NAACP and Bush?

[Monkeyleg]

The NAACP held its annual convention in Milwaukee this week. Not a day went by when at least one speaker at the convention bashed Bush for not showing.

But why should he? The group has been bashing Bush since the 2000 elections. Remember the James Byrd ads?  The group openly accused Bush of supporting "hate crimes." (BTW, I loved the moment in the 2000 debates when Gore brought up that issue, and Bush essentially said, "what more do you expect us to do? We're going to execute the guys who did it").

Julian Bond has been constantly using the most vitriolic language to describe Bush.

The press has been harping on the fact that Bush is the first president in nearly a century to not address the NAACP. But I can't remember the group ever being so openly hostile to a president.

Why should Bush go to the convention and be publicly humiliated?

[Standing Wolf]

The more shrilly the leftist extremists screech and snivel and whine, the less seriously the nation takes them.

I've no doubt some of Bush's predecessors have wanted to ignore the N.A.A.C.P., but lacked the courage to do so.

[jefnvk]

Well, unless he is pushing to legalize killing blacks, I don't see how he is promoting hate crimes.

Unless they are refering to people refusing to make any white-on-black crime a hate crime, regardless if it was hate motivated.  Which is stupid.