Julian Bond vs Pat Robertson

How come when Pat Robertson makes an "inappropriate" comment it makes front page news? But let NAACP leader Julian Bond make an inflammatory comment and it is ignored?

Pat Robertson is an evangelical preacher best known as the host of "The 700 Club." In 1988, he was one of the large group running for the Republican presidential nomination. He's a political conservative, associated in the public mind with the Republican party, and generally a marginal figure. The vast majority of Republicans do not consider Pat Robertson to speak for them.

Julian Bond is a former Democratic representative in Georgia and a long-time civil rights activist. He has been, for the past seven years, the chairman of the NAACP, the largest civil rights organization in the country, an organization that is overwhelmingly supportive of Democrats, an organization which virtually all Democratic public officials treat with great respect at all times.

When Pat Robertson advocated assassinating Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, that warranted an AP story. When Robertson commented on Ariel Sharon's stroke being a punishment for the Israeli peace process, it warranted another. When Robertson opens his mouth and makes stupid and/or offensive comments, the media reports it, and Republicans have to stand up and defend Robertson or distance themselves from him. There's generally a drumbeat in the media to force him to apologize.

But when the chairman of the NAACP, Julian Bond, stands in front of a universiry audience and equates the Republican Party to Nazis, calls the current and former Secretarys of State "tokens" and compares the President's judicial nominees to the Taliban, the AP doesn't deem that newsworthy. No one asks any Democratic officials about the comments. No has to stand up and defend Bond, no one has to distance themselves from him. No apologies are forthcoming, and none are requested/demanded.

This is a classic example of "left wing bias" in the media.

Julian Bond calling black Republicans "tokens" is about as racist as you can get.

newsbusters.org...

mod edit to use "ex" tags instead of "quote" tags
Quote Reference.
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

[edit on 4-4-2006 by sanctum]

Well, the sole response to your thread may be a clue. Liberals don't want to air their dity laundry in the open even when it stinks to high heaven. They call conservatives hypocrites and yet commit the same sins-even against the very people they say they love and promote. Liars. A black person is not "black" if he/she does not tote the dem party line....................................................................................................

By the way, you are correct.

When black republicans are treated as tokens/tools used only to divide the black vote who then becomes the bigger racist? There is no bigger racist they are all racist. But, those that think black folk will vote for a black face just because its a black face want to point fingers ???

Must we go back to the Obama/Keyes issue. The republicans had to go all the way to Maryland to dig a black face out of their bag, and why? So they can turn around and say Democrats are racist--when they went as far as calling Obama a different kind of black american.

Both sides are guilty so what is the point of bringing up these issues? Does it make liberals look worse than republicans--or republicans than liberals--they are two sides of the same coin playing by the same rules.

and there you go, E. you got me back in PTS.

edit: the media is bias...toward all things that are divisive.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by Saphronia]

Originally posted by Saphronia
When black republicans are treated as tokens/tools used only to divide the black vote who then becomes the bigger racist? There is no bigger racist they are all racist. But, those that think black folk will vote for a black face just because its a black face want to point fingers ???

Must we go back to the Obama/Keyes issue. The republicans had to go all the way to Maryland to dig a black face out of their bag, and why? So they can turn around and say Democrats are racist--when they went as far as calling Obama a different kind of black american.

Both sides are guilty so what is the point of bringing up these issues? Does it make liberals look worse than republicans--or republicans than liberals--they are two sides of the same coin playing by the same rules.

My fine Saphronia, I think the point was simply that the mainstream, network media do give more effort to pointing up Christian/conservatives who put their feet in their mouths than many of the opposite group.

My mother knows Julian Bond and I've been lucky to meet many people like him, but the feeling of many blacks is that our "leaders" in our community are not truly advancing us, but stifling our growth in this country by constantly playing the ideological card (racism) to stoke the fire. If Rice, Watts, Thomas, Sowell; Swan (Lynn), Keyes and even Bill Cosby would not have to respond constanty to the question- "How can you be black and think like that" question i.e., the Joiner show(like being consv is against being black) , I think a real conversation may be had between the two ideas that could lead to a truer coming together than the hoped for radilcalism/revolution some I believe wish for. The sixties came and went. This world today is about a DIFFERENT type of survival.

And, concerning Mr. Obama. I think it was the Dems who first touted him as a New Democrat in that he was touted to be a centrist and moderate who could challenge Repubs nationally, hence all of the hoopla about his possible future prospects nationally for the party.


Alll LLLove

[edit on 4-4-2006 by Tyriffic]