot the bigger ‘Bush’ in 2004.”
Wow, after that I can’t believe Bush wouldn’t go.
Interesting what some NAACP members have to say about the NAACP.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/mitchell/cst-nws-mitch13.html
I wonder if you thought the movie white chicks was funny? I personally found it offensive.
And as I imagined you can’t tell me what apology would be acceptable to you.
I wonder if you thought the movie white chicks was funny? I personally found it offensive.
Wait, someone actually went to go see it? I’m… non-plussed.
[Does that make me less-than-or-equalled? Hrm… I think a nice fat research grant is required…]
[Does that make me less-than-or-equalled? Hrm… I think a nice fat research grant is required…]
Could mean you’re divided on the issue. Or that your point of view is firmly…rooted.
introduced me to Mr. Pun……
Consider it done.
I should revise…
I found the trailers for the movie offensive.
I found the concept of the movie offensive.
I didn’t pay money to seei it. ; )
The outrage over FL wasn’t there because there is no proof that there was any organized effort to prevent blacks from voting.
Only if you’re determined not to see it. The search for “possible felons” (which was calculated to turn up a large number of false positives) was run on the names of felons by initial, by the first five letters of the surname, and by race. Where the searchers weren’t even bothering to discover if the people being knocked off the voter’s roll were even the same sex as a named felon – nor even checking to make sure that the surname matched completely – isn’t a little suspicious, even to you, that they were making sure that everyone they listed as a possible felon was the same race as the felons listed? Given that (and we can discuss why some other time) any list of actual felons is going to be disproportionally black compared to the total number of black people in the whole population, searching for people whose names resemble the names of felons, and targetting them by race, is a sure way to make sure that far more of the false positives are black than is statistically likely if done by chance. Further, given that in Florida blacks tend to vote Democrat, and given that the person who orchestrated the whole deprive-voters-of-their-votes fraud is Republican, I would think that sheer cynicism would make you appreciate that (a) If it wasn’t a concerted effort to deprive black voters of their right to vote, it sure looks that way (b) Why else would it have been done that way, ensuring so many people who had the right to vote and who were likely to vote Democrat, were illegally deprived of their right to vote prior to the 2000 election?
Now, if Bush wanted to convince black voters that the Republican party had a change of heart and no longer wanted to appear to be the racist party, he could denounce those Florida tactics, and apologise to the black voters in Florida who were illegally deprived of the vote, and push to make sure that they were all back on the roll as they were entitled to be prior to the 2002 elections. None of which he has done. He could have pushed for an investigation into how this happened. He didn’t. Nothing happened to any of the people who were involved in this election fraud: and so any talk of Bush’s about how the Republican party must change is going to look like hot air to black voters in Florida, especially those illegally disenfranchised by the President’s brother, to no apologies from the President.
I notice you didn’t provide cites to any of the things you claimed the NAACP have said about Bush. Is that because they look better in context? Or because you don’t know how to cite? (If the latter, I apologize for being snide, and suggest you go look up a HTML website.)
I wonder if you thought the movie white chicks was funny? I personally found it offensive.
I didn’t go see it. It looked like exactly the kind of movie I hate: tired old “it’s so funny when men dress up as women” with the added element of “goshwow they’re black men dressing up as white women”. Gee. As far as I’m concerned, the only movie that succeeded in being a funny movie about men dressing up as women was Some Like It Hot. (Not only is that funny all the way through, and has Marilyn Monroe in it, it has the best last line of any movie ever made.)
And as I imagined you can’t tell me what apology would be acceptable to you.
Oh, I thought that was obvious. “I am really sorry I made such an offensively racist comment. I shouldn’t have said it, and I regret both saying it and the attitudes expressed. I do not wish to prevent black voters from voting, no matter how they choose to vote: I hope that everyone entitled to vote will do so, and will investigate any attempt to prevent any group fo voters from excercising their right.” That would be a fair apology – and would work for both John Pappageorge and George W. Bush.
Not a chance, though.
I didn’t pay money to seei it. ; )
PS – Your feelings about White Chicks echo mine. See, we do have something in common! Not only would I not pay money to see it, I wouldn’t waste 2 hours that I’ll never get back watching it.
Jes,
I can think of no reason for you to be snide at all or assume any ill intent on my part. That is just bad form.
I didn’t link because I didn’t think it was necessary. I assumed you were familiar with the quotes and the context. I just felt the need to emphasize them. If you believe the context makes a difference please free to post about it.
I have to admit that in your post I saw alot of information, but no links either. It doesn’t really matter to me why you didn’t link, but after researching some of your info I could only really find far far left sites that saw some devious scheme.
I actually live in Florida. The Democrats control significant parts of the voting process. I am not claiming that the system isn’t screwed up. I just don’t think you can say that it was intentional disenfranchisement and that is not just me being blind. Certainly no one has proven any intentional disenfranchisement so I don’t feel alone in that opinion. You want to say the system is crappy and needs to be standardized and blah blah blah… I’ll ageee with you… any more than that and I think you are just out in left field. The system was so messed up that some felons were actually allowed to vote.
I fear that we will have another debacle in 2004. I think more than one state also. Other than the military the gov’t sort of sucks when it comes to technology.
Bush owes no one an apology about the FL ballots. He didn’t do anything wrong! I don’t see why he would push for an investigation when everyone and their mother was doing it already. Jeb Bush wasn’t even Governor when FL started purging felons.
I think you missed my point about the apology. What would the apology look like if you didn’t mean it in a racist way?
“I am really sorry I made such an offensively racist comment.”
I would have to add the BirdCage without a doubt.
Interesting post over at
http://www.qando.net/blog
I haven’t read the whole thing, yet…