Patterico's Pontifications

1/19/2007

L.A. Times Once Again Reports Legitimate Ad Against Ford as “Racially Tinged”

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General,Race — Patterico @ 6:47 am

In an article about Obama’s possible presidential candidacy, the L.A. Times reports:

[South Carolina state Sen. Robert Ford] said Obama “wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning one state” in a general election. He pointed to the 2006 Senate campaign in Tennessee, where a black Democratic candidate lost to a white Republican following a racially tinged campaign ad.

The odds are good that the article is referencing about an ad mocking Harold Ford, Jr. had attended a Playboy party.

The ad was not “racially tinged,” as I explained in this post. It made a legitimate point about whether Ford was hypocritical for portraying himself as a churchgoing type guy, when he had attended a Playboy party. (It’s not a point I agree with, but I can see where other voters might.)

At the very least, it’s a matter of opinion whether it was “racially tinged.” But the L.A. Times, once again, is reporting it as fact. Which, from their leftist perspective, it is.

19 Responses to “L.A. Times Once Again Reports Legitimate Ad Against Ford as “Racially Tinged””

  1. Anyone who disagrees with a Liberal only does so because they are racially tinged, a homophobic, want to see the elderly suffer, or hate children. There is no other possible reason for someone to disagree with a Liberal.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  2. Same with the Chronicle and Mercury News, which have repeatedly reported that Proposition 22 is limited to same-sex marriages performed outside California. I have asked for a correction — noting that such is merely a legal opinion, with no legal ruling to support it — to no avail.

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  3. i will no longer tolerate being called a “white person”. henceforth, i wish to be known as a “person of all colors” because white is the fusion of all the colors in the rainbow, it sounds more inclusionary and equitable, and it one-ups the multiculti “persons of color”.

    assistant devil's advocate (d0413b)

  4. Obama winning not even one State? The LAT makes Ford sound like he thinks a lot of white Democrats are racists, or even that Ford is a racist himself for assigning racism willy-nilly to the majority of whites simply because they are white.

    Fortuneately for Ford, we can’t trust the LAT.

    J. Peden (6a8222)

  5. The LAT says it’s “racially tinged” because it WANTS it to be. To their way of thinking, how dare anybody not be racist. They would run out of targets and material. They could not hold themselves up as the savior of the black race.

    Prominent blacks like Larry Elder hate institutions such as the LAT because he believes it perpetuates racism and “victicratism”.

    rightisright (2fce83)

  6. I did alot of ‘personal’ research on the Ford Ad during the elections. Of all the people I talked to, almost half thought the ad was racist.

    I took the people and their responses and separated them and then simply picked the people that I thought were ‘racist’ (by their actions, speech or whatever… these were people I knew, so I had good background).

    When I took a count of all the people I thought were racist, they were EXACTLY the same ones that thought the ad was racist o.O

    and ADA: You could be a person of no color (as white is the absence of all colors in paint) :)

    Lord Nazh (3465cc)

  7. “because white is the fusion of all the colors in the rainbow,”
    In light but not in pigment son. In pigment, the result is black.

    The ad was designed to play to a racist audience.

    AF (44cb86)

  8. What do you mean–“tinged”?

    Dan Collins (1e2e08)

  9. I guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder.

    But it is a bit disingenuous to dissallow the possibility that racial fires can easily be stoked when the perception panders images of a black man ogling a white woman in the old south. Don’cha
    think?

    Semanticleo (e8f396)

  10. I guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder.

    Semanticleo, once again, spreads his racially-tinged hatred across the internets. Why this filthy, despicable racist is not banned from all intelligent forums of debate is an eternal mystery and one of history’s greatest travesties.

    Friggen racist.

    OHNOES (3f4332)

  11. Just like Steele losing in Maryland, oh wait, that one never seems to be brought up? I wonder why?

    Eric (419a1e)

  12. The liberals have turned their backs on the south to cow tow to JESSIE JACKASSON and the liberal NAACP too bad for them

    krazy kagu (4ca035)

  13. It was a humorous TV ad—but it wasn’t “racist.”

    The funny thing is that the LA Times doesn’t want readers to know that Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer (the new Majority Whip) referred to Michael Steele, the GOP’s Senate candidate, as “slavish to the Republican party” during this past fall’s campaign.

    And is the LA Times aware of that old Democrat Senator from West Virginia—I mean, didn’t he used to recruit folks to join the KKK ?

    Desert Rat (ee9fe2)

  14. Barack — CALL ME!

    Federal Dog (9afd6c)

  15. The guy who makes a joke about Indians and “macacas” wants to lecture us about whether or not an ad is racially tinged?

    http://patterico.com/2006/12/14/5522/not-a-study-id-want-to-conduct/

    [m.croche is a racist. You saw it! He just made a reference to Indians and “macacas”!

    What’s that, always-misses-the-point croche? You say you were referencing someone *else’s* comment re Indians and macacas? Then maybe you should have considered the fact — which is obvious to anyone not blinded by lefty hatred, and which I already explained to you in comments to the referenced post — that that’s exactly what *I* was doing: making a reference to someone *else’s* reference. (I’ll give you one guess who that someone is . . .)

    Racist. — P]

    m.croche (2df8f8)

  16. e e cummings wrote:

    i will no longer tolerate being called a “white person”. henceforth, i wish to be known as a “person of all colors” because white is the fusion of all the colors in the rainbow, it sounds more inclusionary and equitable, and it one-ups the multiculti “persons of color”.

    Perhaps I could be a person of several colors, depending upon the season. Portugese ancestry (at least on my father’s side, from which I seem to have gotten my complection) leaves me not quite as pale as those of Nordic descent in the winter, and I tan both quickly and deeply during the summer, to the point at which I could be one of those famous “brown” people some assume conservatives must hate.

    But even then, perhaps I could be considered, if not multi-cultural, multi-colored, because there are certainly areas on which the sun doesn’t shine! :)

    Dana (556f76)

  17. “Perhaps I could be a person of several colors, depending upon the season.”

    That sounds all very festive. Like a walking, talking “holiday tree.” I say go for it.

    Big time.

    Federal Dog (9afd6c)

  18. The ad in question was one in a sea of many stupid attacks that took place over the course of the last election cycle. It was vindictive, irrelevant bullshit, and it speaks poorly of Tennessee that Corker was elected.

    That said, I didn’t see anything racist about the ad. Lowbrow, but not racist.

    Leviticus (43095b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2168 secs.