Blogcritics: Comments on Bush snubs NAACP

Comment by Semi-Anonymous Banned Fella

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 22:57:36 EDT

Funny thing: Gore used the "Willie Horton issue" in his brief run for the Presidency in 1988 BEFORE the Republicans did. It's easy to paint Republicans as racists. It's rather more difficult to back up...

Comment by Dan

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 22:36:30 EDT

Nice try girls. Lee Atwater didn't admit "racist motivation" on his death bed. What he allegedly said was this: "In 1988, fighting Dukakis, I said that I 'would strip the bark off the little bastard' and 'make Willie Horton his running mate.' I am sorry for both statements: the first for its naked cruelty, the second because it makes me sound racist, which I am not. Mostly I am sorry for the way I thought of other people. Like a good general, I had treated everyone who wasn't with me as against me." It just so happened that the best example to illustrate the failure of the Massachusetts furlough program was a black guy. The Democrats, as they always do, made it into a racial issue and of course their gullible constituents, with prodding from the liberal media, bought into it. Atwater was simply doing some last minute damage control for his "hard ball" style of politics. A good example of a racially motivated ad was the 'George Bush wants to kill James Byrd all over again' attack.

Comment by bhw

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:31:50 EDT

I live to serve.

Comment by Mac Diva

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:25:03 EDT

Bingo! Thank you, bhw.

Comment by bhw

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:22:18 EDT

Lee Atwater?

Comment by Mac Diva

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:42:27 EDT

I started out with some different views than I have now: 1) A free speech absolutist in the mold of Justice Hugo Black. 2) Someone who opposed hate crimes legislation. In my first year of law school, I worked pro bono on a case defending the Ku Klux Klan's right to picket. However, I was pleased when a couple of our clients turned out to be felons in possession of firearms and were arrested. Their free speech rights didn't extend to violating that law. Over the years, I've found my earlier views unworkable, so I've changed. I believe a lot of the harm caused by hatemongers begins with speech. It then escalates into harmful acts. If we can regulate some of the incitement by speech, we can prevent those later crimes, such as assaults and shootings. I completely agree that hate crimes legislation is rarely enforced and that the places that need it most are the least likely to have it. But, I believe cases in which the laws are applied at least get the attention of the thug about to beat up a gay person or racial minority some of the time. Maybe some of them change their minds. I recently did come across a case in which I think hate crime applicability is being wrongly sought. A sexually confused person (he was either gay, a transvestite or a transsexual, or some combination) was beaten to death after young men he had been having sex with learned he was a male dressing as a female. However, the murder occurred because of the deception and humiliation involved, and, yes, the stupidity of the assailants, not because they were seeking out transexuals to abuse as is being claimed. The facts don't support a hate crime charge. But, there are plenty of situations when the converse is true. The 'difference' is why the victim is sought out. That is when hate crime legislation should apply.

Comment by Mac Diva

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:24:27 EDT

I was italicizing quotes, but now the whole thread has gone italics. So, though I think bold hits the eye too hard. . . . Your correct Mac I could return and explain about an event in 1980. Considering the racial makeup of the country, both political parties, and how attitudes on race have changed immensely in 24 years why waste the breath, its not relevant. Comment 6.

I was alive and cognizant 24 years ago. So was the bulk of the electorate. I don't think anything that happened that recently is so far in the past we can ignore its relevance. As for Ronald Reagan's presidency being irrelevant now, Right Wingers were singing an extremely different tune just weeks ago. The visit to Neshoba County is important because it is the Southern Strategy with no attempt at subtlety, like the Willie Horton ads. The brains of the strategy admitted he knew just what he was doing. (Can't remember his name. He died young and regretted his actions on his death bed. Somebody here will know.) When you have your own leadership admitting racist motivation, you might as well acknowledge reality, Marc.

Comment by Dan

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:04:35 EDT

Shark, I agree that Repub's will probably stage a fair amount of "Saturday night at the Appollo" at their convention. I don't see it as dis-ingenuous though. Republican's have a history of fairness and principle they can be proud of (relative to the Democrats). Remember that it was the Democratic legislature that had to be dragged kicking and screaming to get civil rights legislation passed in the first place. After civil rights and equal opportunity were achieved (yes, they were), the NAACP proceeded to purge the substantial white portion or their leadership and effectively began promoting 'snivel rights'. This is where Democrats said "OK, we'll take it from here" and a color blind society was forsaken. The irony I find is that in poll after poll, a majority of blacks come down on the conservative side of issues yet still fall prey to the condescending and racially divisive rhetoric of the Dem's. I think there is an emerging black conservative movement that Republicans would like to attract. If it takes a little window dressing to get some of those who might not otherwise convert to do so, then I see nothing wrong with it. I also agree with your "Mississippi Burning" review, but I can't think of any defense for it.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 13:04:02 EDT

I'm on her side of the aisle much of the time. I've noticed that. You two remind me of the gay community. :-) There can be so much bickering and in-fighting going on, it's often a full-time job for me to remind them that we're all actually on the same side and we have a common enemy and that is where the energy should be focused. In-fighting drains resources and plays into the enemies hands.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:57:36 EDT
And for crashboombaby, hate crime legislation is nothing more than DC and State politicians trying to act like they are doing something. Dead is dead, and life behind bars is life no matter how you slice it in the Byrd case. I disagree with your assessment of what hate crime legislation is. And in regards to the Byrd case, apparently you don't know how the legal system works. It doesn't matter if one charge (murder) locks a person away forever. If a prosecutor can throw other charges as well, including hate crime or using a vehicle as a weapon, having an unregistered gun, or crossing interstate lines, whatever, etc. a prosecutor will throw all charges they can, which is why in some instances a person can be facing the death penalty several times over.

Comment by Shark

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:52:34 EDT
Just for the record, my post #7 didn't contain any "personal attack". I was actually reinforcing MacDiva's point by pointing out the tactics of the GOP -- and the upcoming 'front & center' way they'll feature the handful of minorities they can muster into their convention. I've asked our resident CENSOR for details as to WHY my comment was deleted. I've been a good boy -- and as with 90% of the political issues, have no beef whatsoever w/MacDiva. As much as she hates to admit it, I'm on her side of the aisle much of the time. xxoo Shark

Comment by Shark

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 07:08:09 EDT
re: Mississippi deaths -- The movie Mississippi Burning -- a very unhistoric portrayal of the incident -- should have been labeled "Fantasy/Science Fiction" for its ridiculous revisionist history: the government and the FBI were the Good Guys valiantly trying to protect the poor oppressed blacks while tracking down the evil KKK killer rednecks. Yah. Right. That's how it happened. ah, Hollowood.

Comment by Shark

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 07:01:31 EDT
The irony is that the Republican Convention will be staged to look like "Saturday Night at the Apollo" -- blacks at the convention will have the best seats in the house (for a change); and you can bet that the Bush Bash will be serenaded by some big black gospel choir during prime time. Place your bets as to how many fat cracker Republicans can keep time with the beat. (Ratio from 2000 convention = 1:100)

Comment by Marc

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:35:31 EDT
Your correct Mac I could return and explain about an event in 1980. Considering the racial makeup of the country, both political parties, and how attitudes on race have changed immensely in 24 years why waste the breath, its not relevant. Pehaps you would like to answer the question you ignored. When will Kerry add minorities to his campaign staff? And for crashboombaby, hate crime legislation is nothing more than DC and State politicians trying to act like they are doing something. Dead is dead, and life behind bars is life no matter how you slice it in the Byrd case.

Comment by Mac Diva

Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:59:42 EDT
Since James Byrd was murdered in the state George W. Bush claims as his home and occupied the top leadership position in, it seems logical to hold his feet to the fire on the issue of hate crime legislation there. Furthermore, Texas' history of egregious crimes against minorities is like Mississippi's. States in that league most need hate crimes laws, though they are least likely to pass them. Bush's lack of empathy for Byrd, a fellow Texan is telling. However, the Southern Strategy gestures are not limited to Shrub. Perhaps Marc will return and explain why the GOP 'needed' to kick off its 1980 campaign in Neshoba County, Miss., when it could have chosen any place in the country. These gestures mean something, and those of us they are directed toward know what they mean. The above entry has a companion I will try to get around to posting. It is about the delegates to the Democratic convention. I wrote them after a far Right partisan here went a tirade about how minorities should support the GOP. They explain why that is unlikely to happen.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Fri, 9 Jul 2004 13:09:06 EDT
I think that the issue in the case of James Byrd was that his killers already received the maximum penalty anybody could receive, so anything else would be practically irrelevant. Politically important, perhaps, but the debate is over how much politics should influence criminal justice.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:50:22 EDT
Marc, as a minority, I can tell you exactly what the purpose of hate crime legislation is for. It is not punishing 'thought' as you imply. Hate crime legislation can apply to any minority, whether based on race, orientation, religion, etc. It is an additional charge above and beyond the charge of murder. Assume a woman is murdered somewhere. A person gets charged with murder. That's scenario 1. Now scenario 2. Five women get murdered in a town. A serial killer is loose. The remaining women in the town experience terror. Adding a hate crime charge in addition to the murders, is adding a charge of terrorizing the community. It is reasonable and justified. A shopping mall is spraypainted with graffitti. A charge of vandalism is levied. A Jewish synagogue is spraypainted with swastikas. A minority group is now terrorized that Nazi's who want them dead are in their midst. In addition to the charge of vandalism, the hate crime charge is for terrorizing the community. Hate crime laws do not punish thought, they punish the terror that others, besides the victim, feel. That's not lip service, and I support hate crime laws.

Comment by Marc

Fri, 9 Jul 2004 09:44:06 EDT
Gee Mac I though you "retired from blogging here? I guess not and when you return you post this trash. Lets start at the bottom of your post and work our way up. "almost half of delegates to their national [democratic] convention will be minorities" When will Kerry include minoities in his campaign staff? He currently has zero. Alright now to your supposed slight of the NAACP. As mentioned, Bush the candidate appeared at the NAACP Convention in 2000, something rarely done by Republican presidential nominees, in order to stimulate a dialogue between the GOP and the nation's oldest civil-rights group. The result was a vicious, slimy political attack by the NAACP to tie Bush to the drooling bigots that dragged James Byrd to death in Texas in 1998, while Bush was governor. The TV ad had the dead man's daughter narrating over the image of a truck bumper trailing a chain: I'm Renee Mullins, James Byrd's daughter. On June 7, 1998 in Texas my father was killed. He was beaten, chained, and then dragged 3 miles to his death, all because he was black. So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate-crime legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again. Never mind that "hate-crime" legislation goes far further towards establishing thought crime than the Patriot Act's supposed fascist inclinations by allowing library records to be subpoenaed for terrorism investigations. Never mind that a Texas court found these lunatics guilty in short order. Never mind that 2 of the 3 received the death penalty, the third life -- which, I believe, the NAACP opposes. What does being charged with a hate crime add to a Murder 1 conviction that results in a death penalty? Lip service. Which, by the way, is all that the NAACP's invitation to Bush amounts to.

Comment by Tom

Fri, 9 Jul 2004 09:30:31 EDT
The NAACP is no longer a civil rights group, it is a left-leaning pupper of the Democratic party. Just look at the way the NAACP has treated Bush in the past. There was a NAACP ad which implicated George Bush to the murder of James Byrd. Or Julian Bond's calling Republicans "the Taliban." You know, the conservatives are "the Taliban wing of the Republican Party." He also said this: "Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side-by-side. They've written a new constitution for Iraq and ignore the Constitution here at home. They draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics, and now they want to write bigotry back into the U.S. Constitution.' The NAACP is a liberal activist group. Bush should no more speak to them then go to the Democratic Paty convention and speak there.