Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Campaign Ad re:Harold Ford. Click for a laugh.

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Campaign Ad re:Harold Ford. Click for a laugh. (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/109936-campaign-ad-re-harold-ford-click-laugh.html)

Campaign Ad re:Harold Ford. Click for a laugh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vZF5ZTu2Go

The video is an unbelievable and actually pretty funny attack ad on Harold Ford, a Democrat running for Senate in Tennessee. It's already caused quite a stir (see http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...749189796.html)

I thought you'd all at least be amused by it. TFPolitics has been a divisive place lately, so let's try to keep the discussion here relatively light-hearted. Do you think the ad is inherently objectionable, and should be pulled? Do you agree with reports that it is racist?

As for myself, the ad is really too self-evidently silly for me to get worked up about it. It certainly didn't strike me as 'racist' when I saw it, and someone else had to explain to me why it was; then again, I didn't know anything about the candidates or the race. It does bother me, though, that having deployed such an ad, absolutely no one is at least taking responsibility for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the article

Mr Corker has said he doesn't like the ad and would like it pulled, but that he had no control over the Republican National Committee, which in turn has said it had no control either because the ad was placed by an "independent" group — funded by the committee.

Thoughts?

They needed to go a step farther when they wrote the campaign finance laws a few years ago. They should have said that any ad by any group had to have the candidate appear and say they approve this message. I don't believe for a second that the strategists at the top level of either side don't have a part in deciding what goes in these negative ads.

Maybe to lighten it up a bit, perhaps he can have some celeb with a fatal illness make and ad that states if you vote for a certain candidate, your fatal illness or condition would be cured.

As for the Ford ad, all of that was based on his actual votes and a Roll Call magazine ad (Feb 2006). Yeah, its sleazy, but its par for the course in politics. Always has been, always will be

Quote:

The ad could be a sign of desperation.

Gosh, ya think? :)

Canada, who is not busy, currently has a bunch of troops in Southern Afghanistan, fighting against the Taliban. The death rate of Canadian troops deployed in Afghanistan is 6 times greater than the death rate of American troops deployed in Iraq.

Canada is busy -- fighting a war against the remnants of the nation-state that actually was the home base of Bin Laden.

I'm glad to know how much Americans appreciate the help.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

We appreciate it, but expect us to do flips when the fact is Canadians cant even deploy their own troops without American help.

Wow.......

But then if you look at the Ford ad on Corker it isn't much better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3UKq...elated&search=

It's really sad instead of showing differences between them, moving forward but allowing the people to decide which way to move forward, we have politicians that would rather focus on the negatives and maintain partisan hatred and stereotypes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

In 1979 when the Canadian ambassador and embassy staff to Iran threatened their own lives to save some of ours, when Canada has stood by us no matter how nutty we are down here at times and allowed open borders, wonderful people and beautiful landscapes, and for just being the US's best allie and neighbor...............

MERCI BEAUCOUP, THANK YOU CANADA....... some of us down south of you appreciate all you do for us. :thumbsup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

...amused???? Let's look at the background...already covered in March, 2006 at TFP politics:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2024271&mode=linear#post2024271">Poll: Are Blacks Tokens to Mask Intentionally Racist Republican Policy</a>

Quote:

http://www.nrsc.org/newsdesk/document.aspx?ID=1844
NRSC Launches FancyFord.com
Website Highlights Congressman Harold Ford, Jr.’s Fancy Lifesty
Washington, DC —Today the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) launched a new website, http://www.FancyFord.com. The site highlights Harold Ford, Jr.’s (D-TN) fancy lifestyle and lavish campaign spending habits—most of which are financed by his campaign contributors. After the site’s launch, the NRSC issued the following statement:

“From his voting record to his extravagant lifestyle, Fancy Ford simply does not represent the values of ordinary Tennesseans,” said Dan Ronayne, NRSC Press Secretary

Visitors to FancyFord.com are invited to learn how to live the fancy life, just like Harold Ford, Jr. The site allows you “party, shop, relax, and dine” like fancy Harold Ford. A few highlights:....

Quote:

Atwater Has Something to Prove;
William Raspberry. The Washington Post Washington, D.C.: Mar 13, 1989. pg. a.15

If students at Howard University are listening to what their elders are saying, they must be terribly confused.

They are being told, in tones that range from sadness to outrage, that they were naive, immature, self-centered and more than a little stupid to force the resignation of Lee Atwater from the Howard board of trustees.

Don't they understand that Howard needs money-for student financial aid, among other things-and that Atwater, the well-connected chairman of the Republican National Committee, could have delivered a good deal of it? Can't they see the puerile silliness of punishing their school, the flagship of American black higher education, in an effort to punish Atwater for his alleged offenses against black people?

And who is saying these things? Some of the same people who lately were decrying the cynicism of today's young people; their abandonment of idealism in favor of material interests.

The Howard students identify Atwater as the chief architect of last fall's often vicious presidential campaign. In particular they identify him with the cynical use of Willie Horton to make George Bush's soft-on-criminals case against Michael Dukakis. In their minds, the choice of Horton was calculated not merely to demonstrate the danger of Massachusetts' prison furlough program but also to put a black face on the danger.

Were they wrong about the double message of the Willie Horton TV ads? I think not. Were they wrong to identify Atwater with the message? Atwater says they were, and that is worth further discussion.

But if the students were right-if Atwater did appeal to white paranoia in order to get his man elected-how could they have been wrong to insist that he be removed from their university's board of trustees?

Atwater himself, in a long op-ed piece in The Post last Friday, devoted a single paragraph to the Willie Horton affair. "The ad in question," he wrote, "was an independent and unauthorized effort. In fact, Campaign Chairman James A. Baker III and I both wrote to the group responsible for it demanding that it be discontinued."

But what came to be called "Hortonism" was not a single TV ad; it was a campaign. And Atwater seems to have been the campaign manager. "By the time this election is over," Atwater said last summer after he had come across the Horton case in Readers' Digest, "Willie Horton will be a household name."

Was the Horton campaign innocent of racial intent? Atwater insists that it was.

But the burden of his op-ed piece, like the responses I've been hearing to the student demonstration, was pragmatism. "I believed that I could be helpful to the university in fund raising, scholarship endowment, identifying job opportunities such as student internships at the White House and the Republican National Committee. I was especially pleased that I could help bring money into a university the overwhelming majority of whose students depend on tuition assistance to get their education. The fact is, I had a lot to offer Howard."

And so he did. But at what price?

Imagine, if you would, that David Duke, the ex-Klansman recently elected to the Louisiana legislature, were in position to make even more money and internships available to Howard students. Should Howard make him a trustee?

No, I don't equate Atwater with Duke, and I was pleased that Atwater and the GOP specifically renounced Duke as unfit for membership in the party.

The point is that only cynicism of the worst sort could lead a great institution to overlook the character and background of a candidate for trusteeship on the ground of his fund-raising ability.

Atwater says his racial attitudes have been misrepresented, and maybe they have. I give full credit to his efforts to bring more blacks into the Republican Party, and I do not count it against him that his decision to accept membership on the Howard board may have been in furtherance of that political end. There's nothing wrong with a little mutual exploitation.

But Atwater knows that, no matter how many good licks he managed in his joint concert with black blues singer-guitarist B. B. King, he is viewed with suspicion by blacks, primarily because of his role in the campaign.

He knows that it is up to him to prove that his critics have misjudged him. Black Americans, including the students at Howard, owe him the chance to offer that proof.

But it doesn't make sense to me that he should be allowed to make his case while he sits as a policy maker for the nation's preeminent black university. First the proof, then the honor.

Absent convincing evidence that he has been misjudged, Atwater should never have been named to the Howard board. Howard's trustees were wrong to put him there. Howard's students were right to insist on his removal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...42&postcount=2
....Elections are won on the margins, and the republican, "Southern Stratedy", was so successful in persuading white southerners to change from voting for democratic party candidates, to republicans, that in 1980:

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...A90994DD404482
or.... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NatNew...6?viscount=100
Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant
October 6, 2005, Thursday
By BOB HERBERT (NYT); Editorial Desk

......Ronald Reagan, the G.O.P.'s biggest hero, opposed both the Civil Rights Act
and the Voting Rights Act of the mid-1960's. And he began his general
election campaign in 1980 with a powerfully symbolic appearance in
Philadelphia, Miss., where three young civil rights workers were murdered
in the summer of 1964. He drove the crowd wild when he declared: "I believe
in states' rights.".........
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...399921,00.html

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater
.......Atwater on the Southern Strategy

As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to historian Alexander P. Lamis. Part of this interview was printed in Lamis' book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the October 6, 2005 edition of the New York Times. Atwater talked about the GOP's Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan's version of it:

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964… and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster…

Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps…?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, 'N-word, N-word, N-word.' By 1968 you can't say 'N-word' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'N-word, n-word.'

The terms "sun belt", and "Southern strategy", were coined, in 1969, by a 27 year old Harvard law grad and Nixon politcal advisor, Kevin Phillips. Phillips wrote the 1969 classic, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0870000586/sr=1-1/qid=1155024748/ref=sr_1_1/104-1219604-5159909?ie=UTF8&s=books">The emerging Republican majority,</a> and correctly predicted then, that the southern states would dominate American politics, and if California is included, no one has been elected POTUS since 1964, who was not born or residing in a southern state. Kevin Phillips later renounced the "new republican party" that he had advised so successfully. Here is an excerpt from comments by convicted Nixon watergate co-conspirator, Chuck Colson, who "found God" while serving jail time for his watergate crime conviction. Colson is trying to run "damage control" against the perceived impact of Kevin Phillips' new book,
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003486X/sr=1-1/qid=1155024479/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1219604-5159909?ie=UTF8&s=books">American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury</a>

Quote:

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060805/23511.htm
The 'Threat' of Theocracy

Somebody Take a Chill Pill
By Chuck Colson
Christian Post Guest Columnist
Sat, Aug. 05 2006 10:04 AM ET

.....Whatever the exact terminology, the “threat” they describe is basically the same. Like my old White House colleague, the somewhat erratic Kevin Phillips, they fear an end to the separation of church and state and its replacement by a government directly based on biblical laws.

In Phillips’s account, biblical laws will not only decide social issues like abortion and same-sex “marriage” but also matters like economics, the environment, and foreign policy. His most lurid fear is that the United States, under the sway of “theocrats,” will take actions in the Middle East to hasten the second coming of Christ.

As I said, Phillips is hardly alone in his fears. In a new book Kingdom Coming, journalist Michelle Goldberg writes about what she calls “Christian nationalism.” This “nationalism,” which Goldberg characterizes as “quasi-fascist,” believes that “godly men have the responsibility to take over every aspect of society.”....

It is amusing to read Colson's description of a political prodigy, accomplished and prolific author, and noted historian, as "my old White House colleague, the somewhat erratic Kevin Phillips", when Colson is a convicted felon who "found Jesus", ......

....Yawn....the same tired, bullshit....the same excuses.....but they'll keep doing it...because.....it works!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ima...r_Radio_Ad.mp3

Here's the next "laugh" from the Tennessee Senate campaign.

Some commentators are pointing out that every time Ford is mentioned, there are "jungle drums" behind the narrator, and every time Corker is mentioned, it's angelic strings and choir.

I'm not sure I'd characterize the Ford music as "jungle drums", myself, but it's interesting to notice how the producers of this spot used "evil" and "good" music.

Wait wait wait. This guy is from Tennessee right?

Quote:

Earlier, a young man with slicked-back hair says: "Harold accepts money from the pornography industry? Doesn't everyone?"

There's a porn industry in Tennessee???

Now accepting paypal donation from friends of the "industry"

YW pan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

We appreciate it, but expect us to do flips when the fact is Canadians cant even deploy their own troops without American help.

Care to provide an actual substantial attack, or is a vague one your goal?

Are you talking about air transport, blue water navies, nuclear bombs, economic entanglement, logistics - or what? Your complaint is more than a bit hand wavy and vague.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

YW pan.

Care to provide an actual substantial attack, or is a vague one your goal?

Are you talking about air transport, blue water navies, nuclear bombs, economic entanglement, logistics - or what? Your complaint is more than a bit hand wavy and vague.

Sorry. I forgot:

Quote:

U.S. to provide Canadian air cover
Afghanistan 'too far' for our fighter jets :lol:

Canadian soldiers deploying next month to Afghanistan will be relying on the United States for air cover after a proposal to send Canadian fighter-bombers to the region was scrapped at the last minute, the Post has learned.....

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...073b6b&k=67952

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Sorry. I forgot:

I have an idea then, why don't we just keep Canadian troops in Canada and let you own soldiers fight the war? Sound good NCB? I mean your country is doing a fine job in Iraq, I don't see why they can't accomplish the same thing in Afghanistan.:rolleyes:

I'm not a fan of Canadians having US air power overhead, your airmen seem to be either blind or stupid as they keep dropping bombs on our soldiers. Maybe they didn't get the memo the Taliban is the enemy.

Nice to see you take shots at your 'ally' in The War Against Terror, I can hardly figure out why people think yanks are arrogant:rolleyes:

Quote:

We appreciate it, but expect us to do flips when the fact is Canadians cant even deploy their own troops without American help.

Canadan military does amazing work considering their budget is only 2% of the national budget. They help us greatly, volunteering to take some of the most dangerous regions in Afghanistan to police.

And sure, they don't have long range bombers, but they have the F-18... and that's a damn good plane. The only difference is our F-18s have the carrier support in which they don't... and even then it takes a huge logistical nightmare network to keep those birds in the air. Canada does not have the GDP to support such an undertaking. The fact that they are over there speaks volumes about their loyalty and friendship.

Quote:

I'm not a fan of Canadians having US air power overhead, your airmen seem to be either blind or stupid as they keep dropping bombs on our soldiers. Maybe they didn't get the memo the Taliban is the enemy.

Friendly-fire from the air has been a problem from day one. There are rules which state that planes can fly no lower than 60,000 feet above the deck (higher in some parts). No matter how good you are, it's damn hard to tell the difference between dots at 60,000 feet.

They've discovered a problem which caused many of the incidents, same problem which killed many American soldiers. There is a GPS measuring device which reads it's current exact location, then you look through a scope where you want the bomb to go. It sends a lazer and reads the XYZ axises and determines your target's exact location. You then hit a button and it sends the GPS site to a plane overhead, and it then guides itself there.

Unfortuantely the manufacturer made an engineering error, if the batteries run out and you have to change them it reset's your target's location to your own upon re-booting. So it took a couple of times to realize our (both US/Canadian) troops were requesting air strikes on themselves.

But thanks for calling our airmen blind or stupid, you're welcome for the other 99% of successful airstrikes.

Back to the campaign:

Many of the ads on both sides are laughable until you consider:

Quote:

According to data compiled by CQ’s PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks campaign receipts and expenditures, of $67.4 million spent by interest groups including the national party organizations as of early last week, more than 80 percent — $56 million — has been spent on attacks.

*snip*

Running down the other guy has been a staple of closely contested American campaigns since John Adams questioned Thomas Jefferson’s family values. But academics, political operatives and their client candidates say a number of factors have all converged to make 2006 the nastiest election in the modern era.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/10/mi...ative_ads.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

But thanks for calling our airmen blind or stupid, you're welcome for the other 99% of successful airstrikes.

I didn't actually call them blind or stupid, I said they seem to be that way, but I do apologise for my comments as they were offensive.

Quote:

Canadan military does amazing work considering their budget is only 2% of the national budget. They help us greatly, volunteering to take some of the most dangerous regions in Afghanistan to police.

And sure, they don't have long range bombers, but they have the F-18... and that's a damn good plane. The only difference is our F-18s have the carrier support in which they don't... and even then it takes a huge logistical nightmare network to keep those birds in the air. Canada does not have the GDP to support such an undertaking. The fact that they are over there speaks volumes about their loyalty and friendship.

It's nice to see someone appreciate our contribution, rather than take shots at what we are lacking militarily.

NCB you really need to stop flame baiting in every post. It is getting old. Start acting like an adult and stop with the immature attacks.

A very true and honorable post, Seaver. I second your statement. :)

My dad was a Lt. Commander, in the late '80s to early '90s he was part of a transfer system and served under the Canadian Forces (trade system for cross-training). I spent 4 years in Canada, and got to know their military very well. From Ottowa to Cold Lake I had the opportunity to see most of the country visiting my father on deployments.

The primary difference is not the bravery or professionalism, but in the planned military objectives and budget. The fact that we have killed somthing like 22 of their soldiers in 2 months and their military still desire to stay in Afghanistan to help us speaks volumes.

.....

Though we still reserve the right to make fun of Canada as an equal opportunity offender. :thumbsup:

Update...

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/kid...ism-180720.php

Quote:

More Facebook Fun: Bob Corker's Daughter Experiments With Mary Cheneyism

Bob Corker is running for Bill Frist’s Senate seat, and he’s already demonstrating that he can be just as great a politician as the Senator Daktari himself. You see, Senator Frist hasn’t been particularly happy with, well, us for (along with others) publicizing the wacky (but harmless!) exploits of his strapping young sons. Not very happy at all. We even suspect he might be partly responsible for this.

So, after seeing all that, you’d think Mr. Corker might have let his lovely daughter know that she probably shouldn’t let pictures of her making out with chicks and dancing at underwear parties show up on a publicly accessible social networking website. Thankfully for all of you, they never had that talk.

So, now that you read the story, here comes the hotness.

http://www.wonkette.com/assets/2006/...erfacebook.jpg

http://www.wonkette.com/assets/2006/...facebook02.jpg

(She's the one behind the panties-girl)

Now I've never judged a person by his family... god knows mine is as crazy as any of them. But the door was opened by the republicans, and he honestly can't say he didnt have a say on what went on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Couldn't have said it better myself.

It's shit like that that makes me sick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

We appreciate it, but expect us to do flips when the fact is Canadians cant even deploy their own troops without American help.

Excuse me?

We rent Russian Antonovs for transport because they are better than anything made in the USA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Agreed, however, I think he was refering to the friendly fire incident where Capt. Harry Schmidt of the US National Guard was specifically told NOT to engage and did exactly the opposite. He disregarded the rules of engagement and flew in low and dropped a 500 pound bomb on Canadians conducting a live fire excercise that had been planned and proceeded to kill 4 Canadian soldiers and maim eight more.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/fr...ire/media.html

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...1103/20051103/

This negative advertising is getting lame. I think both the state and federal government should make laws that make negative advertising in elections illegal. Seriously tell us what you are about not what others are about. Let the press report what bad things the canidates have done, at least they have some obligation to check and report the facts. I hate this part of the year because the TV becomes a bunch of tabliods and the sad part is people believe all the crap they see. What kind of messed up world do we live in where the people who we choose to represent us are the ones who can lie, cheat, and decieve the best.

didn't they pass something saying that you had to disclose the side effects if you told what the drug was for....

i really think they need to pass something similar for politics. Seriously, that ad against Ford said absolutely NOTHING about the person running against him.

It's getting old. very old. and i get to vote absentee tomorrow :)

I see nothing wrong with the ad. Maybe I'm missing out on how it's racist, though?

For those who dislike it, that's McCain-Feingold in action. Money that can't go straight to a political canidate goes to attack groups who aren't legally allowed to endorse anyone instead.

Money is speech. Finance Reform told us we couldn't talk-up one guy too much, so we're talking down the others instead.

Quote:

I think both the state and federal government should make laws that make negative advertising in elections illegal.

So much for freedom of speech?

Look negative campaign adds have not gotten worse, they used to be so bad opponents would have a gunfight over what was said. Hate them if you want, but they work (if done properly, not like this one). And preventing said opportunities to state why an opponent is not fit for a job would be drastic infringement of his rights.