Willfully Misleading, or Stunningly Ignorant?


Oh That

Liberal Media, Jul. 9

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


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

s for a moment and ask Patterico/Oh, That Liberal Media 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


(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


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 ic on which they

chose to opine.


Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.

Comments are closed.