No. 1923 on why the NAACP gets on my nerves

NAACP President Julian Bond

The black organization that baffles me the most, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is calling for the Democratic National Convention to change its mind and seat the delegates Dean and the boys stripped from Michigan and Florida.

In a Feb. 8 letter to DNC Chairman Howard Dean, NAACP chairman Julian Bond expressed “great concern at the prospect that million of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted.” Refusing to seat the states’ delegations could remind voters of the “sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries,” he said.

They say they’re just representing their constituencies and that the NAACP has not endorsed any presidential endorsement.

I call bullshit and shenanigans. Why, NAACP? The same organization that is lethargic on every issue that is hurting the black community suddenly stirs itself from their regular nap on sacks o’ money to lobby Howard Dean for Florida and Michigan’s delegates. Even the Reverend Al is all, “Oh no they didn’t!

Seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at the Democratic National Convention would be a grave injustice, the Rev. Al Sharpton said Wednesday in a break with prominent civil rights leaders.

”I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic Party’s rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice,” Sharpton said in a letter to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

”As former presidential candidates we both know that, whether we liked them or not, we adhered to the rules set forth by the Democratic Party to select its nominee for president.”

The NAACP tried to argue that it was about black Floridans who may disenfranchised by the loss of delegates, but Al saw through that and pointed out where was the outrage, Julian Bond, when the DNC stripped Florida of its delegates in the first place? Where was the NAACP then?

”That claim, if true, should have been made many months ago before the decision was made to strip these states of their delegates, and, once the decision was made, it should have been vigorously objected to and contested by those who felt it disenfranchised voters,” Sharpton wrote. ”To raise that claim now smacks of politics in its form most raw and undercuts the moral authority behind such an argument.”

I find this all HIGHLY suspicious. Why is the NAACP suddenly pushing for a rule change in the middle of the game? Why are they concerned about disenfranchised voters now when the DNC pulled the jack move on them in 2007? I repeat, where was the outrage then, Julian? What the hizzell is going on?

14 thoughts on “No. 1923 on why the NAACP gets on my nerves

  1. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The NAACP for years now has been doing almost nothing of real substance to Advance the lives of Colored People. Now, they’ve decided to actually work against black folks and their OVERWHELMING desire to see Obama win! This deserves a Blog-cott!!! I’m creating this term (at least I think I’m creating it) here and now to protest what has sadly become the irrelevance and counterproductiveness of the National Association of for the Advancement of Colored People.

  2. Finally someone that agrees with me and the one in St. Louis has got to be the worst chapter I’ve seen, always upfront and speaking about the things that only benefit them. I don’t even want to get started on them because it may cause me lose my mind!

  3. The St. Louis chapter is a nightmare. I cannot emphasize enough how snooty, counter-productive and irrelevant the NAACP is. It is a hollow, broken shell compared to the broke NAACP of old that protested against racist stereotypes (“Amos and Andy,” “Birth of A Nation”) and took Jim Crow to the Supreme Court.Former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, one of those broke black NAACP attorneys who challenged “Separate but equal” by taking it to the Supreme Court, said in his book “Dream Makers, Dream Breaks” that the NAACP he knew did more with nothing than the well-heeled, discombobulated NAACP of today.He all but alluded that the group had sold itself out to corporate interests.They used to be about pride. Now it’s all about “Pass the check, please.” A place for the so-called black elite to give out awards and feel good about themselves, bitching because George W. didn’t want to acknowledge them with a visit. Bitching when anyone refused to pay fealty to them when they haven’t done jack shit worth acknowledging in decades.Giving out awards does not get our brothers and sisters off of drugs. Throwing fancy dinner parties does not address the inequity in prison sentences for black men. I cannot emphasize enough my anger towards this once proud organization. But now this thing with the delegates? Why don’t they just endorse Hillary already and be done with it? But you know they won’t. They are cowards who don’t want to lose their cred now that the people have spoken in primary after primary as pro-Obama. They don’t want to be caught on the wrong side of history, but they don’t want to lose their waining influence and backing by the white Liberal establishment.Never mind that the white Liberal establishment (Um … Ted Kennedy anyone? John Kerry?) has endorsed Obama.If any organization needs to be marginalized so something more progressive can develop it is the NAACP.They just suck. They suck big giant balls. I just can’t say it enough. Folks are dying of AIDS and can’t get their health care and they’re giving Image Awards to R. Kelly.They suck!

  4. I am glad that someone feels the same way that I do. The amount of “COONING” that is going on sickens me to NO END! With certain members of the CBC I can see the paternalistic patronage in effect (i.e., Reps. Rangel, Lewis, and St. Louis native Maxine Waters…which really hurt) like slaves that don’t want to leave the plantation “’cause they don’t know what they would without ol’ Massa Colonel Bill and Miss Hillary”…to see Julian Bond a man and figure I had a deep respect for is just disheartening and disillusioning.The rift between generations continues as those who “marched with Dr. King” drown themselves in the waters of self-righteousness and cast a blind eye to the very spirit of change they were willing to sacrifice for in their youth.Much respect with your blog…I also appreciate your kind words about my own blog. Yours in struggle,Negro Intellectual

  5. So let me get this straight, you and I probably agree on the relevance of the NAACP, but are you saying that the voters of Florida and Michigan are irrelevant also? Yes, things should never have gotten to the point where the DNC did what they did, but are you telling me that rules and regulations of the party are more important than the rights of individual people?

  6. Curious: I get your point. But my criticism is really all about the NAACP and their motives. I never understood the logic of the DNC ganking Florida and Michigan’s delegates. It was essentially an asshat moment. I merely find Bond’s sudden desire to fight for the disenfranchised in Michigan and Florida to be suspect, considering he raised no sort of hell when the injustice initially occurred. I do believe that Michigan and Florida deserve a voice. And if the NAACP is truly concerned I say let’s find a solution. But if this is a jack move to give someone an advantage I just can’t condone it. The DNC made these ridiculous rules. Now we have to work them out.Personally, I think the DNC should divide the delegates evenly between Clinton and Obama so there is representation of those states without unfairly awarding Clinton a win in states her competitors did not campaign in. I say if you can’t flip a re-vote, seat the delegates. Divvy them up by the popular vote percentages and spend 2008 kissing ass in Florida to make up for the asshatery.Negro Intellectual: Yeah. I don’t really get what’s going on with Grandma and Grandpa Civil Rights either. I love ’em to death, but, yeah, I just don’t get it. We either fight together or perish separately as fools. No big or anything.

  7. Curious:I would argue that Florida and Michigan are the ones who made their votes irrelevant. You cannot seriously be arguing that the non-vote that took place in those states should count. There was no campaigning, no real engagement with those states voters about issues specific to them, and Obama’s name didn’t even appear on the Michigan ballot.Of course this is all beside the point. The ONLY reason this is an issue is because Clinton is down and those 2 quasi-elections would help tip the scale in her direction. It’s dishonest, plain and simple. Anyone arguing for those delegates to be awarded on the basis of the unbelievably flawed elections that were held is either an unethical Clinton supporter or a person who clearly misunderstands the basic idea of elections.

  8. TheBlue:I put it to you that the actual people of Michigan and Florida had nothing to do with setting primary election dates. They had nothing to do with who campaigned there or not and they had nothing to do with whoever did or did not place their names on the ballots. Should they then be punished?My argument is not about the NAACP, the reverend AL or even whether either candidate will benefit from delegates as selected from either state. In fact if I can remember, Clinton said from the start she would try to have delegates seated from both states. Perhaps if all candidates had campaigned at the time and said the same thing there wouldn’t be an issue today.My argument is that there are people out there who the DNC has failed to find or show their true representative poliical posiion. My argument is that in order not to go through the disenfranchisemet label again of 8 years ago, these people and their concerns need to be addressed.BTW try not to let your age show. Your argument is slightly personal in its assumptions.

  9. There will likely be some backlash from Mr. Bond’s decision to send that letter. I hope that backlash doesn’t create an even larger rift between “Grandma and Grandpa civil rights” and the youth. I don’t understand them myself so I can imagine how people even younger than me feel. This all could have been avoided so easily. Why didn’t Mr. Bond use his organization to pressure the Dems not to do what they did in Florida and Mass from the outset of the race. Doing it now is inexcusable.

  10. It is questionable if the NAACP has acted in the interest of colored folk for a long time. They are the latest in a long line of people who are tied to the old paradigm of “We Shall Overcome” and black victimhood who do NOT want to see their “hustle” go away. Obama represents a new generation of black politicians who did NOT rise up through the civil rights ranks.

  11. Wow. I didn’t know so many people found the NAACP lacking. I think all those King Day pageants and Image Awards lulled me into a sense that other blacks still found the group useful.The group definitely needs to update its tactics. I hear there’s this thing called the internet and text messaging now. They might want to look into it.And I’ll never be able to say it enough, having a funeral for the N-word was corny.

  12. In every culture you will have a civil war or split. Its time of African Americans to cut ties with the NAACP. But for the sake of arguement, Julian Bond has NO business using the name and weight of the NAACP to make such a grand standing political move. By doing this, it can and will be perceived that the NAACP is effectively endorsing Hillary Clinton.Bond and Clinton should have raised this issue long before it was painfully obvious that doing so would give a clear advantage to Clinton. When she was the favorite back in July when the rules were set, and every candidate agreed, we heard NOTHING, now she’s in the fight for the nomination, everybody is concerned about the “disinfranchised voter”. The NAACP could easily be interpreted as a backhanded way of endorsing Senator Clinton. By backhanded, I am referring to the notion that any attempts to not seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida can be boiled down to racial discrimination. If the NAACP truly wanted to speak up for minorities voting rights, they should have written a letter to the Michigan Democratic Party (on July 2007)asking them to schedule a Democratic caucus so that Michigan’s delegates could have a seat at the Democratic National Convention.Now if you ask me, that is some backhanded $h!t and now Hillary has the NAACP co-signing this nonsense…

  13. Curious:The question of whether or not the people of Michigan and Florida should or should not be punished is a moot one. They already have. In fact, the greater injury to the people of these states would be to seat those imperfectly chosen delegates since a large percentage of folks in each state have already said that they stayed home — they thought their votes wouldn’t count.So, seating the delegates now would present at best an imperfect representation of the will of those people; at worst, it would be a deliberate attempt to steal the election by purposely seating fundamentally skewed election results. It’s as close to stuffing ballot boxes as one is likely to get. And if Clinton has been saying from the start that the delegates should be seated then she has been doing so at such low volume that it’s as good as saying nothing at all. Common sense should prevail here. To most people’s ears this sounds an awful lot like sour grapes. The Clintons have had their moments and those of us who are so inclined have thanked them quite a bit.It would be tragic for them to squat like so many stubborn boulders in the path of progress that Barack is trying to blaze. Even me and my rickety, old, 29 year-old body can see that.

Leave a Reply

Back to top
%d bloggers like this: