L.A. Times Editors: Willfully Misleading, or Stunningly Ignorant? You Be the Judge!
An editorial in today’s Los Angeles Times asks the silly question: Why Snub the NAACP?
[President George W. Bush] has declined to speak at the NAACP’s annual convention, which starts Saturday. Unless he changes his mind, this will make Bush the first president since Hoover not to attend a single NAACP convention during his presidency.
Why on earth not? Bush’s decision to boycott the NAACP is inexplicable as a matter of presidential leadership. And it is just as inexplicable as a matter of low, self-interested politics. We would accuse him of ulterior motives, but it is hard to think of any.
. . . .
Not since Richard Nixon have a president’s motives been so hard to fathom.
You got that? The L.A. Times editors — supposedly well-informed folks — have no earthly idea why George W. Bush might have the slightest problem with the NAACP. Picture Scooby-Doo — shrugging his shoulders and making that canine noise of helpless befuddlement in response to a particularly tricky question posed by Shaggy — and you’ll get an idea of the utter confusion of the Times editors as they ponder the impenetrable mystery of why G.W. Bush wouldn’t want to address the NAACP.
Consider this a pop quiz. I’ll stop for a moment and ask Patterico readers if you can think of any possible reason for George W. Bush to resent the NAACP. The L.A. Times editors haven’t the foggiest. Can you think of anything?
Well, let’s look at the benefits Bush received from speaking to the NAACP as a presidential candidate in July 2000. Two months later, the “non-partisan” NAACP ran this advertisement linking Bush to the racially motivated dragging death of a black man in Jasper, Texas:
[Background sound: deep, eerie metallic; later fade in low clanking]
Renee Mullins (voice over): 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.
Call Governor George W. Bush and tell him to support hate-crime legislation.
We won’t be dragged away from our future.
Keep in mind: the editors of the Los Angeles Times profess not to have the slightest idea why Bush doesn’t want to address the NAACP in this election year. And indeed, their editorial does not say one word about this hateful advertising campaign, obviously intended to oppose his 2000 presidential candidacy.
Does Bush have any reason to believe that he’ll be treated differently by the NAACP this election year? Here’s a clue for you, Jack: the chairman of the NAACP has vowed that his organization will work to defeat Bush in the 2004 election!
Yup, you heard right. In July of 2003, I published a post that quoted an Associated Press story as saying:
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.”
(As I pointed out in the same post, Bond’s comments were also a clear violation of IRS regulations preventing tax-exempt organizations like the NAACP from engaging in “political activities” — a term that expressly encompasses “activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate, even on the basis of non-partisan criteria.”)
So: despite the fact that the NAACP is explicitly dedicated to defeating Bush in this election, the astoundingly clueless editors at the L.A. Times just can’t comprehend why Bush doesn’t want to address the organization. “Why on earth not?” they ask.
Most revealing of all is the way that the Times editors characterize Bush’s relations with this group — whose chairman has publicly vowed to work to defeat him in the upcoming election:
Relations with the NAACP have not been terribly warm since Bush became president.
Relations “have not been terribly warm.” You don’t say!
I’ll leave it to the readers to debate whether the editors responsible for this trash were aware of the above facts, and thus making a transparently fraudulent argument — or whether they were just unaware of these same facts, thus showing themselves to be astoundingly ignorant on the topic on which they chose to opine.
Oh I don’t know counselor, how about the leader of the US and the free world reaching out to his citizens? Or is that too much to ask. Of course we know those just aren’t his people. Why sugar coat it?
Comment by Mark A. York — 7/10/2004 @ 5:19 am
Patterico, can we answer, “Both”?
Yeah Mark, we all know Bush hates those damn darkies. He would never, ever allow any of them to be on his cabinet.
Why should Bush reach out to the NAACP? He tried it in 2000 and all he got was hate-mongering via one of the most despicable ads ever run. Did you read the quote from Julian Bond? Do you also think Kerry should speak at a Free Republic event if asked?
Comment by Veeshir — 7/10/2004 @ 8:41 am
Yeah well, just another conspiracy my genes don’t recognize.
Comment by Mark A. York — 7/10/2004 @ 1:24 pm
Oh Mark, so your genes only recognize the ones that make Bush look bad? (Wherein blacks “aren’t his people”)Try the radiation treatment, get some new genes.
I change my answer from earlier, I say they are willfully obtuse.
Wait, that’s pretty much what I said earlier. Nevermind.
Comment by Veeshir — 7/10/2004 @ 2:44 pm
Patterico (and Veeshir),
Don’t argue with Mark York. He is never wrong, because when you correct him he always turns out to be talking about something else. His qualifications always trump your qualifications. Your personal experience is anecdotal, while his is definitive.
Jay Rosen banned him, and deleted all his (quite numerous) posts. Enough said.
Regards,
Ric Locke
Comment by Ric Locke — 7/10/2004 @ 4:18 pm
Don’t speak to their convention and cut off all Federal funding to them. Actions have consequences.
Comment by Frank G — 7/10/2004 @ 5:00 pm
We only get to examine my credentials, the others remain anonymous. How convenient. I do this in full view. Roger Simon banned me too. A pattern?
Rosen kowtowed to the vehement wingnuts who he’s mining for anti-press analysis. In short, they’re guinea pigs. How appropriate.
Comment by Mark A. York — 7/11/2004 @ 5:33 am
Ric, I know the type. I just like to have them show that they are nitwits.
As somebody at the Emperor’s place pointed out, responding to nitwit trolls is an object lesson for all the people who just read and don’t respond. They get to see the arguments and see who is right. Or in this case, who uses actual arguments and who just spouts inanities and non sequitors.
Plus it’s fun to watch their blatherings as you disprove their points. I especially like the way people like Mark refuse to admit they’re wrong. I don’t like to admit it when I’m wrong, but I usually do. Even with obvious trolls.
Another side effect is that in debating you learn more and unlearn some things that you thought were right. It’s an educational experience.
Comment by Veeshir — 7/11/2004 @ 5:33 am
I’m not wrong. You and Bush et al are wrong and the facts bear that out. Trolls don’t leave websites behind. Anonymous right-womgs zealots don’t play by those rules, although one I know of does. I find that conservatives are conspiratorial and lack reason in general. They’re believers. Hmmm… who else operates on this paradigm?
Comment by Mark A. York — 7/11/2004 @ 5:37 am
Yes, just as I thought, no website only a link to another groupthink blog from the far right. So predictable.
Comment by Mark A. York — 7/11/2004 @ 5:40 am
Thanks for proving my point Mark.
Frank G. said,
I didn’t understand that when I read it the first time. I thought you had cross-posted. But now I get it.
I don’t know if they get federal funds, but their tax-exempt status should be revoked. They have become an arm of the Democratic party so they deserve to lose that status. However, imagine the cries of racism if that was attempted? The problem is that you know the NYTIMESLATIMESCNNABCNBCCBAETC. would be blaring “Racism” for months and they have the bully-pulpit. I don’t know if Bush has the nerve to do that. If he decides something is important he stays resolute, but on lesser battles he just walks away.
The NEA is another group who should lose their tax-exempt status for obviously campaigning for a specific candidate.
But unfortunately we’ve woken up on bizarro planet where the President of the United States is accorded less civility than a dictator who is responsible for millions of deaths. (Select your favorite dictator. Saddam, the poofy-haired maniac in NK, the Afafish, Hitler, Stalin)
Although the Arafish isn’t responsible for millions of deaths, but he is responsible for a lot. Including many thousands (tens? hundreds?) in Lebanon.
Oh well, at least Askkkroft hasn’t kicked in my door yet. That’s a good thing. (/sarcasm)
Comment by Veeshir — 7/11/2004 @ 5:53 am
Mark, define the groupthink of that website.
You can do it. I know you can.
Comment by Veeshir — 7/11/2004 @ 5:58 am
Nutcases.
Comment by Mark A. York — 7/11/2004 @ 6:04 am
Ahh, such a succinct diagnosis. I assume you are in some sort of technical field?
Comment by Veeshir — 7/11/2004 @ 6:07 am
Yes, I was a biologist for the US Fish and Wildlife Service and others.
Comment by Mark A. York — 7/11/2004 @ 4:10 pm
Did you perhaps have anything to do with the Klamath Falls deal a couple of years ago?
I’m still wondering what type of groupthink nutcases you think Misha’s site is.
Comment by Veeshir — 7/11/2004 @ 4:34 pm
MRS. SPOONS’ LINK OF THE DAY
Laura’s always sending me stuff to blog about. I think I should just have a daily feature of her links….
Trackback by The Spoons Experience — 7/12/2004 @ 5:38 pm
MRS. SPOONS’ LINK OF THE DAY
Laura’s always sending me stuff to blog about. I think I should just have a daily feature of her links….
Trackback by The Spoons Experience — 7/12/2004 @ 5:39 pm
Mark, are you honestly saying of Bush that blacks “just aren’t his people”? Have you looked at his cabinet? No president has ever had a black Secretary of State or National Security Advisor before. Bush is the first. So what are you taling about?
Obviously false mudslinging like this leads to your mantle as Troll, Mark. It has nothing to do with whether you’re annonymous or not. Such empty, vicious, and above all ridiculous smears are should be beneath responding to.
But, as I am sadly illustrating, it’s so damn hard to resist a troll. That’s why they just get banned, for everyone’s sake.
Comment by Laura — 7/12/2004 @ 6:46 pm
Which reminds me. I think I am going to hold a referendum on York. Here’s the basic issue. Content-free, insulting posts from liberals: Leave them, to demonstrate the vacuity of the opposition? Or just ban them, to avoid wasting our time?
Comment by Patterico — 7/12/2004 @ 8:35 pm
I’d ban, but only because Photoshop for text has not been invented yet.
Comment by Chadster — 7/12/2004 @ 10:07 pm
Man, why do you give Mark any ammo? Ignore,snub,he doesn’t exist. No need to waste energy trying to discuss anything with him. If he can’t discuss anything in an intelligent, polite manner with his ducks in a row, then he gets to play in the sandbox by himself.
The last of my discussion about him.
Comment by Hugo — 7/12/2004 @ 11:19 pm
Don’t Feed The Trolls
This crappy flat-file commenting system we see so much of just can’t take it. Even a proper comment system like Slashdot’s can’t take trolls but at least they have a higher noise threshhold before the whole thing falls apart.
Sheesh, this thread is the definitive example of why you DFTT. Great article (though it missed out on the latest series of comments by NAACP leaders… they’ve descended into BusHitler hand-waving and claims that Bush is “trying to bring back Jim Crow”) and the comments are utter shite. I mean, 18 comments including one unsubstantiated assertion followed up by one comment that had some thought put into fleshing it out, and 16 off-topic replies to Mark the Troll or musings on whether or not we should be replying to Mark the Troll. This makes 17!
Congrats, Mark, you’ve reduced yet another comment thread to noise. Why not just YHBT them and be done with it?
Now, to drag this thread back into Topicland: Bush has spoken to various black (I reject African-American as a label) advocacy groups including the Urban League. Any group that institutionalizes racism and hatemongering like the NAACP does should not expect, nevermind get all miffed over, a Presidential snub. I mean, you don’t see the Nation of Islam getting all huffy about the President blowing them off. Of course they didn’t ask either, possibly because they had sense enough to know you can’t expect a man to graciously accept your invitation to dinner right after you ran an ad in the local paper calling his mother a whore.
IMHO, he should STILL go speak to them. He should accept publicly, saying basically:
“Now I know the men who run this thing don’t like me. They’ve said some pretty despicable things about me recently and frankly they’ve got a lot of damn gall asking me to speak after what I’ve heard. But I think it’s important to extend the hand of friendship to all those people the NAACP *does* help, even if the guy running the shop likes to spout nonsense from time to time. I’ll enjoy the opportunity to take an hour reminding his donors that if they ever get tired of the bile they’ve still got plenty of friends on the other side of the aisle. The sort of friends who are interested in the advancement of ALL people, not just the Colored ones… if you take my meaning.”
I think he should take the opportunity to extend a hand (another hand!) to black Americans while simultaneously giving a solid kick in the hole to the leftwing partisans in the NAACP boardroom.
But hey, that’s just me.
Comment by Tony — 7/13/2004 @ 2:58 am
Of course, after previewing 5 times, I still missed something:
… like the NAACP should not be surprised at, nevermind…
Comment by Tony — 7/13/2004 @ 3:01 am
Well Patterico,
banning Mark is pretty much up to you. It’s your bandwidth.
As I said earlier, sometimes the trolls are useful to reiterate the stuff that we’ve said a million times but some people who are new don’t know yet. I have many friends who get their news from the networks and they never hear the other side. We work with unspoken assumptions. Things we’ve said over and over before. Others, who only get their news from Jennings, still think that Bush said the threat was imminent while they don’t know that Edwards actually said the threat was imminent. They don’t know that we’ve found out that Iraq really was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger, even though that’s not what Bush said in the SOTUS.
As I said, it’s up to you. But some trolls provide an object lesson. At least Mark is just an obtuse, rude troll. He even starts out on a thread almost intelligently. I’ve seen much worse.
I say, ban the jackasses and leave the nitwits.
But that’s just my opinion.
Of course, I say that in case you think I’m a nitwit. It’s happened before.
Comment by Veeshir — 7/13/2004 @ 4:44 am
Do Unto Others
Bill Bennett has been making a case on his radio show for almost a week that President Bush should accept…
Trackback by Ipse Dixit — 7/13/2004 @ 1:30 pm
The Fall of the House of NAACP
The NAACP national convention is going on right now. Kerry is there, blasting Bush. Bush is not there. In fact, Bush has never addressed the NAACP convention - and he is the first President since the 30s to not do so. What does this mean?…
Trackback by Slant Point — 7/15/2004 @ 12:23 pm
Campaign Notes
Have Teresa Heinz-Kerry and Arianna Huffington ever been seen in the same room toegther? To the best of my knowledge,…
Trackback by SashaCastel.com — 7/30/2004 @ 10:51 am
The single voice one MUST hear is that of one’s most severe critic - the only real problem with partisan division of blogs (I’ve been banned from a few) is the amplification by resonance, of poorly devised or poorly founded argument. In other words, one learns very little when one discusses only with those who parrot one’s thought. Der Prez might take that thought into account when next “addressing” Democrats while simultaneously banning them from the vicinity of his address.
Comment by Conley T. Gwinn — 10/29/2004 @ 11:38 pm