I wasn’t thinking that him being the target made him a better judge, I was thinking that he’s a Black man living in that state that made him a good judge.
He comes across, to me, as a pretty straight shooting guy. Not a typical pol. But your point is a valid one.
I think it was a very sleezy ad, as I said in my first post. But it’s in keeping with what his detractors have been trying to do to him-- paint him as a playboy and not the Church going boyscout that he claims to be. And he does, btw, make a big deal about how religious he is. In the world of viscious politics that we live in, it’s not surprising that the Republicans would try and turn that around on him.
Zoe: I said it was supposed to be funny, not that I thought it was funny. I thought it was in extremely poor taste. When I saw the ad, my reaction was :rolleyes: , not .
John, keep in mind that Ford is a second generation Memphis Black politician, in a place where racial issues are still very hot coals. Whether or not you agree with his predesessors, lessons were learned as to conducting politics in the Deep South.
Even though I think the ad was bumblingly idiotic, with racist tone, I think Harold Ford is right to take the high road, and not let his campaign get bogged down with that attack. Let them twist in their own mist. He should focus on important issues in his campaign,
I too am going to believe that Mr. Ford is taking the moral high road as an exemplar of his sterling character, even as I note that it is also a very astutue political move. Serendipitous.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Like I said above, I don’t expect him to make a big deal about the ad, especially since it’s been pulled. I was just noting how he commented on it when asked about it-- the whole discussion was only about 2 minutes long and his contribution was very brief.
The ad is getting the play it has precisely because the news media is drumming up the racism angle, btw. I’ve seen it about a dozen times on various networks.
John, what I’m getting at is that Harold Ford has a long-standing knowledge of Southern politics, from a family that has succeded in that in a Deep South base.
He could choose to whup the racist factor up, but, has the long-term knowledge that it’s not a good idea. I think it is important to know that Ford comes from a knowlegeable political family, who have been well-honed by the place they live: Western Tennessee, with Memphis as a powerful base.
It does make him a good judge, but he’s still a politician. He’ll score more points if he stays away from the r-word because the white moderates he’s trying to woo don’t like that word. So he can call the ad tasteless and dirty, but if he’s got any sense in his head, he’ll keep the accusations of racism to a minimum. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of people who still think that unless you’re being called a nigger and hanging from a tree with you feet cut off, it’s not racism. They won’t take well to Ford if they perceive him to be one of those “whiny blacks”.
Well, you didn’t see racism in the ad, so maybe he didn’t either. I don’t think it’s a crazy idea that he’s just telling the truth. Have you changed your mind and now think it was clearly a racist ad?
Whether or not Ford thought the ad was racist, he can’t say that it was for fear of being branded a whiny black. The message got delivered so now the GOP can fake taking the high road and pull the ad.
No, I haven’t changed my mind. I don’t see the racism that others apparently see, but there’s more than one probable explanation for that besides the possibility that there’s no racism there. For one thing, the obsession with black male sexuality is an issue that, while I understand is still a pervasive fear among some subsets, doesn’t automatically come to mind for me. I guess because I just don’t “get it”. This, funny enough, despite my own experiences with white lovers who have exhibited race-related penile insecurities (I’m starting to think this is another reason why white guys may be intimidated by the prospect of dating black women; perhaps they don’t think they can measure up to black guys?). I’m really dumb in this particular area because the fear that black men are going to steal all the white women is ridiculous to me, so it’s going to be hard for me to spot when this fear is being exploited.
It’s possible that Ford doesn’t think it’s racist. It’s also possible that he does think it’s racist, but has refrained from saying so. I’m not saying that he does or doesn’t. I’m just saying that to use his stated opinion as evidence one way or the other is probably not the smartest thing to do. I’m more inclined to look at what the Republicans are saying about this ad. They have the biggest incentive to defend it as not being racist, but it seems like there is an unusually high number of them who are agreeing that it’s playing on racist fears. Corker himself seems to be going out of his way to denounce it. Why would they do that if it this was all just such some partisan blow-up over nothing?
I also note another thing that makes it hard for me to accept my perception as fact. If a lot of white people are saying that they see the ad as being racist, even though in general they are less sensitive to racism because they belong to the majority and are more apt to buy into the idea that racism is a thing of the past, then that is significant. Just because I’m black doesn’t mean I’m fluent in the language of anti-black racists. White people may be able to pick up on things that I can not, because they are more likely to come in contact with that mentality than I am. So even though I admit that the ad doesn’t strike me as being a clarion call for racists, I’m not about to tell people that they are wrong for picking up on the signals that they did.
Here’s an article, including interview, on Scott Howell, author of the ad being debated. Apparently he has a long record of making dishonest and manipulative campaign ads.
you with the face: Just to reply to your last post, I don’t really find anything there that I disagree with. The ad could very well be racist, and no doubt some will view it that way.
I’ve been joking around on paraphrases of the old saying, but surely you’ve heard that “Once you go black, you never go back,” right? (And wouldn’t they, igiven that there haven’t been any black Senators from the south since reconstruction, just love to use that as a campaign slogan outright?)
So, in my opinion, this ad is more devious then simply the idea that Ford is after all the white wimmen! I mean, of course he is, because all black men are, because white women are the paragons of desirability. (Remember from our other discussions, white on black rape never happens, or at least happens at a level comparable to ninja attacks on convenience stores and monkeys typing Hamlet, whereas everyone is after the white women.)
I think the scarier belief is that once you go black, you never go back, or that white women will get the jungle fever, or that generally, the white bigot’s sexuality is threatened. “Harold, call me, wink wink!”
On another note, I was thinking about the “He’s just not right” line at the end. Is it just my imagination, or does that font start out dark and fade to white, without ever getting to be as white as the line above it? If so, why does it do that? Is that intended to suggest being “off white” or “not quite white”? Of course, it could also just be another coincidence.
Of course I’ve heard it. That phrase was coined because of me.
But seriously, I haven’t really considered that saying as being a reflection of fear or insecurity, especially as it concerns black men. Perhaps that’s because I think of black women when I hear this expression; that’s my own bias at work. You’ve given me something to think about, though. Like I said before, I’ve seen signs of what you’re talking about in the small sample size of white guys I’ve had relations with. They were just being insecure, but I now see how that same kind of insecurity could manifest itself as fear of the Big Black Penis stealing all the white wimmens away.
You forgot about the nickels that land on their edges. And the helicopters that the ninjas jumped out of.
So I tried to put myself in the shoes of a racist with this hangup and this is how I would articulate their fear, from what I gather from this conversation: The scary thing is not that the black man has got the mojo that will lure all the white women away. The scary thing is that he has this mojo and is in the position to attain signficant power and prestige, which has always been in the white man’s territory. Such a triple threat would upset the natural balance of things. What if other black men decided to do the same thing? All hell would break loose.
Does that sound about right?
The more I think about that line, the more the entire ad rubs me the wrong way. It could be that we are reading too much into stuff, but I don’t know. “He’s just not right” doesn’t seem to really match the rest of the ad, either. The closing line should have been posed as rhetorical question (e.g. “Is this what we what for Tennessee?”) or more of the same kind of Faux Speak (to use elle’s term).
I don’t disagree with you, but I’m not sure it has to be all that thoroughly articulated. My guess would be more akin to “Fear the black man (and his mojo), and do your part to keep him down.”
I think you’re right about that; it doesn’t really flow with the rest of the ad well at all.
You’re getting close there; I would say the ad appeals to the “keep 'em in their place” mindset.
Awfully uppity for this boy to be cavorting with white women. Better get to the polls and remind him who’s boss.
Nobody would articulate it that way these days (I don’t think anyone has seriously used the word “uppity” since about 1948), but that is essentially the sentiment that’s being played to.
I’d say the subset of people who think like that is small these days, but it could be enough to tip a close election.
[quote=What the … !!!]
Ford’s lost it now…Republicans don’t love the Lord !
Who in the world does he hope to appeal to with that argument??
Who have the Republicans been appealing to with that sort of argument for the past 25 years?
I don’t know if that will cause him to “lose it”. It is surprising, though, to hear any politician (especially a Democrat) use the term “The Lord” instead of “God” when speaking of religion.
.