Thank you for the reply. The only part I don’t really agree with is your example:
“....if someone at the local level remarked at an annual dinner about how they “worked the system, wink, nudge” to help a client.”
This was a gov. official receiving an award; not just a generic ‘someone’. Speaking at the award dinner, she made racist remarks that were well received during and after the event by attendees. This is bigger than a ‘remark’ about working the system. This is ‘I decided whether or not to help him based on his race’ coming from a government official in charge of tax revenues and the financial survival of tax payers. I am really shocked that the NAACP audience did not render an objection that could have any effect; tax payers sitting there approving of the government official employing racial discrimination to determine who gets help. The NAACP is supposed to have formed to fight that very kind of abuse. Then to have the NAACP lecture the Tea Party on addressing the racist signs that may or may not have been carried by Tea Partiers to begin with - it all seems more objectionable than your example.
Believe me, I'm not defending this creature or the ugly things she has said. I'm glad she was forced to resign for having said them. I am also not defending the NAACP's smears against the TEA Party (of which I am an active member and volunteer).
I'm trying to point out how it was possible that the national folks did not know this was said until Andrew released the video.
I host monthly educational luncheons as part of my organization and we do not tape them; National staff does not review them. These types of meetings happen all over the country, in numerous not-for-profits and non-profits nationwide, with only local oversight.
A national organization can set the structure, the mission statement, and even provide training to the local offices. That doesn't mean everyone at the local level follows it.
The same is true in for-profit corporations. The national office may put out strict guidelines against X; some idiot breaks it and the local office looks the other way. Does that mean the national corporation approves of X? Of course not.
I'll wager that the NAACP will conduct a review (out of fear of additional tapes surfacing which will damage their flagging credibility); I wouldn't be surprised to see more heads roll over this. I am very confident it will be a priority topic at their next annual convention.
Given my anger over the way they treated the TEA Party recently, I don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt. It would be easier to think this smarmy race-baiting is typical or systemic instead of a fluke; however, knowing what I know about how these types of organizations function, I have reached the logical conclusion that it is not only possible - but highly probable - that the national folks honestly did not know until they were shown the proof. Like I said, they should not have thrown stones.