NAACP: Nonpartisan Branch of the Democratic Party
By Andrew L. Jaffee, July 16, 2004
Home   Search   Forum   Terms

NAACP Chairman Julian Bond claims his organization is “nonpartisan” while at the same time using vitriolic rhetoric to attack the Bush administration. Why would President Bush wish to speak before the NAACP after the way in which they’ve treated him? Some claim Bush should swallow his pride and speak before the group in the interest of “outreach.” I would argue that Bush has already engaged in more outreach than any other administration in U.S. history:

2001: President George W. Bush appoints:

But, speaking of history, let’s take a look at the NAACP’s track record towards our president. During the 2000 election,

…the NAACP spent $2 million to air a commercial that all but accused Bush of chaining a black man to the back of a pickup truck and dragging him to death. The connection: The governor had failed to support a specific hate-crimes bill in Texas (though he has expressed support for other hate-crimes legislation). Never mind that the perpetrators were swiftly and harshly punished, with two of the three killers scheduled for death and the third garnering a life sentence.

At the NAACP’s 2001 national convention, Chairman Julian Bond

…said President Bush had reached into "the Taliban wing of American politics" to fill some of the top positions in his administration.

In doing so, he said, the Republican president had 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."

Sunday night, Bond charged the Republican Party of

…playing the race card in election after election.

Bond claimed that Republicans pander

…to the dark underside of American culture, to the minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality. They preach neutrality and practice racial division.

They do? What proof does Bond have for his claims? It only gets worse. NAACP President Kweisi Mfume, also speaking Sunday, alluded to the president’s African-American appointees (see also):

THEY’VE HAD A COLLECTION OF BLACK HUSTLERS AND YES MEN ON THEIR PAYROLLS FOR MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS, PROMOTING THEM AS THE NEW GENERATION OF BLACK LEADERS.

THEY CAN’T DEAL WITH THE LEADERS WE CHOOSE FOR OURSELVES – SO THEY MANUFACTURE, PROMOTE, AND HIRE NEW ONES. LIKE THE VENTRILOQUIST’S DUMMIES, THEY SPEAK IN THEIR PUPPET MASTER’S VOICE, BUT WE CAN SEE HIS LIPS MOVE AND WE CAN HEAR HIS MONEY TALK.

THEY’VE FINANCED A CONSERVATIVE CONSTELLATION OF MAKE-BELIEVE BLACK ORGANIZATIONS, ALL OF THEM HOLLOW SHELLS WITH MORE NAMES ON THE LETTERHEAD THAN THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THEIR MEMBERSHIP.

THEY ARE PURCHASING SEATS AT THE TABLE OF INFLUENCE, AND THEY’RE BUYING PEOPLE FOR A FEW BUCKS A HEAD. BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT SOME OF US COME CHEAP … REAL CHEAP.

So Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Roderick R. Paige, et al, are just “hustlers” and “yes men?” Maybe Mfume should have used the term “Uncle Tom” just as Harry Belafonte did.

I thought the NAACP was supposed to fight racism. But according to them, if you don’t tow the party line, you’re a hustler. What arrogance. The NAACP doesn’t want African-Americans to think for themselves. Bush was right to snub this group. I’m sure he’ll get a much better reception when he speaks before the Urban League in Detroit.



© 2003 War to Mobilize Democracy, LLC
All Rights Reserved.
This site developed and maintained by microIT Infrastructure, LLC