Something about a knife fight. I forget the rest.
Not any more. “Crack” has become a generic for anything addictive and empty. Certain video games are “crack”, what used to be “quarter suckers”, for instance.
I just read this thread, watched the commercial, and I am really, really confused. That ad was dumb for a variety of reasons, the most of which is the fact that it’s just knocking down a series of strawmen, but how in the world is it racist? As far as I can see, if the exact same ad had been used against a white opponent everyone would be fine and dandy. I don’t know about this Ford guy, but has he gone on record as saying he enjoys white women/air heads specifically? Because even then it would be a massive stretch.
What if Ford was asian. Is it still racist?
What if Ford was hispanic. And the girl was black. Still…?
Someone needs to calmly explain this one.
So, I think this ad is fine. I mean, you know, besides the fact that it’s an embarassing marker of where our civil discourse is right now…
Who made the rule, that you should give a firm handshake?
You got me, but I acknowledge “the rule”, the custom exists. Just like I can acknowledge that it’s a bit naive to believe they didn’t know this would happen when they created the piece. Whether or not that was their intention is another matter, but my point was in response to your question how to “win”.
Do you agree that if the ad featured women in silo and gave no indication of their race, the ad would have been just as effective and defused any claims of race-baiting?
If so, I have I not, "won’? The reason I win, is because I realize that despite our great gains as a country race still influences how people view things and I know as a marketeer how to increase or reduce that effect…I find it hard to believe they don’t as well.
Whether you want to call it a rule or common-sense or whatever is up to you, but it exists and can be controlled; for good or ill.
So yes, you can win.
What does that have to do with racism?
First, I want to understand what the rule is. When implying that someone wants to have sex in a political ad you must show the woman in silhouette? Is that the rule? Does it only apply when you are criticizing Black politicians?
Besides, showing the person in silhouette would be a distraction. Everyone would be wondering why the woman is in silhouette instead of concentrating on the message: Ford hangs out with Playboy bunnies.
Despite the words “The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising”, right before “Harold, call me”?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
What does that have to do with racism?
It has to do with unwritten rules that we all know, regardless of them not being written down.
The rules is remove race, unless that’s the focus of your campaign. This applies across the board, but especially when involving Black politicians. You do not show their white wives if they have them for fear of alienating both white and black voters.
The reason why is as I noted earlier, there are still pockets of racists that can swing a vote, further there are even more passive racists, that will find fault with a candidate especially a black one who choses to go outside his ‘race’.
There are few things that will rile people up as quick and with as much certainity as a Black man with a White woman, even today. Although that’s changing, as we old timers are starting to die off. It seems for some reason lessor when other races are involved.
Can I prove it? Can I show you a rule book? Just like I can’t show you a rule, that having a hardy handshake is a good thing, but I think we all agree it is.
We have a lot of baggage in this country and as I stated, it’s really, really easy to take advantage of it and avoid it.
I disagree. Having silhouettes of some hot babes in sheer nighties, with some background lighting, highlighting their bodies, would convince me that Ford hangs out with Playboy bunnies or at least women that could be playboy bunnies, or strippers, or hookers and THAT’s what my message would’ve been.
Now it’s about whether or not the RNC are racists.
Yeah, it’s hard to believe they couldn’t pull it if they wanted to. Mellman is a slimy used car salesman, though, so I would tend to not believe anything he says.
I’m not saying this to insult you, but this is the kind of thing that if you’re not from the South, you’re just not going to understand. The black man/white woman thing is very much still a major issue in many places down here. Having seen the spot, there is no doubt in my mind that the intent is racist. Closing with the white woman saying “Call me” (wink wink) to a black man is a powerful image that conveys the message that the viewer should not vote for Ford because he dates white women. Unfortunately, that message is going to be received loud and clear by a certain segment of the population–and it may very well motivate them to come to the polls when they would not have otherwise.
On this board, I’m considered conservative even though I bash Bush with the best of them. I’ve defended the display of the Confederate Flag here arguing heritage not hate (not wanting to start that debate up again, just providing context). I find this advertisment revolting. I’m angry it was run in Tennessee, and I’m ashamed that it may turn out to be effective.
Seems like the ad was pulled. They have a new one out that links him to “Hollywood values” instead. Classy.
Only the makers of the ad know whether or not the ad was intentionally racist.
But I think that’s neither here nor there. The ad contains a suspicious message that anyone with two brain cells would be able to detect. As Hentor said, talking to a Playboy Bunny does not belong in a list that includes protecting terrorists. Hitting on it again at the closing of the ad, when the country is literally dealing with life and death issues, is insane. Even if it’s just for humor’s sake.
I watched the ad just once. I remember the black woman saying that he looked like a nice guy (WTF). I remember the Playboy Bunny girl. I recall that there were other people in the commercial, but I don’t really remember what they said. And I’m sad to say, I think this was the point of the ad. The average Joe is worried about high taxes and terrorists, but these things get crammed down his throat all the time. They’re boring. But politician getting it on with Playboy Bunny? A *black/i] politician at that! Scandalous!!
Stupid, definately. And it dares people to get their racism tingling–which in this case–is just as bad being racist. I hope Ford’s opponent loses, just for this ad.
It’s not race-baiting at all.
Neither was the push-poll that asked people what they thought of John McCain’s black baby. They merely wanted to know if people thought the baby was cute or not, and threw in the word black to differentiate from all of McCain’s other babies.
Racism is alive and well here in the South (and likely in many other places as well), even if it has gone somewhat into the closet. That someone would pander to racists for votes should shock me, but I’m having a hard time remembering an election year when it didn’t happen.
Exactly. White bigots don’t give a shit if some black woman wants to have sex with a black guy. Is this really that hard to understand? It’s a race-based appeal to the fears of white bigots regarding their women having sex with black men. Is that a clear enough explanation?
How or why would white bigots be concerned about non-white women having sex with black men?
How many of these die hard racists were going to vote for Ford in the first place?
I don’t see how this compares to the McCain ad, which was not even true. And it was clearly aimed at Republican racists since it was a Republican primary.
Some of you either have your heads in the sand, or are simply being a contrarian because it suits you. The segments of this ad featuring the blonde play directly into fears of miscegenation, and ARE therefore racist. It’s a not-so-subliminal message to republican knuckle-draggers that White women may find Ford attractive.
Having the blonde say “I met Harold at the Playboy party” is just the setup for the kicker at the end. The ad, in and of itself is pretty stupid, but I’m convinced there’d be no calls to remove it from airing rotation if the blonde hadn’t been shown again at the end. Until that point in the ad there were no racist overtones and the segment with the blonde could have been justifiably defended as attempting to portray Ford as a sleazy solicitor of prostitutes. However, featuring a White woman seductively inviting a Black man to “Harold, call me” makes a statement which is the takeaway message for the entire ad. Fear that your wife or your daughter may be unwittingly lured into forbidden and shameful sexually-charged contact with a Black man is what the purveyors of this tripe are hoping to elicit.
Yes, of course, those to whom this ad is targeted wouldn’t vote for a democrat anyway, but that’s not the point. The point is to shock these people out of their presumed apathy to ensure they, their friends, neighbors, family, coworkers, horses, cows, pigs, etc… get out at the crack of dawn on election day to vote republican.
You don’t see racist overtones in this ad? You don’t want to see it.
The ones that don’t have a problem with blacks, as long as they stay away from our women. There are plenty of folks who will happily work side by side with a black man, drink beers with a black man, or go bowling with a black man, who would never ever in a million years allow their daughter to date a black man.
This is clearly aimed at any racist of any party. Even if it only sways a percent or two of the population, it’s paid for itself.
Does or does not the Republican party intentionally pander to racists?
Interesting. Some pretty smart people instantly grasped the profound racism of this ad and some other pretty smart people saw none whatever. As I said, when I first saw it I took it as a “looky at the corrupt playboy” angle and didn’t catch any of the (ahem) “miscegnation” side of it*. Which, I think has been demonstrated here, is there to be gotten, or not gotten, depending on individual mileage.
Which allows the bare possibility that the producers of this ad were entirely innocent of the more regressive implications.
But, even if the producers of this ad were innocent, surely this passed through enough hands that at least one decision-maker had the same reaction Oakie did (above). Even if the racist subtext is purely accidental, its* perception * is a fact, and someone along the line must have realized that, and declared it kosher, nonetheless. Hard to see such a decision as an innocent mistake.
- (I didn’t catch that connection at all, but as a thought experiment said to myself “If I were my Uncle Aaron, down in Tyler TX, and saw this ad, what would I notice most?”)
I admit that I don’t see the ad as being flamingly racist, but perhaps this is due to me not fully appreciating how deep the white man’s hysteria over the black man’s “big black penis” (as Hentor described it) goes. His opponent has been working the Ford-is-a-Playboy-not-the-choirboy-that-he-portrays-himself-to-be angle for weeks now, and I just assumed this ad was more of the same tasteless mud-slinging.
So I dunno. There’s multiple things going on in that ad that are stupid and questionable. “He’s just not right” doesn’t quite set well with me (how could someone come up with that line and not see the right/white implications?), and that black lady’s remark also doesn’t jibe with the ironic tone present in the rest of the commercial (neither does the bimbo’s, now that I think about it). So I dunno. I dunno.
Some times, yes. You want us to belive they do so all the time, though.
Could it be racist? Yes. Is it clearly racist? No.
How many might not have been motivated to vote against Ford until they saw this ad?