The New York Times, in its special way of imputing vaguely sinister motives to benign phenomena, takes issue with President Bush’s pronunciation of N-A-A-C-P, “attracting some notice from those who use the more traditional pronunciation of N-double-A-C-P.” They don’t say who, or why. I also enjoyed John Lewis’s statement that he was disappointed Bush hadn’t mentioned the
Bush should have stayed away from the NAACP the rest of his term, in the hopes that the organization would either die of neglect or reconstitute itself along constructive ends. Instead, he went to visit a group that has slandered him mercilessly for six years, not even demanding an apology or retraction as a condition for his doing so. In his speech, Bush declared that he wants to “change the relationship” between Republicans and blacks, but the audience made clear that the relationship changing was a one-way street: they cheered the parts they liked and booed the parts they didn’t (his mention of charter schools).
Like many others before him, Bush grants to the NAACP and their ilk the right to make any accusation, however baseless, while the responsibility for proving innocence is his. Sounds like White Guilt">White Guilt to me.
