Why did the Mainstream Media Ignore This?

Published on February 4, 2006 By Dr Guy In Current Events

Julian Bond, head of the NAACP recently Spoke at Fayettevill State University. IN his speech he made the following statements:

"The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side," he charged.

He referred to former Attorney General John Ashcroft as J. Edgar Ashcroft. He compared Bush's judicial nominees to the Taliban.

characterizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, as "tokens."

Instead, the only reports in the old media, one by the Fayetteville Observer http://www.fayettevillenc.com/article?id=225604 and one by a local TV Station http://rdu.news14.com/content/school_news/?AC=&ArID=79952&SecID=136 merely noted his address without reporting the insane and hateful rhetoric.

One has to wonder why the MSM is either A: Protecting a hate monger, or B: protecting an idiot.

Or is it that his speech did not fit with their bias?

Comments (Page 2)

Rightwinger

on Feb 06, 2006

but what are you saying about Clinton? Are you suggesting that Bush has appointed more minorites to positions than Clinton?

---davad

Yes, I am. Republicans have traditionally done more for minorites than Democrats.
The Dems just take the credit and then pass laws and implement programs to not-so-subtly keep blacks in their place and easily manipulated for their votes.
Republicans have made all the major advances in minority affairs.

A few examples:

Johnson depended upon the Repubs in the House and Senate to ratify the Civil Rights Act. The Dems agreed to it, but only with provisions.

Nixon signed Affirmative Action into law.

Reagan signed off on MLK Day.

Bush 41 appointed the first black to the Supreme Court (and the Dems fought him all the way).

Bush 43 had the first important (first, period?) black Cabinet members in Powell and Rice.

Carter had no blacks on his staff, unless I'm sadly mistaken.

Clinton did have Vernon Jordan, a friend who acted as kind of a pimp for him, getting him laid, then offering lucrative job positions to the women in return for silence. Cool, huh?

Yeah, the Dems are all about minorities, alright.

davad70

on Feb 06, 2006

but what are you saying about Clinton? Are you suggesting that Bush has appointed more minorites to positions than Clinton?
---davad

Yes, I am. Republicans have traditionally done more for minorites than Democrats.
The Dems just take the credit and then pass laws and implement programs to not-so-subtly keep blacks in their place and easily manipulated for their votes.
Republicans have made all the major advances in minority affairs.

A few examples:

Johnson depended upon the Repubs in the House and Senate to ratify the Civil Rights Act. The Dems agreed to it, but only with provisions.

Nixon signed Affirmative Action into law.

Reagan signed off on MLK Day.

Bush 41 appointed the first black to the Supreme Court (and the Dems fought him all the way).

Bush 43 had the first important (first, period?) black Cabinet members in Powell and Rice.

Carter had no blacks on his staff, unless I'm sadly mistaken.

Clinton did have Vernon Jordan, a friend who acted as kind of a pimp for him, getting him laid, then offering lucrative job positions to the women in return for silence. Cool, huh?

Yeah, the Dems are all about minorities, alright.

I didn't say anything about past presidents did I? When are you going to deal with the present day and stop relying on the past? The issue is appointees of minorities....Bush VS. Clinton.

Put on your readin glasses;

And Bush's overall record of diversity pales when compared to the standard set by his predecessor, President Bill Clinton, for filling the roughly 2,800 political posts that form a presidential administration.

Blacks held 7 percent of administration jobs under Bush, less than half of the 16 percent they held under Clinton, the snapshot shows. Women won 36 percent of Bush's appointments, noticeably fewer than the 44 percent of Clinton's.

Overall, the Bush administration gave more than half, 54 percent, of its political positions to white men. Clinton awarded 57 percent of his jobs to women and minorities.

The snapshot does confirm Bush's claim that he has assembled the most diverse cabinet and top-level officials requiring Senate approval of any Republican president, creating a profile that nears the record-setting diversity of Clinton.

But it also shows that just below those highly visible positions -- in the hundreds of little known but important appointments to senior executive posts that don't need Senate confirmation -- the diversity of the Bush administration fades.

Under Clinton, women held 43 percent and blacks 13 percent of the senior executive posts, and 45 percent went to white men. Under Bush, women won just 24 percent and blacks 6 percent of the jobs, and 66 percent went to white men.

Take, for instance, the Department of Education, headed by Rod Paige, the black former chief of Houston's public schools, whose appointment Bush often mentions.

Paige's 18-member top-level team -- deputy secretary, undersecretary and assistant secretaries -- was quite diverse. A third were minorities and more than half women. Less than a quarter were white men.

But of his 22 senior executives -- chiefs of staff, deputy assistant secretaries and advisers -- only three, or 14 percent, were minorities and just a third women. And 60 percent were white men.

Those are among the findings from the first independent review to examine the claims of diversity by Bush and Clinton, based on an analysis of federal personnel records for September 2000 and September 2002.

In his speech to minority journalists, Bush charged that Senate Democrats were blocking his attempts to diversify the federal bench.

The Democrats have filibustered votes on 10 of Bush's judicial nominees, which include a Hispanic man, a black woman and two white women.

Yet overall, Bush has nominated fewer blacks and women than Clinton -- a third of his candidates compared with more than half of Clinton's.

Sheldon Goldman, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and an authority on federal judicial selection, credits Bush for embracing diversity.

But, he said, the Bush administration has focused more on finding candidates with a conservative philosophy like the one held by Thomas

Link

Where his predecessor, George Bush, could find only one qualified woman, one African-American and two Hispanics for his Cabinet, Clinton nominated three black men, a black woman and two Hispanic men to join nine white Cabinet nominees — three of them women. George W. Bush’s push for diversity in his own Cabinet this year can be seen as an affirmation of Clinton’s work on that front.

Link

Gene Nash

on Feb 07, 2006

Bush 41 appointed the first black to the Supreme Court (and the Dems fought him all the way).

Two words: Thurgood Marshall.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

Funny how we never heard from race watchdog groups about things like that during his reign, ain't it?

No, Just sad. Sad that the black leadership has sold their soul back into slavery. This time to the democrat party.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

And why are they allowed to refer to a black American who made it in politics, even though it was difficult, as a "token"?

And worse. They are using a lot worse against Michael Steele (Republican running in Maryland for the senate seat). The simple answer is that they are being programmed and told what to say by a very racist democrat party that is trying to use race to keep the blacks in line. When one strays to the republicans, they are then labeled a token, Uncle tom, Aunt Jemima, or worse.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

Are you suggesting that Bush has appointed more minorites to positions than Clinton?

I think he is suggesting just that. At least to meaningful positions.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

Are you suggesting that "they" shouldn't be given freedom of expression as dictated in the first amendment?

Are you suggesting that no one can them call them for their hate speech?

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

I am wondering why the NAACP of all people feel that they don't have to respect the advancement of coloured people. I would have thought that their house rules were more clear on the subject.

There are many things wrong with the NAACP. First, it is not an organization of Colored people (as its name indicates) as they exclude hispanics, asians and indians. Second, they only allow liberal colored people to join. Third, they practice exactly what they use to preach against.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

Why would the hatemongers in the MSM work to expose one of their own? ;~D

Well, they are supposed to at least try to maintain a veneer of objectivity. Although it is clear they are incapable of getting beyond their own prejudice.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

As a conservative, you should never bring up the term "house rules".

He is not American, and therefore does not have to worry about Rostenkowski and Trafficant.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

I guess all those facts are irrelevant.

It is when it comes to the democrats and the black leadership.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

Put on your readin glasses;

Put yours on. Other than the SCOTUS statement, he is correct. HOw many of all those political plums were decision making ones? Sure, blacks got a lot of the 2800. Mostly do nothing jobs for payback, but nothing of substance.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

Two words: Thurgood Marshall.

Noted. Lest we forget.

davad70

on Feb 07, 2006

You're full of it, as usual. Federal Judges are "do nothing" positions? Cabinet members are "do nothing" positions?

Even if they were "do nothing" positions as you falsely claim, I asked him very specifically if he's saying Bush appointed more minorities than Clinton and he sais yes, which is a lie.

but what are you saying about Clinton? Are you suggesting that Bush has appointed more minorites to positions than Clinton?
---davad

Yes, I am.

davad70

on Feb 07, 2006

He is not American, and therefore does not have to worry about Rostenkowski and Trafficant.

There's a little dust on those names, can't you come up with anyone recently?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!