An example from Knoxviews:

Since the Corker folks are now using idly posted Photoshop images on independent websites to prop up their campaign, I plan to remove such evidence as is easily available. It’s too bad they are continuing their pattern of distortions in press, media and other outlets into the blogosphere. These tactics are disappointing, but not unexpected.

I don’t doubt that. But then, that part of the ad clearly wasn’t directed at you or people like you.

Oh, and you have to love all the people representing the “most feminist party” piping up with “tart” and “half naked bimbo”. I suppose respect for women applies only to same party affiliation, right?

Uh, no. I wasn’t aware “respect for women” required unconditional respect for every single person of the female gender, irrespective of merit. Equating calling one particular woman a “bimbo” with anti-feminism is rather like equating calling one particular black person (say, Condi Rice) an “idiot” with racism.

I don’t like HFJ because I don’t like HFJ, not because of any physical attributes but because of his *behaviour*, his stance (closer to a dance, really), and his political party’s aspirations.

People forget that in this country, there is still the freedom to dislike someone due to personal veracity.

Yeah, since Lincoln. That’s why the Republicans welcomed Thrumond with open arms after the Democrats would no longer endorse his segregationist crap. And why Reagan just-so-happened to make a campaign appearance in friggin Philadelphia, MS blathering on about “states’ rights.” Uh-huh. Unlike you, some of us actually remember history.

As to the RNC ad, intent matters. In all other cases, you had third parties talking about things Ford supposedly did or didn’t do. Except in the case of half-naked-bimbo, where suddenly it’s a faux first-person account. Who exactly was that little tidbit supposed to fire up? Don’t try and feed me any crap about “values voters,” either, because if they were the target, it sure as hell wouldn’t have been half-naked bimbo.

Was it an in-your-face, cross-burning attempt to pander to racists? No. That doesn’t mean there was no intention to pander to racists. I still fail to see why an ad that says “Harold Ford, Jr. has sex with loose white women” would widely be recognized as race baiting, but an ad implying precisely the same thing has no racial motivations or overtones whatsoever.

this question should be shouted from the rooftops:

Lemme get this straight- The position of the Democratic Party is that if a tv ad associates a woman with a black male, then THAT WOMAN BETTER BE BLACK! Is that about right?

Do I have it right, or do dems make an execption for latinas or something? This question needs to be asked at every opportunity til we get a straight answer. The repubs, for all their warts, are still (since Lincoln) the party of the color blind society. And the dems, since before the civil war are still dividing the population by race.

Once you’ve got a theme going, “Speaker Pelosi scares me,” it’s hard to let it go…the facts be damned.

Great Comment Jason. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for defeat and Miss America

Are people really this dense? Say it loud and clear, Pelosi is in the House, FORD IS RUNNING FOR SENATE. I vaguely remember this coming up before.

Thanks!!

I stand corrected. In terms of physics, black is something that absorbs all the colors of the spectrum. I had it backwards. But I still contend that this color spectrum, light wavelength reflection or lack thereof is just so much drivel within the political spectrum.

Not according to the color chart or physics where “black” reflects all the colors of the spectrum.

Not really.

Black, in terms of light, is the absence of any visible frequency or color, whereas white is a mixture of all of them.

In terms of this conversation, it may be seen to be interesting that white is totally inclusive, and black is the absence of information of any sort.

Of course you may be thinking of color pigments and their effect on reflected light – but that is more an artistic measure, not physics.

Not according to the color chart or physics where “black” reflects all the colors of the spectrum. I think like a lot of us, he’s got some ancetry mix. Those dealing in inconsequentialities may care, but what’s his record, is he gonna obey the Constitution according to the rules of English grammar? Is he gonna answer my e-mails–which he and Corker ain’t doin’ now!! Thye’re both empty suits in that respect.

Back in the 2000 Primary elections, I enthusiastically voted for Alan Keyes for President during the Tennessee Primary. I remember that he also won the Alabama Republican Primary caucus but the national media NEVER mentioned that, ’cause Southern conservatives are supposed to be “racist” in their small minds. That’s what the current drivel is all about!

If Ford agreed with my views and his VOTING RECORD was in agreement with my views, I care not what his ancestry or his skin pigmentation is. But they’re not. This stuff re: the ad is drivel!

I guess what truly baffles me is why on earth would the Democrats think that Republicans would have anything to gain by such strategy? If people are truly racist, they don’t need to be reminded or told the Harold Ford is black. And no politician in their right mind would think that a racist attack on their opponent would be a winning move. It’s clear that the grievance industry is drying up big time, so they have to manufacture racism to stay employed.

The same for me. I’ve already early-voted for Heyward so I know I didn’t “waste my vote”. Corker and Ford haven’t replied to my ISSUE QUESTIONS on their respective web-sites where they invite people to “contact us”.

Heyward replies to issue questions when I contact his web-site and he basically agrees with me on the issues and in political philosophy so he gets my vote.

Next thing I hear on NPR is some pompous ass telling me, a southerner, how I feel about a white woman asking Ford, a (mostly to my eyes) white man, to “call me”. I was told that was “code” to a southern man. I LMAO (and almost crashed). The cluelesness of the self-selected “elite” is a joke.

The funniest part is the Race™ department of the Grievance Industry’s ability to turn an ad that was neutral, at worst, in its effect into a real negative for Ford. No the add is still not negative – it’s the reaction by Ford’s proxies that has the negative effect.

Same with Ford.

Guess it’s Bo Heyward for me. Hey, he’s decended from a signer of the Declaration of Independence!

I’ll be able to sleep at night.