Prometheus 6

this is an example of that process? two candidates deciding to skip out?

This is the beginning of the process. Yes.

but not necessarily a bad deal...after all, if there is no dialogue on the front end, there is no vetting of views - and no consideration of audience...which means what?? that the brokers of votes are not national organizations - but rather local and regional collectives to which rudy and romney are less likely to decline invitations. thoughts?

I thought that they just didn't want to go talk to the niggaz this early in the process. They would prefer to wait until they secure the nomination and nobody in their base cares or is paying too much attention to who they talk to. Morial's efforts to distinguish the Urban League from the NAACP in the wake of Guiliani and Romney declining his invitations are sad and pitiable. 

What about the Tavis debate?

I'm not shocked by either one of them. I'd ask ROmney about belonging to a religion that said, up until 1978 that the only way Blacks would get into heaven were as slaves.

 As for Rudy? Amadu Diallo, Abner Louima, etc.

I understand where you're coming from Rikyrah but I think asking questions of the type that you propose are a dead end trap for the following reasons: (1) Romney is sufficiently nimble to state that the Church of Latter Day Saints's doctrine on the salvation of black people's souls and other matters has changed; (2) Romney and 99.999 percent of all Mormons play absolutely no role in setting the Church's doctrine; (3) Romney will state that he is not a bigot and will challenge you and others to prove otherwise; (4) you will need to explain the fact that there are black members of the Church of Latter Day Saints who will be brought forward to exclaim that there is no racial bigotry in their church; (5) Romney's policy proposals are toxic to the great majority of African Americans so what he and other Mormons believe about the disposition of our souls after we are dead and buried is largely irrelevant; (6) Romney's decline of the Urban League's invitation tells us much more about him than what his acceptance would have revealed; and (7), what would a visit to the Urban League's convention tell us about Romney and especially Giuliani that we already don't know and haven't marked down for posterity?

What about the Tavis debate?

What Tavis Smiley and other media personalities and political groups stage are not debates in any recognized meaning of this word. I could be wrong, although I doubt it, but I don't think there has been a genuine political debate broadcast on American television since 1964 or 1965 when James Baldwin and William F. Buckley debated the question of whether the American Dream has been achieved at the expense of the American Negro at Oxford University in England.

What our presidential candidates do instead of debating, in my opinion, is to answer predigested and preformed questions from interrogators who have been picked precisely for the fact that they will not go out of bounds. A real debate would mean actually taking up an important question, say, the American War in Iraq, and arguing the pros and cons of this policy in the same damn way we did in high school and college about Vietnam. 

Every Black person that wishes death on the N.A.A.C.P. must realize that if the N.A.A.C.P. is discredited it's mission will be as well. And if its mission is discredited so will be every organization that shares it. And the process is well under way.

and collective Black evolution would be disserved how, if this comes to pass?

The urban league is an umbrella over 105 independant affiliate organizations. Each one of the affiliates is independantly chartered and locally run, including having its own local directorate.

The heterogeneity of this collective is astounding, with some local orgs being sleepy charities with little measurable impact, and others being entrepreneurially run so as to incubate and effectuate local economic development.

When was the last time you talked with the president of your local chapter? If for no other reason than to guage the vitality and utility of the organization to Black folks in NYC and to make an informed determination of whether to volunteer or become a member?

Could obviate this notion and lend creedance to this one.

At the very least it underscores this one;

that the brokers of votes are not national organizations - but rather local and regional collectives to which rudy and romney are less likely to decline invitations. thoughts?

I'm actually trying to get other folk's opinion more than giving my own (since mine is already neatly encapsulated and distributed).

However, there are some things you ought to know.

The urban league is an umbrella over 105 independant affiliate organizations. Each one of the affiliates is independantly chartered and locally run, including having its own local directorate.

The heterogeneity of this collective is astounding, with some local orgs being sleepy charities with little measurable impact, and others being entrepreneurially run so as to incubate and effectuate local economic development.

This is also true of the N.A.A.C.P., except there are a lot more N.A.A.C.P. branches.

The reason there are so many more N.A.A.C.P. branches is that it cost much more to become a National Urban League affiliate.

MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING AN URBAN LEAGUE AFFILIATE
· Community needs assessment conducted by the local sponsoring
group.
· The names of candidates for the Board of Directors with biographical
data, to ensure that the board meets the standards set forth above.
· Evidence of broad community support, an economy capable of
sustaining an Urban League affiliate, and a significant African
American population with needs aligned to the National Urban
League mission.
· A projected operating budget of at least $500,000 per year for three
consecutive years.
· Evidence that the affiliate has raised the revenue or firmly secured the
commitments to meet the minimal $1.5 million operating budget over
its initial three years of operation.
· A non-refundable processing fee of $5,000.
· A $45,000 application fee due upon approval of affiliation by the
National Urban League Committee on Programs and Affiliates.

The N.A.A.C.P.'s site has been reorganized since last I looked up how to start a branch. It's still pricey but WAY less than starting an NUL affiliate.

Finally, for now

that the brokers of votes are not national organizations - but rather local and regional collectives to which rudy and romney are less likely to decline invitations. thoughts?

Even if the spirit were willing, which I doubt, they'd be a lot MORE likely to turn down 150 invitations to speak to small groups than 1 invitation that encompasses and subsumes them all. 

Local NAACP affiliates cannot engage in many types of political activities without national board approval. I'd say "all" but ˆ'm not sure if this is right. If I understand the description of the Urban League here, local Urban League chapters are not under the same constraints.

Have either of them ever gone before?

In terms of votes and influence, what did Bush going to the NAACP do for him?

What are the chances of an Urban League endorsement?

What are the chances of getting campaign talent?

What are the chances of raising funds?

What are the chances of an Urban League endorsement?

None, but a candidate who is sufficiently winning and impressive can secure the support and endorsements of individuals attending these events. In addition, if the candidate's staff follows up on these initial contacts or introductions, the candidate is in a good position to enlist the help of these individuals in securing the endorsements, perhaps, of other groups these individuals may belong to or the endorsements of people living in their respective local areas.

A campaign that is serious about doing its outreach work and building relationships for the future would invest money and time in this effort. It is not that expensive or complicated to pull off at all. 

What are the chances of getting campaign talent?

Difficult. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans have invested much effort in trying to recruit, train and encourage black political campaign talent. This omission is especially glaring among Democrats. Black elected officials at almost any level have done little or nothing to promote the development of black political technicians and consultants. You may see, for example, a large number of blacks doing "outreach" work but very few if any blacks running direct mail campaigns, designing campaign brochures, writing scripts for radio ads, producing television commercials etc.

When I was in the business of the care and feeding of politicians I quickly discovered that white liberals and black candidates, for example, wanted me to give them advice about reaching the black community but they didn't want to pay me. The only exception I can recall was Clint Reilly in California. 

What are the chances of raising funds?

The chances are good if you enlist the assistance of the right people in the black community. 

If I understand the description of the Urban League here, local Urban League chapters are not under the same constraints.

This is correct.

A five minute conversation with an Urban League affiliate president will quickly dispel any and all possible apples and oranges comparisons between the UL and the NAACP. Franchise cost is only one of several factors rendering the comparison deeply flawed.

Even if the spirit were willing, which I doubt, they'd be a lot MORE likely to turn down 150 invitations to speak to small groups than 1 invitation that encompasses and subsumes them all.

The one invitation categorically DOES NOT encompass or subsume a meaningful % of the affiliates.  The UL is simply not a command network...,

The urban league is an umbrella over 105 independant affiliate organizations. Each one of the affiliates is independantly chartered and locally run, including having its own local directorate.

The heterogeneity of this collective is astounding, with some local orgs being sleepy charities with little measurable impact, and others being entrepreneurially run so as to incubate and effectuate local economic development.

This is also true of the N.A.A.C.P., except there are a lot more N.A.A.C.P. branches.

This is factually incorrect. First, that ridiculous NAACP national megaboard is comprised of branch officials with an arcane lifetime rotation structure.

Second, no NAACP branch is entrepreneurially run.

Third, no NAACP branch is focused on economic development.

Forth, local NAACP officials are accountable to the national directorate.

UL affiliates are only locally accountable.

UL affiliates are only locally accountable.

 If real grassroots networks are built from local conditions up, then this model is far better than that of the NAACP. Bond talks about how the NAACP is a social justice organization. Battling subjugation in a majority black city like Detroit is much different than battling it in Los Angeles.

If real grassroots networks are built from local conditions up, then this model is far better than that of the NAACP.

Our collective condition is such that we need any and all models to work effectively.

"Black cat, yellow cat. As long as it catches mice" 

Our collective condition is such that we need any and all models to work effectively.

And those models that don't work effectively should be discarded. Because we don't have enough resources to waste. 

UL affiliates are only locally accountable.

If real grassroots networks are built from local conditions up, then this model is far better than that of the NAACP. Bond talks about how the NAACP is a social justice organization. Battling subjugation in a majority black city like Detroit is much different than battling it in Los Angeles.

I din't say a dang thang about grassroots...., if the model were extended to encompass somewhat more of the grassroots, it would be a whole lot better and more effective. to your point, however, from every example I've personally encountered, it's more vital and thriving than the NAACP.

which brings us back full circle to the question begged up top;

Every Black person that wishes death on the N.A.A.C.P. must realize that if the N.A.A.C.P. is discredited it's mission will be as well. And if its mission is discredited so will be every organization that shares it. And the process is well under way.

What has changed since 2004 when Dub went and addressed the National Urban League? Why assume that the "mission" has been discredited at all, rather than assume that some other factor(s) are at play?

If we agree that the NAACP and the UL have very different missions and structures, and the UL was in good graces three years ago, what changed? What came out of the 2004 rapproachment between GOP and UL "deciders", and how might this have factored into the present "snub"?

And those models that don't work effectively should be discarded. Because we don't have enough resources to waste.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that all of these models are made up of tens of thousands of real human beings who find some sense of affirmation and purpose through their membership and participation, actively or passively, with these organizations. The NAACP may not function in a way that we find propitious to our collective needs but for tens of thousands of older, middle class black women, for example, it does. We can't harness their energy and resources by urging them to discard an organization that is part of their lifeblood.

The NAACP may not function in a way that we find propitious to our collective needs but for tens of thousands of older, middle class black women, for example, it does. We can't harness their energy and resources by urging them to discard an organization that is part of their lifeblood.

The first part of the sentence is the one that is important. If it does not function we discard it. I'm not telling someone's grandmother what to do with her time unless I am asked. WE discard it.

For what it is worth I don't think this move by Romney and Giuliani should be understood as anything more than the normal numbers calculus. Romney and Giuliani are not "fellow travelers" among white evangelicals and are likely reluctant to do anything that looks like they may be the liberal in sheep's clothing evangelicals are concerned about. Bush attended the meeting because he had that vote on lock already.

The first part of the sentence is the one that is important. If it does not function we discard it. I'm not telling someone's grandmother what to do with her time unless I am asked. WE discard it.

Okay. I stepped away from the NAACP decades ago but I didn't discard my relationships with the folks who make up the backbone of that organization. 

Surprise: Cobb's question have made me reevaluate Romney and Giuliani's decision in particular. However, a nation that identifies their sacrificed children with the characters in 300 is irrational enough to see the discrediting of the N.A.A.C.P., the similarities between the N.A.A.C.P. and N.U.L. (which, in my opinion, will far outweigh any differences you can raise), and based on that to dream the dream forward.

But cnulan has gone straight at the initial post in a way no one else has...understandable give my near anal retentive attempts to keep discussions on topics. Obviously from that I have a few disagreement on the nature of the N.U.L. with you guys. You know holding back had me gritting my teeth, right?  But those differences aren't necessary to explain given the developing direction of y'all's discussion...unless it's fixed on N.U.L.

So...shall I respond? If so, here or in a new thread? 

For what it is worth I don't think this move by Romney and Giuliani should be understood as anything more than the normal numbers calculus.

I disagree. The National Urban League has never been identified as being a liberal, left-wing organization because it is not nor has it ever been. I think Romney and Guiliani are simply pandering to the overt and covert racist fantasies of a large swath of the white right wing evangelical movement. Many of them believe that any group of organized black people that does meet in a church is by definition a left wing liberal group.

In addition, don't forget that some of the elder fathers of this religious movement such as Pat Robertson initially came to prominence as a result of their sermons against desegregating public schools etc. Robertson, Falwell and others like them make an effort to bury their past (I watched the Christian Broadcast Network for five minutes the other night and saw four black people actually talking to viewers over the span of three minutes.) but the "past isn't dead. It isn't even past."

The National Urban League has never been identified as being a liberal, left-wing organization because it is not nor has it ever been.

Do white folks feel that way? Do you think they can differentiate between pro-Black organizations and liberal, left-wing organizations? 

But cnulan has gone straight at the initial post in a way no one else has...understandable give my near anal retentive attempts to keep discussions on topics.

in wandering away from the initial post, the water cooler discussion has meandered very far afield of the possibility that something very concrete and specific may have happened to cool relations between the NUL and the GOP. 

sometimes shit ain't shrouded in identity, symbolism, or perceptions...,

I don't think that the great majority of those whites who profess to have an interest in politics or public policy can make the type of distinction that you describe. I think that any group that is described as being pro-Black is seen as being a radical organization. Some more so than others but all of them are generally seen as having views outside the political mainstream.

This perception on the part of whites is not of recent occurrence. During the 1920s and 1930s, for example, the NAACP was viewed as having Communist sympathies and not just by the J. Edgar Hoover and southern segregationists. Roy Wilkins and Thurgood Marshall both gave information to the FBI beginning in the late 1940s and continuing well into 1950s as a way to mitigate against this perception. 

something very concrete and specific may have happened to cool relations between the NUL and the GOP.

Try finding a significant member of NUL that's not an NAACP member.

Meanwhile, do you want you specific questions answered, and if so in this thread or a new one? I'm not trying to disrupt the flow if I respond in this one (I'm afraid I already have), and a new one might let you suggest what that concret, specific something might be.

in which you may wish to focus your merciless truth-seeking gaze....,

"...that something very concrete and specific may have happened to cool relations between the NUL and the GOP."

I strongly suspect that the temperature dropped when the wing of the Republican Party that identifies itself as Reaganites came into ascendancy. Many of the older Black Republicans that I know and who today still consider themselves to be staunch advocates for the Black community were old National Urban League hands. Many of them knew Whitney Young personally and worked for him at one time or another.

They began to get nervous in 1964 when Goldwater was the presidential nominee. His vote against the Civil Rights Bill did not leave them much ground to stand on with regard to the Black community. It had always been their position that Blacks needed to be in both parties and given their disposition and outlooks the Republican Party, despite its flaws, was where they felt at home. The wing of the party they most identified with was exemplified by Nelson Rockefeller and his brothers.

The Republican Party's efforts to mold itself as the party for disaffected southern Democrats pushed many of these black Republicans and ex-Urban Leaguers further to the margins. They have still maintained their registration as Republicans; many of them worked for George Bush I but they do not like or trust his son and the people around him. And, in addition, they do not like these so-called black conservatives that are being promoted by the GOP. A few of them, for example, have told me that they consider people like Ken Blackwell a disgrace because of what he did to thwart Black Democratic voters from casting their ballots. These folks cling to the old values and old issues. Voting is more important than who you vote for.

I disagree. The National Urban League has never been identified as being a liberal, left-wing organization because it is not nor has it ever been. I think Romney and Guiliani are simply pandering to the overt and covert racist fantasies of a large swath of the white right wing evangelical movement. Many of them believe that any group of organized black people that does meet in a church is by definition a left wing liberal group.

Did you mean to say "I agree"?

Okay, no need for me to reply. Carry on...

I strongly suspect that the temperature dropped when the wing of the Republican Party that identifies itself as Reaganites came into ascendancy. Many of the older Black Republicans that I know and who today still consider themselves to be staunch advocates for the Black community were old National Urban League hands. Many of them knew Whitney Young personally and worked for him at one time or another.

PT, focus...,

Bush and the GOP did active and concrete outreach and liason with the Urban League in 2004.  Something specific has happened to derail that relationship - and while historical context is most always edifying, in this particular case it has nothing whatsoever to do with history, symbolism, or other extraneous considerations. 

Bush and the GOP did active and concrete outreach and liason with the Urban League in 2004.

Oh, no. You got to document that. Showing up at one convention is not oujtreach.

the "you may wish to focus" link.., I don't deal in kneegrow-hokum - and if you follow that link and where it leads, putting google to work f'ya, you may connect up some rather expansive dots.

Oh, no. You got to document that. Showing up at one convention is not oujtreach.

conversely, GOP candidate rejection of a specifically issued invitation to speak/attend is by no means indicative of a domino effect trend, now is it? You got to document the basis for thinking otherwise if you want to claim a rationcinative basis for your speculations/beliefs. 

the "you may wish to focus" link

It didn't answer my specific question, which was to you. End of that story.

Oh, no. You got to document that. Showing up at one convention is not oujtreach.

conversely, GOP candidate rejection of a specifically issued invitation to speak/attend is by no means indicative of a domino effect trend, now is it?

The GOP is hostile to Black interests and disinterested in Black votes, other than to suppress them. Known fact. You've asserted the Bush administration took a different tack.

cnulan, you made an assertion...no comment on a separate topic, whether true, false or a distraction, will support it.

Bush and the GOP did active and concrete outreach and liason with the Urban League in 2004.

I read the work that Bush et al. did in 2004 as an effort to make up for slights and other missteps that had taken place for years. I'll go further. I saw what the Bush Team did in 2004 as being little more than trying to drive a wedge between black organizations.  

It didn't answer my specific question, which was to you. End of that story.

I'm not at liberty, and you appear to prefer unfounded speculation.

cnulan, you made an assertion...no comment on a separate topic, whether true, false or a distraction, will support it.

I'm aware of facts that I'm not at liberty to disclose to you. (kind of like you didn't disclose the source of your NAACP email memo) Believe whatever you want, but understand that on this one you're profoundly mistaken, and in increasingly typical fashion, unless the information is spoon-fed to you on demand, you're too petulant and hard-headed to even look in the direction of where the truth might be ascertained with a little additional personal effort.

I read the work that Bush et al. did in 2004 as an effort to make up for slights and other missteps that had taken place for years. I'll go further. I saw what the Bush Team did in 2004 as being little more than trying to drive a wedge between black organizations.  

If the mission, structure, methods, and personnel of the organizations are different, how is engaging with one willie lynching an other?  

Are you guys hung over or something?  Cause what's passing for thought, precision and interrogatory here this morning is hella fuzzy..., the GOP and the administration have consistantly disavowed the NAACP (more specifically its geriatric lifetime misleadership cadre) while substantively engaging with the urban league in the past three years. something has happened to cast a damper on that nascent relationship.., really, this ain't rocket science.  

in increasingly typical fashion, unless the information is spoon-fed to you on demand, you're too petulant and hard-headed to even look in the direction of where the truth might be ascertained with a little additional personal effort.

Please don't do that. No personalities is the best way. 

Are you guys hung over or something?

Why do you need to get personal? I had two glasses of red wine with dinner last night but I don't feel hung over today.

I can't speak for P6 but why are you taking such umbrage at my suggestion that the GOP's recent dalliance with the NUL was all for show. Did they and the leaders of the NUL suppose that showing up at the NUL's convention was going to move Bush's stock higher with Black voters?

You've been around the block a few times. Infatuations, especially those born of utility, don't last very long.  

This

This is factually incorrect. First, that ridiculous NAACP national megaboard is comprised of branch officials with an arcane lifetime rotation structure.

Second, no NAACP branch is entrepreneurially run.

Third, no NAACP branch is focused on economic development.

Forth, local NAACP officials are accountable to the national directorate.

UL affiliates are only locally accountable.

Has nothing to do with this.

The urban league is an umbrella over 105 independant affiliate organizations. Each one of the affiliates is independantly chartered and locally run, including having its own local directorate.

The heterogeneity of this collective is astounding, with some local orgs being sleepy charities with little measurable impact, and others being entrepreneurially run so as to incubate and effectuate local economic development.

This is also true of the N.A.A.C.P., except there are a lot more N.A.A.C.P. branches.

Further

First, that ridiculous NAACP national megaboard is comprised of branch officials with an arcane lifetime rotation structure.

Here's the NUL board. I count 45...conceptually, not much better.

Second, no NAACP branch is entrepreneurially run.

Here's the NUL's list of contributors . Looks like the rhetoric about the N.A.A.C.P. being beholden to White Corporate America applies equally to NUL.

Both those images were clipped out of PDFs from the NUL site. Don't blame me.

Third, no NAACP branch is focused on economic development.

See the previous.

Forth, local NAACP officials are accountable to the national directorate.

UL affiliates are only locally accountable.

From the NUL's Becoming an Affiliate
It is the policy of the National Urban League to certify candidates for Affiliate Chief Executive Officer (CEO) vacancies. Certification is the process whereby the National Urban League confirms the eligibility of candidates for Affiliate Chief Executive Officer openings. Each Affiliate Board of Directors shall appoint its CEO only from candidates certified by the National Urban League. Each affiliate shall appoint its Executive Director only from among nominees who have been certified as meeting standards set by the National Urban League.

Next comment

I'm aware of facts that I'm not at liberty to disclose to you. (kind of like you didn't disclose the source of your NAACP email memo)

I gave you the fact, just held back the source. Not being at liberty is a legit response.

But it's the only one you've given me so far today.

No bullshit, if you can't leave out the personal attacks, you got to get stepping. You have any number of other venues you can work. I know getting people angry is a standard Internet debate tactic but onP6 I don't get angry, I get rid of the offender. So please don't offend.

Cause you guys are being so one-sided in your consideration here that it's compromising your analytical poise

I can't speak for P6 but why are you taking such umbrage at my suggestion that the GOP's recent dalliance with the NUL was all for show. Did they and the leaders of the NUL suppose that showing up at the NUL's convention was going to move Bush's stock higher with Black voters?

Because I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt when programmatic funding accompanies lip service.  While I wouldn't be so naive as to suggest that Melman et al weren't trying to get an electoral bump, the fact of the matter is that they put in place a mechanism for long-term constructive engagement, funded that mechanism, and haven't yet broken faith.....,

Somebody, however, has put a damper on the good faith rapproachment ventured by the GOP.

Somebody, however, has put a damper on the good faith rapproachment ventured by the GOP.

Well, it wasn't P6 and me. 

Getting from here; 

Giuliani and Romney are skipping the National Urban League’s annual conference this summer, and league president Marc Morial wants them to know he’s not happy about it.

to here; 

Every Black person that wishes death on the N.A.A.C.P. must realize that if the N.A.A.C.P. is discredited it's mission will be as well. And if its mission is discredited so will be every organization that shares it. And the process is well under way.

is a mind-bogglingly large and factually unsupported leap. I'm no fan of either one of these busters, but I also harbor no expectation that they're going to go wildly off the GOP plantation by burning a bridge that the party went to the trouble of cultivating and funding - without some reason..,

There are three sides to every story, Giuliani, Romney, and the hard, cold truth..., think about it. 

Somebody, however, has put a damper on the good faith rapproachment ventured by the GOP.

Obviously their priorities changed. The Black stuff was first to go when Democrats lost dominance too. 

Obviously their priorities changed.

From arm's-length, I wouldn't have totally discounted it as a motive..., but before going there I would've had pause to at least consider the third side of this story. 

really is all I'm saying..., 

I am writing up what I saw and how I came to see it that way. I've decided the NUL is no more fit to be the national Black partisan organization than the NAACP is.

I have to decide if it goes in the thread or a new post...I'm leaning toward new post.

I've decided the NUL is no more fit to be the national Black partisan organization than the NAACP is.

perfect concordance on this point, the evolutionary saga continues...,

imoho - from a process improvement perspective, goals, timelines, metrics, and accountability are ALL indispensable qualities with which a forward looking Black partisan organization must be imbued.

the absence of these qualities has played a determinative role in keeping the hump of the bell curve in relative stasis with too many folks sliding down the backend of the curve in a lot of significant developmental areas..., something I've come to think of as systemic misleadership.

we been suffering systemic misleadership in damn near epidemic proportions..,