L.A. Times Editors: It’s a Huge Mystery to Us Why President Bush Never Met with the NAACP Before!
An L.A. Times editorial yesterday says:
Bush’s address to the NAACP convention was a model of cautious conciliation. He had notoriously snubbed the NAACP throughout his first term, the first president since Warren G. Harding not to speak to the group. The NAACP’s leadership wasn’t exactly playing nice with the Republican Party, either; former NAACP Chairman Julian Bond memorably referred to the “the Taliban wing” of the GOP in 2001 (he spoke before 9/11). Still, given candidate Bush’s rebuke in 2000 of Republicans who avoided the NAACP, it seemed petty for him to do just that as president.
So the editors make it sound like the only thing the NAACP ever did to Bush was this: pre-9/11, Bond referred to a small part of the GOP as the Taliban wing of the GOP.
But in fact, Bond also spoke after 9/11, and referred to the Republican party as the Taliban wing of all American politics. And that’s hardly the only reason Bush would have a grudge against the NAACP. The group has a history of running unfair ads against him and actively opposing his election as president.
Let’s start with the Julian Bond comment. In July 2001, Julian Bond first made the Taliban wing comment. But he repeated the comments in June 2004. From a June 3, 2004 CNS new story:
In remarks to hundreds of cheering liberal activists Wednesday, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond singled out Republicans as enemies of black Americans and compared conservatives to the terrorist Taliban who once ruled Afghanistan.
“Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side,” Bond told a cheering audience. “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. Now they want to write bigotry back into the Constitution.”
Like the June 2004 comments, the July 2001 comments referred, not to a Taliban wing of the GOP, as the editors claim, but rather to Republicans in general as being “the Taliban wing of American politics.”
The editors speculate about why Bush hasn’t met with the group before:
Maybe part of the reason Bush was so reluctant to speak before the NAACP was that he feared unfavorable comparisons to his predecessor, whose lip-biting, eye-welling empathy regularly drew shouts of “Amen!”
The editors also leave out the obvious reason Bush refused to meet with the NAACP in the past: the organization actively fought him in his two presidential elections. After Bush met with the group in 2000, the NAACP ran an unfair ad blaming him for a racist murder in Texas, and the NAACP’s chairman has explicitly called for the group to unseat Bush in 2004. As I explained in December 2004, when the president met with NAACP leader Kweisi Mfume:
An AP story reported in July 2003:
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 have previously argued, those comments were 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.”
Given the organization’s history of hostility to Bush, it’s no surprise that he refused to meet with any of the group’s representatives until now. After all, meeting with them in the 2000 election didn’t do him much good. Two months later, a (non-tax-exempt) arm of the “non-partisan” NAACP ran an advertisement carrying the NAACP logo which unfairly linked Bush to the racially motivated dragging death of a black man in Jasper, Texas.
It’s really no mystery why Bush chose not to meet with the NAACP in the past, and the editors shouldn’t pretend like it is.
Thank you, thank you, for bringing us back to matters of substance.
“I think, therefore I read Patterico.”
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/22/2006 @ 4:35 pmGeorge Bush seems to be one of the least biased men around — and that’s why the NAALCP and Julian Bond hate him so much.
Oh, it’s true that as Governor, Mr Bush never pushed for any hate crime legislation, but, you know what, the three men who murdered James Byrd were all tried and convicted of first degree murder; two were sentenced to death and the third to life in prison without parole. Just how much more does Lorrie Byrd of Mr Bond think we couild punish the murderers?
Dana (9f37aa) — 7/22/2006 @ 4:37 pmHmmm. I see you’ve reinstalled the captcha feature; getting too much spam for ringtones and other less tasteful stuff?
Dana (9f37aa) — 7/22/2006 @ 4:38 pmBush should make it a policy to refuse to speak before any racist group. That goes for the KKK and the NAACP.
Huey (81c03e) — 7/22/2006 @ 4:45 pmHmmm. I see you’ve reinstalled the captcha feature; getting too much spam for ringtones and other less tasteful stuff?
I have no idea. Jay must be doing that stuff.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/22/2006 @ 4:53 pmYes Huey those two groups are exactly the same. I for one remember all the murders and lynchings the NAACP performed.
Oh wait…
Polybius (117267) — 7/22/2006 @ 6:06 pmActually if you’ll be fair and do a little research you’ll find that 99% of what you’ve been taught about the KKK is on the same level as what the movies show that Jessie James and Billy the kid did. No, am not and never have been a member, but in today’s world it may be a good idea.
Research (true) will show that the NAACP has done more property damage and been responsible for more murders than anyone on this side of Hitler and the Nazi’s. Just the facts, man, just the facts.
Scrapiron (a90377) — 7/22/2006 @ 6:48 pmScrapiron,
If your point is that liberal policies generally have created a situation in which if the murder of black people was an Olympic event, the KKK would get the bronze, neo-Nazis would get the silver and black street gangs would get the gold …? Otherwise you’ve lost me. The NAACP’s recent leadership may still be clinging to the principles of the dependence-inducing welfare state but as an organization it has a very honorable and meritorious record of advancing the principle that black people are Americans too. Which can hardly be said about the KaKaKa. Heck, the KaKaKa thinks that you can’t be a real American if your daddy isn’t also your uncle, first cousin and father-in-law.
nk (32c481) — 7/22/2006 @ 7:26 pm“Just how much more does Lorrie Byrd of Mr Bond think we couild punish the murderers?”
sharon (fecb65) — 7/22/2006 @ 8:24 pmThey should dig em up again and kill em again. Maybe that’s what hate crimes legislation would have done.
I thought you quit that paper?
TCO (217b0f) — 7/22/2006 @ 8:29 pmNo, I quit subscribing to the dead trees edition. I still read it online. I’m not giving up on mocking it.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/22/2006 @ 9:04 pmPresident Bush is the only president in U.S. history to have a black Secretary of State—and he’s had two.
There’s no question that the President reveres Martin Luther King’s notion of judging people by their character, rather than the color of their skin.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 7/22/2006 @ 11:30 pmBruce Gordon, the new NAACP head, strikes me as a sea change for the better and he’s likely the main reason Bush went. He sounds like he wants to put the “Advancement” back in the NAACP after so many years of it being about victimhood and partisan carping.
Good stuff. He sounds so…American.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 7/22/2006 @ 11:52 pmOff topic, but here’s a little nugget for y’all to read:
http://www.kabc.com/mcintyre/listingsEntry.asp?ID=432586&PT=McIntyre+in+the+Morning
I didn’t see any open thread.
MplsDog (1fc1a2) — 7/23/2006 @ 1:25 amThis isn’t Atrios.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/23/2006 @ 3:31 amI don’t visit Atrios.
What do you mean?
MplsDog (1fc1a2) — 7/23/2006 @ 3:54 amMany would say that if JFK were still alive, he wouldn’t be a Democrat. If Martin luther King, Jr. were still alive, I don’t know how close he would have been to the NAACP and other organizations for many years. Maybe someone knows details, but King’s “character, not color of skin” doesn’t seem to me to fit with affirmative action as it has been defined the last many years. I’m all for King’s formulation. We are white and our children play with the African American children next door and down the street. I don’t know if any in our predecessors owned slaves, or if our neighbors are descendents of slaves, but the idea of his dream is real.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/23/2006 @ 4:37 amIsn’t it a pain in the ass to flip through the paper online vice manually? Do you ever sneak off and buy a newsstand copy?
TCO (cdacb0) — 7/23/2006 @ 6:03 amIt does seem like he’s accusing republicans of having extremist supporters, not republicans in general. I don’t think all republicans are theocratic bigots.
actus (6234ee) — 7/23/2006 @ 7:55 amDo you think any Democrats are? And what would happen if a Republican organization had called it the “Taliban wing of American politics”?
sharon (fecb65) — 7/23/2006 @ 9:51 amIt would be kindly pointed out to them who the religious extremists do vote for.
actus (6234ee) — 7/23/2006 @ 10:30 amIt would be kindly pointed out to them who the religious extremists do vote for.
…and who do Louis Farrakhan, Malik Shabazz, etc. vote for? I’m fairly certain it wasn’t W.
Radish (783850) — 7/23/2006 @ 11:05 amYou’re right to point out such big players in the democratic party.
actus (6234ee) — 7/23/2006 @ 11:11 amOh, no….now that a commenter has mentioned the names of famous anti-Semites such as Farrakhan and Shabazz, actus is frothing-at-the-mouth with desire to ‘enlighten’ us with his deranged conspiracies about Jews.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 7/23/2006 @ 11:29 amChalk me up as a chickenhawk supporter of the war on christmas.
actus (6234ee) — 7/23/2006 @ 11:35 amOnce again the folks down at the big house on Spring Street prove they are truly “clueless in California”.
Mike Myers (290636) — 7/23/2006 @ 1:16 pmOur esteemed host wrote:
Well, it was up yesterday, but it was back off just a few minutes ago. Whatever your techie is doing, he has used the same captcha design as XRLQ has/had installed on his site.
Dana (1d5902) — 7/23/2006 @ 1:21 pmWe always did, actus, we always did! 🙂
But, I’ll give you the same props someone else did a day or so ago: despite the abuse you take, both on Protein Wisdom and here, you keep coming back to express your opinion, and don’t appear to have to use multiple personalities to do so.
Dana (1d5902) — 7/23/2006 @ 1:24 pmI used other made up names on PW once or twice when it looked like people where going to start posting under my handle. But stopped once it stopped. I also am a big fan of anonymity so I don’t mind multiple identities. What i do mind is identities being appropriated.
actus (6234ee) — 7/23/2006 @ 1:44 pmThis is just a subtle hint for any group that wants to appear slightly even handed and wants visits from any President. And it doesn’t preclude having serious objections to his or her policy. Don’t go on the newschat shows and call him a racist, don’t have ads claiming that somehow he had some connection to the brutal lynching of a innocent victim, and don’t hint that he intentionally allowed New Orleans to flood because he hates black people. You have the right to make these statements but don’t be suprised when he or she decides to neglect your invite to your convention. Call anyone a racist killer and they have a tendency to avoid your company.
Kevin Peters (0a812f) — 7/23/2006 @ 5:57 pm“It would be kindly pointed out to them who the religious extremists do vote for.”
I guess it’s because of all those religious extremists that Democrats spend so much time in black churches right before elections.
sharon (fecb65) — 7/23/2006 @ 9:20 pmIt could be. Black churches don’t seem so extreme to me, but I don’t really go to them, even though there’s plenty nearby.
actus (6234ee) — 7/23/2006 @ 9:34 pmNot to mention the NAACP ads in 1996 (or was it ’98, or even 2000?), linking the Republicans to church bombings.
Milhouse (e16dc7) — 7/24/2006 @ 12:26 am“It could be. Black churches don’t seem so extreme to me, but I don’t really go to them, even though there’s plenty nearby.”
Yeah, neither do the white churches nearby, but they sure do scare lefties to no end.
“Not to mention the NAACP ads in 1996 (or was it ‘98, or even 2000?), linking the Republicans to church bombings.”
That’s because the NAACP is all for peace and tolerance and shuns falsely accusing its political enemies.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/24/2006 @ 9:08 amI don’t think the churches nearby are so much into the AFA and other crap I see. Its mostly a liberal place in DC and the MD suburbs.
actus (6234ee) — 7/24/2006 @ 9:37 amThis characterization of Bond’s comments does not stand up to scrutiny. In both cases he was clearly referrning to a subset of Republicans rather than Republicans generally.
The June 2004 comment: “They draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics.” Clearly he is saying that the “most rabid” Republicans, rather than Republicans generally, are from the “Taliban wing.”
The word Taliban appears once in the July 2001 comment: “He has selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics….”
This refers to Bush’s nominees, not Republicans in general. The proposition that Bond was referring to all, or even most, Republicans as from the Taliban wing is not supported by the evidence.
Josh (d00104) — 7/24/2006 @ 9:54 amFor example, John Dilulio, not so taliban.
actus (6234ee) — 7/24/2006 @ 9:57 am“I don’t think the churches nearby are so much into the AFA and other crap I see. Its mostly a liberal place in DC and the MD suburbs.”
Nice characterization. No, not talking about DC or MD. I’m talking about places like most of the country. You know, the part that thinks when the NAACP uses inflammatory language like “taliban wing” that it isn’t trying for that legendary inclusiveness and tolerance.
“This refers to Bush’s nominees, not Republicans in general. The proposition that Bond was referring to all, or even most, Republicans as from the Taliban wing is not supported by the evidence.”
I disagree. Why not read more of what Bond has said about “the taliban wing”? There’s this:
“Bond told a raucous crowd that the GOP’s “idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side.” He went on to say that Republicans “draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics. Now they want to write bigotry back into the Constitution.””
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/GOP%20Honors%20NAACP.html
That doesn’t sound like he’s talking about a small number of Republicans.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/24/2006 @ 10:42 am“Most rabid supporters” doesn’t sound like a subset of “supporters” to you?
Josh (d00104) — 7/24/2006 @ 10:56 am““Most rabid supporters” doesn’t sound like a subset of “supporters” to you?”
When you put “most rabid supporters” in context with the rest of his statement about the GOP, it’s hard to make a case that he wasn’t criticizing Republicans in general. Here’s another sample from Mr. Bonds:
“[Bush] 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.”
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48715
If you don’t think he’s talking about Republicans in general, can you point me to a quote from him that supports this?
sharon (03e82c) — 7/24/2006 @ 11:11 amIt’s unclear why you keep quoting passages I’ve already addressed as if they showed something new. Bond’s argument is that there are extremist elements in the GOP, and the GOP leadership generally placates them rather than repudiating them. True or not, this claim is clearly distinct from the claim that the GOP as a whole is the Taliban wing of American politics, which is what Patterico wrongly claimed Bond was saying.
Special pleading. Patterico set forth two comments that he claims support the proposition that Bond identified the entire GOP as the Taliban wing of American politics. I pointed out that those statements, if actually read and considered, did not fairly support that proposition. The burden does not then fall on me to find extraneous evidence to rebut a proposition that you and Patterico have failed to establish in the first place.
Josh (d00104) — 7/24/2006 @ 11:27 amNice way of sidestepping the issue. Obviously, you couldn’t find any quotes where Bond doesn’t use such inflammatory rhetoric about the GOP. In the absence of that evidence, it’s reasonable to assume that he’s not talking about “extremist elements” but about the GOP in general. When do Democrats ever discuss any political opponent as not being “extreme”? This is part and parcel of the Democrats plan to paint Republican leaders as “out of the mainstream.” Amusingly, for being so “extremist,” they certainly do keep winning elections.
BTW, which one of those comments by Bond was supposed to encourage the President to speak to his organization?
sharon (03e82c) — 7/24/2006 @ 12:13 pmI don’t think you understand how arguments work and what is and is not a logical response to an opponent’s point. Patterico made claim A, that was supposedly supported by evidence B. I pointed out that evidence B did not actaully support claim A. A logical response would be an attempt to show that evidence B does in fact support claim A. But instead, you are arguing that the absence of evidence C somehow proves A. So in fact it is you who tried to dodge the issue.
Other assertions you have made which are irrelevant to the issue of whether the quotes from Bond show that he claims that Republicans as a whole are extremists:
(1) The Democrats/NAACP call everyone extreme.
(2) The Republicans win a lot of elections.
(3) Bond’s remarks wouldn’t have encouraged Bush to speak to his organization.
As you can see, none of these issues have any relevance to the question at hand, which is whether the June 2004 and July 2001 comments can be fairly characterized as labeling the entire Republican party as extremists.
[Josh: The editors said Bond said “the Taliban wing of the GOP” but he said “the Taliban wing of American politics.” How’s about you deal with that. — P]
Josh (d00104) — 7/24/2006 @ 1:00 pmWhat’s your point? Is it that, since the LA Times innacurately characterized his comments in one direction, it’s permissible for you to mischaracterize them in the opposite direction?
This isn’t difficult. Your argument is flawed because it ignores the plain text of Bond’s statements. Namely that in the first comment he is discussing the “most rabid” supporters and in the second he is describing Bush’s “nominees.” Since neither of those groups are coextensive with the Republican party as a whole, your argument that these quotes support the contention that Bonds is describing the enitre GOP clearly fails. How’s about you deal with that?
Josh (d00104) — 7/24/2006 @ 4:30 pmOh. I can’t speak for what goes on in those churches. I’ve heard of 50 thousand seat stadiums, mass parking lots. Come to think of it, the latter might be a good idea. Around here sunday parking is nuts.
Its a criticism of republicans in general that their most radical supporters are taliban.
actus (918a7f) — 7/24/2006 @ 5:10 pm“I don’t think you understand how arguments work and what is and is not a logical response to an opponent’s point. Patterico made claim A, that was supposedly supported by evidence B. I pointed out that evidence B did not actaully support claim A. A logical response would be an attempt to show that evidence B does in fact support claim A. But instead, you are arguing that the absence of evidence C somehow proves A. So in fact it is you who tried to dodge the issue.”
Sorry, no dodging here. You stepped into an argument, drew a conclusion, then argued that I wasn’t “defending” Patterico when, in fact, I brought up other quotes to support the original assertation. You don’t like those quotes and keep saying they have nothing to do with the original when, in fact, they do. All the quotes I gave were examples from Bond of his characterization of Republicans and Republican judicial nominees.
Let me spell it out for you, since you obviously cannot follow simple logic. Bond labeled his opponents “the taliban wing of the Republican party.” The only way one can draw the conclusion you (and by extension, Actus) choose to draw is if you assume that most Republicans do not agree with the governing philosophy of Republican leaders (you know, the ones like the POTUS). This is patently ridiculous, given Republican control of both Congress and the presidency (hence my reference to Republicans “win(ning) a lot of elections”). It’s dishonest to parse Bond’s statement to try to make it seem as though he’s merely talking about some small fraction of Republicans when he’s NEVER made a statement that could lead one to conclude that he wasn’t talking about Republicans in general (hence my comment that Bond and Democrat leadership hasn’t found a Republican idea for 10 years that they agree with).
The third point you make, that I asked what remarks Bond has made which would encourage Bush to speak to his organization was, in fact, trying to steer your donkey’s nose back to the original post: the LAT wrote an editorial which left the appearance that the NAACP hasn’t actively opposed George W. Bush from square one. Now, if you want to try to find some argument that would address that, I’d be happy to accommodate. I presume you wouldn’t, given that you couldn’t even address the numerous other inflammatory statements made by Bond at the same event.
sharon (fecb65) — 7/24/2006 @ 6:52 pmSharon, you need to review this exchange again.
The quotes you brought up were the same ones that Patterico cited originally. I had already addressed them but you, rather bizarrely, repeated them as if they had not been dealt with previously. You did quote one of them at greater length, but the added material adds nothing to your argument.
Bond labeled his opponents “the taliban wing of the Republican party.”
You do realize (1) that this quote is inaccurate and (2) that the incorrect version you set forth actually helps my argument, not yours? I’m beginning to wonder if you aren’t a lefty spoof to make Republicans look silly.
You should really read more carefully. He said that Bush drew his nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics. Bush’s nominees are not synoymous with all Republicans. Is that really so hard to grasp?
The only way one can draw the conclusion you (and by extension, Actus) choose to draw is if you assume that most Republicans do not agree with the governing philosophy of Republican leaders (you know, the ones like the POTUS).
Actually not. Try to avoid the use of words like “only” or “never” in a debate. Propositions that assert such absolutes are rarely true. Here, for example, one can draw this conclusion if one assumes that most Republicans are not as rabid as the nominees Bond was describing, but favor them over the alternatives. It is your assumption, namely that all Republicans are in complete agreement with every decision the POTUS makes, which is laughable (and insulting to Republicans, I would think).
It’s dishonest to parse Bond’s statement to try to make it seem as though he’s merely talking about some small fraction of Republicans when he’s NEVER made a statement that could lead one to conclude that he wasn’t talking about Republicans in general (hence my comment that Bond and Democrat leadership hasn’t found a Republican idea for 10 years that they agree with).
I guess by “parse” you mean “read and represent accurately.” I’ve repeated Bond’s quotes and pointed out why your characterization of them is flawed. You can’t even quote them accurately, much less address my points directly. The only issue here is what the plain text of Bond’s quoted language meant. No other statements he’s ever made are relevant. You don’t even try to deal with the “most rabid supporters” and “nominees” qualifiers in Bond’s statements, you just ignore them and wave your hands about matters with no bearing on the topic at hand.
The third point you make, that I asked what remarks Bond has made which would encourage Bush to speak to his organization was, in fact, trying to steer your donkey’s nose back to the original post: the LAT wrote an editorial which left the appearance that the NAACP hasn’t actively opposed George W. Bush from square one. Now, if you want to try to find some argument that would address that, I’d be happy to accommodate.
Yes. Unable to defend your’s or Patterico’s characterization of Bond’s statements, you’d like me to defend a position that I’ve never taken. I’ve addressed one issue in this thread – whether Bond’s July 2001 and June 2004 statements were labeling all Republicans as “rabid” or from the “Taliban wing of American politics.” If you can actually formulate an argument that they were (as opposed to simply repeating them and saying “see. he hates the GOP!!1!”), I’d be happy to read it. But since you’ve had several comments and apparently haven’t been able to even grasp the issue and its scope, I’m not very hopeful.
Josh (d00104) — 7/25/2006 @ 7:26 amSharon, you just have to accept that there are people out there who are more angry at Republicans for believing in church, traditional marriage, and personal responsibility than they are angry at Islamo-fascists for beheading infidels, beating women for not having their heads properly covered, and threatening to wipe Israel off the map.
They have personal issues which animate their anger, so, presenting them with more facts and logic isn’t going to provide them with an epiphany.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 7/25/2006 @ 8:05 am“The quotes you brought up were the same ones that Patterico cited originally. I had already addressed them but you, rather bizarrely, repeated them as if they had not been dealt with previously. You did quote one of them at greater length, but the added material adds nothing to your argument.”
It’s always interesting when one puts a quote in its context and someone else says it “adds nothing” to the argument. Au contraire. You really don’t think Bond discussing Republicans wanting to fly the “Confederate swastika” next to the American flag adds content? Or that he says Republicans want to “write bigotry back into the Constitution” adds content? I disagree. It shows that Bond has contempt for Republicans IN GENERAL, not just some subset that you pluck from the whole. How can you possibly draw the conclusion that this was not a swipe at Republicans generally? You might want to try Sylvan Learning Centers to bone up your reading comprehension.
“Bond labeled his opponents “the taliban wing of the Republican party.”
You do realize (1) that this quote is inaccurate and (2) that the incorrect version you set forth actually helps my argument, not yours?”
This was not my quote, dear. Try reading post #38 s-l-o-w-l-y. It might help.
“You should really read more carefully. He said that Bush drew his nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics. Bush’s nominees are not synoymous with all Republicans. Is that really so hard to grasp?”
He also said Republicans want to fly the “Confederate swastika” next to the American flag and that Republicans want to “write bigotry back into the Constitution.” Instead of spending your time telling me to read, you might want to do a little yourself. There’s even a link.
“Actually not. Try to avoid the use of words like “only” or “never” in a debate. Propositions that assert such absolutes are rarely true.”
Yes, but in this case, it fits as witnessed by the rest of your paragraph:
“Here, for example, one can draw this conclusion if one assumes that most Republicans are not as rabid as the nominees Bond was describing, but favor them over the alternatives.”
Isn’t it logical to assume that if one “favors them over the alternatives,” that it means one tends to agree with those picks as opposed to some other (more Bond-like) picks?
“It is your assumption, namely that all Republicans are in complete agreement with every decision the POTUS makes, which is laughable (and insulting to Republicans, I would think). ”
Wait…didn’t you just say that one should avoid terms like “only” and “never”? Doesn’t “all” and “complete” fall into the same category? Try not to do what you just castigated me fore, will you? It makes you look pathetic.
“I guess by “parse” you mean “read and represent accurately.””
No, I mean “take some subset of a thought out of context so as to misrepresent it.”
“I’ve repeated Bond’s quotes and pointed out why your characterization of them is flawed.”
Well, you tried. Not successfully, but I give you a solid B for effort.
“You can’t even quote them accurately, much less address my points directly.”
Actually, I did quote it accurately. You, on the other hand, keep parsing Bond’s statements to make them seem less inflammatory.
“The only issue here is what the plain text of Bond’s quoted language meant.”
Yes, that’s what I said. I mean, how many other ways can one take “Confederate swastika” to mean? Or “writing bigotry back into the Constitution”?
“No other statements he’s ever made are relevant.”
Why on earth not? The point of the thread is that the LAT left the impression that Bond only criticized President Bush once or twice before 9/11 and never after that. This is inaccurate, as is shown by putting the quote you like to use in the context of the speech he was giving. It’s understandable that you wouldn’t want to address his other statements as evidence that he wasn’t addressing a small number of Republicans but Republicans in general and their leadership in particular. It’s really quite disgraceful the way you pretend that only one sentence the man spoke is relevant when it was quite clearly part of a larger thought.
“You don’t even try to deal with the “most rabid supporters” and “nominees” qualifiers in Bond’s statements, you just ignore them and wave your hands about matters with no bearing on the topic at hand.”
I suppose you are left with this sort of obfuscation once it becomes apparent that Bond was speaking much more broadly about Republicans than just “most rabid supporters” and “nominees.” I already, in fact, did address this when I spoke of the way Democrats always describe their Republican opponents as “extremists.” It’s simply more of the same.
“Yes. Unable to defend your’s or Patterico’s characterization of Bond’s statements, you’d like me to defend a position that I’ve never taken.”
This is completely laughable and quite weak on your part. I not only defended my characterization of Bond’s statements, I added context to them and gave other examples from the same speech. Patterico’s a big boy and can defend himself. The fact that Bond has made no statements which would not be considered inflammatory also gives support to the notion that it is logical for President Bush to avoid this viper pit.
” I’ve addressed one issue in this thread – whether Bond’s July 2001 and June 2004 statements were labeling all Republicans as “rabid” or from the “Taliban wing of American politics.””
Oh, God, yes. You parsed and split that statement until it is nearly unrecognizable. But given your reading comprehension skills, I guess it makes you feel like you really FOUND something!
” If you can actually formulate an argument that they were (as opposed to simply repeating them and saying “see. he hates the GOP!!1!”), I’d be happy to read it. But since you’ve had several comments and apparently haven’t been able to even grasp the issue and its scope, I’m not very hopeful.”
Sorry your reading skills are so poor. You might try actually reading (slowly) the statements Bond has made before jumping into an argument you obviously can’t handle. I doubt it. I’m not very hopeful.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/25/2006 @ 8:21 amBTW, you are right, Desert Rat. I’m about done with “Josh,” given his inability to accept the context of Bond’s statements. Instead, he just wants to keep whining that he was ONLY talking about this ONE sentence and that providing context isn’t “addressing the argument.” Whatevah.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/25/2006 @ 8:23 amActually, it is your quote. Bond said Taliban wing of American politics. You re-wrote it as Taliban wing of the Republican party, even though (1) your re-writing hurts your argument and (2) Patterico made this very distinction in the original post. Please read more careful.
I mean, how many other ways can one take “Confederate swastika” to mean? Or “writing bigotry back into the Constitution”?
You continue to miss the point. The point is WHO Bond thinks wants to do this, Republicans as a whole or only the craziest. I’m going to have to ask that you show me that you can understand this simple distinction before I waste more time on you. That you’ve failed to address the qualifiers in Bond’s statements, and call reading the plain text of a statement “parsing beyond recognition” suggest that you’re simply incapable of anything more than mindless repetition.
Josh (d00104) — 7/25/2006 @ 9:31 amReread post 38, Josh. Here’s the link I used:
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/GOP%20Honors%20NAACP.html
I didn’t “rewrite” anything, unless you consider cutting and pasting “rewriting.” Maybe you should “read more careful” (sic).
I did not miss your point. You, however, refuse to acknowledge mine: that Bond’s statement (the one you embrace) is only part of a larger context in which he lambasted Republicans in general. As for mindless repetition, it seems it is you with the problem. Glad you won’t be droning on.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/25/2006 @ 9:55 amSharon,
Here you are in post 46: “Bond labeled his opponents “the taliban wing of the Republican party.””
That is where you got it wrong, and the post to which I was referring. Your first clue that I was responding to this particular quote was that my response immediately followed that quote. Your second clue was that I reproduced your incorrect quote.
You haven’t provided any argument for your contention that Bond’s words were meant to apply to any category of people broader than the GOP’s craziest elements. You just reproduce the quotes and say “look how bad this is!” with no analysis of the text. Here’s a quote you claim supports that proposition.
“[Bush] 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.”
Bond refers to “nominees,” the “extreme right wing,” and “Cabinet officials.” These are not synonyms for GOP, and there is no indication that he is speaking of the GOP as a whole. This quote supports my interpretation of what Bonds mean -the Administration gives undue deference to the wackiest nutjobs in the Republican party – not yours.
Josh (d00104) — 7/25/2006 @ 11:48 amJosh, how stupid are you? I have spent the last 3 posts telling you to go back to my ORIGINAL post on the subject. Gee, I’m sorry if I mispoke 12 posts later and then continued to reference my INITIAL post on the subject which quoted Bond directly.
I answered your ignorant argument that Bond was addressing only a small subset of Republicans. If you are so dumb that you want to believe it was not an attempt to smear Republicans in general, then thank God we don’t have to worry about you knowing how to use the punchout ballot in Florida.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/25/2006 @ 12:42 pmWhen you’ve got nothing of substance, I guess calling names is all you can do. How sad for you.
Josh (d00104) — 7/25/2006 @ 12:47 pmROFL coming from the guy who started it. Nice ending!
sharon (fecb65) — 7/25/2006 @ 6:57 pm