  Sylvester Brown Jr. is a columnist with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. In an article entitled urlLink Kudos to Bush for not playing nice with NAACP Brown has a number of thoughtful things to say about the President's decision not to attend the NAACP conference. Brown is no fan of Bush, saying "Lying about the war and allowing rich cronies to profit from its aftermath is reason enough to boot him back to private life. " But, as he points out, Bush had absolutely no reason to attend the meeting, given the avowed anti-Bush, anti-Republican stance of the NAACP. While Brown cites Julian Bond's infamous attacks on the GOP as appealing "to the dark underside of American culture," of wanting to see the "American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side" and saying that Bush practices "racial division" one can also go back to the 2000 election, in which the NAACP accused Bush of creating an atmosphere in Texas that led to the murder of James Bird. Brown goes to cite Bush's statement about why he is not attending ("You've heard the rhetoric and the names they've called me.
I would describe my relationship with the current leadership as basically nonexistent. ") and refer to it as: [A] refreshing, nonpolitical response. Basically, the president said, "Hey, they don't like me. I don't like them. Why should I kiss up to an organization that opposes my party and my politics? " That would be a legitimate question. Another question is why the NAACP leaders even expected Bush to attend their conference given the way they've treated him. Exactly. Brown then comments on Kerry's appearance writing: Under his leadership, Kerry promised, the door would always be open for dialogue with black leaders and Democrats would respect and respond to the needs and issues of black voters. What needs? What issues? Kerry made minor promises based on his assessment of black needs. He committed to nothing substantial because NAACP leaders demanded nothing of substance. Exactly, again.
Prominent members of the black community (like Julian Bond and Kweisi Mfume) have over the years warned the Democrats not to take African-American support for granted. But why not? These "leaders" throw their support behind Dems reflexively. Polls have shown that on many issues (cultural issues, issues of education, even broad economic issues) the mass of African-American voters is in synch with the basics of the GOP.
Simply put, blacks are more conservative than not. If their "leaders" realized this, and used it to win GOP support for their causes, they would stand a better chance of success than they currently do, tied to a party that believes that all it need do is throw a few crumbs to the likes of the NAACP. The Republican message of self-help, self-empowerment, traditional values, and personal choice tempered by self-control should be a winner. It is only because of a leadership that is mired in the past and the message of dependence and victimhood that they spread, that it does not. Until the black leadership is more willing to actually listen to the Republican Party and its message, why should the President waste his time? (I found this article linked from urlLink Midwest Conservative Journal ) 
