This ought to be good
Remember just after hurricane Katrina last year, when one poll indicated that Bush's approval rating among blacks was around 2 percent? Today Bush is going to address the NAACP, after declining to do so for five years in a row.
Why, all of a sudden, is Bush willing to address a group that despises him - and that he apparently despises? Could it be because the Senate is about to renew the Voting Rights Act, which affects blacks primarily? Could it also be because this is a midterm election year, and Republicans are afraid of losing Congress to the black-friendly Democrats?
The official word from the White House, of course, is that Bush wants to address the NAACP to show his commitment to civil rights. You know, just like he's committed to world peace, democracy, the environment, the economy, the Constitution, education, and catching Osama bin Laden.
In an embarrassingly revealing slip of the brain, White House press secretary Tony Snow said, "It is clear that in this nation, racism and discrimination are legally unacceptable..."
Legally unacceptable? What about morally and ethically? If the law is the only barrier between civil rights and racism, it's a flimsy barrier indeed, because Bush has about as much respect for the law as he does for civil rights.
Continuing his audition for an appearance on Saturday Night Live, Snow said, "I think the president wants to make his voice heard. He has an important role to play not only in making the case for civil rights but, maybe more importantly, the case for unity."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/20/bush.naacp.ap/index.html
posted by Editor at Large at 8:07 AM
7 Comments:
Considering Bush has appointed the most racially diverse staff in White House history, I'd say your points are moot.
Doug: While we applaud your willingness to test your faith in Bush by visiting this mootly pointed site, we have to agree with Exigent's implicit point that Bush hired his "racially diverse staff" in order to avoid appearing racist. He's a veritable master at appearing to be what he's not, and vice-versa.
What does an ultra-conservative Christian like him understand about civil rights?
He thinks he's all "tolerant" and such because he appointed Condi!
I get the impression that the only civil rights he respects are for white, Christian, men, who are straight, and anti-science and anti-intellectual.
Women? Nope, inferior, in his brain(if he even has one).
Gay people? Nope.
Atheists? He probably hates them as well.
Muslims? Of course, he probably loathes them.
Intellectuals? Nope. Bush has no respect towards intellectuals.
Bush does support one Black cause, though. Oil. Black oil. Lots of it. At higher prices.
How can you keep oil prices high to legitimize record profits for the oil companies? By stirring up trouble and destabilizing the Mideast.
Oh, you meant black PEOPLE, huh? Dubya will have to ask one of his staff what his current, up to the minute policy is on "Darkies" and their right to exist in his Whitopian world view.
Ben: We see how you got your nickname. How naughty of you to speak the truth!
Sorry to hear about that heat wave in Kansas. We're having a scorcher here today and tomorrow, but we're expected to hit "only" 100 degrees or so.
Just imagine how warm it would be if global warming were a reality!
Doug Van Sant looks to be of the right age that he could be over in Iraq fighting for his bimbo Bush.
But Doug Van Sant is a coward. Doug Van Sant is a self-absorbed pretty boy, and thinks that parroting the far right is something patriotic. Doug Van Sant is wrong, and Doug Van Sant needs to stop drinking the neocon kool aid.
Actually I know Doug Van Sant, and I know him to be a thinking Reep...even if I don't agree with him and I am not sure as of yet where he gets his facts. I do know that he does support diversity and the rights of gay people, being one of them myself. Calling a person names because we think their beliefs are awry is not mature and not helpful.
Post a Comment
<< Home