There’s a lot of hoopla in the press the past couple days about a television commercial by the RNC. I’m glad that I first saw the commerical before I read or heard of any of the controversy surrounding it. The commercial is funny. The liberals who are crying their usual “racial insensitivity” lament are determined to see a racial dimension to anything Republican or conservative. Their response isn’t surprising.
At first I couldn’t figure out WHY people were saying the commerical was playing on racial issues. Then I read that it is because the woman in the video is white. The liberal media and Democratic spokespersons are saying that the fact that there’s a WHITE woman (supposedly a Playboy bunny?) used in that commercial deliberately plays to Tennessean’s racial prejudice. I don’t think they even realize what an insulting stereotype that is. Guess if I’m white and live in the South, I’m a redneck racist yahoo - don’t want our wimmin being with no black men. And, for the liberal media, it’s all right to make such outrageous charges. It’s okay to racially stereotype Southern white folks - especially Conservatives.
The facts don’t back up the stereotype, though. The Republicans are the ones who have positively welcomed blacks into positions of real power and influence.  It’s a matter of who is best qualified - not what color their skin is.  However, rather than championing people such as Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice for their accomplishments, the Democrats call them “Uncle Toms” or “token blacks”.  At least they insinuate that they’ve “sold out”. The Democrats harm minorities by foster
ing their dependence on government services.  And they assume that because a person is black, the person should be a Democrat.Â
In his commercials Harold Ford portrays himself as a conservative - and he’s not. The controversial commercial is obviously poking fun at that - the self-proclaimed conservative who votes liberal and who parties with playboy bunnies. The commercial showcases legitimate issues. And that’s probably why the liberals want to turn it into a race issue. The truth of his record would hurt him. The “outrage” of the liberals is amusing considering their track record.
The fundamental lack of morals of many in the Democratic party has been in public view for quite awhile, and apparently most Democrats don’t think it’s a big deal. Lack of morals is okay - as long as you’re a Democrat. It doesn’t matter to them that Bill Clinton took advantage of a young intern while in office. To them it was just a little “sexual addiction”. No big deal.Â
To most ethical and moral people, it IS a big deal. The president of the United States cheated on his wife with a barely legal intern IN the White House, and he never suffered any serious consequences for it. To be blunt, he received blow jobs
from her. This wasn’t something that was tender - he was gratifying his own sexual desires without consideration for her. Well at least I didn’t read where he reciprocated. He got his, so to speak. She was the means of sexual gratification for him - she wasn’t a person to him. When confronted about it, he denied it and made her suffer the media scorn. He had absolutely no consideration for her. It was all about him, him, him. And most Democrats STILL admire him. How anyone can consider Clinton with anything other than contempt is beyond my comprehension. Clinton made the office of president a joke. He took advantage of a young woman and then used the power of his position of POTUS to further cause her harm.
And what does Clinton have to do with Ford. It’s the same attitude towards women and sex. Ford attended a Playboy party. What does Playboy stand for? It’s Playboy stands for the use of young women for sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is wonderful - but typically Playboy isn’t interested in mutual pleasure or commitment.Â

It doesn’t matter whether or not the supposed Playboy bunny in the commerical was black or white. The point is the same. It’s not a matter of race. It’s a matter of character. I voted today, and my vote was for Bob Corker.
Note: Watching TV tonight - in a short time span, there were four political commericals. Three were Ford commercials blasting Corker personally, and one was a Corker commercial in which Corker’s two daughters talked about their dad - they never referred to Ford at all.
Sphere: Related Content




















October 27th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
We’re currently locked in a heated BE battle and my points are on you! I’m trying to lose mine so I can shake the BE habit (as my post tonight indicates).
I’m also from Tennessee, a member of the Rocky Top Brigade, and will probably link you tonight so I can find you without BE’s help!
Liked the way you presented your Ford/Croker case and that’s the way I lean as well.
Good luck…see ya around.
October 28th, 2006 at 6:32 am
Carol, I totally agree with you. It is beyond my comprehension how the Democrats can be SO outraged by the Foley scandal (and rightly so) and yet turn their heads to the Clinton fiasco. It is the hight of hypocrisy.
BTW, I posted what diet I am on in the comments section on my blog (under the post about my 25lb. loss). Check it out.
October 28th, 2006 at 9:48 am
At least Foley is out of office in disgrace as he should be. If he had been a Deocrat, they woudl have stood in lockstep behind him as they did President Clinton. Now the democrats are blaming th whole Republican party for “cover up”. What about their theme of “everyone lies about sex”, when their President had sex in the Oval office with an intern only a few years older than his daughter… One of my granddaughter served as an intern. People are proud to send theit young people as interns to Washington expecting them to be respected and cared for just as they expect pages to also be respected and care not and not debased.
October 30th, 2006 at 3:39 am
624757 Blog Verification…
624757…
November 10th, 2006 (4 weeks ago) at 4:15 am
Jane Says:
…Democrats can be SO outraged by the Foley scandal (and rightly so) and yet turn their heads to the Clinton fiasco. It is the hight of hypocrisy.
Actually, by the definition of hypocritical, a homosexual lawmaker who campaigns on a homophobic platform is a hypocrite. Soliciting for homosexual sex with minors isn’t exactly the same as adultery. I’d be careful of who you call a hypocrite. I can think of at least a dozen GOP homosexuals who were disgracefully forced out of the closet, off the top of my head.
It seems perhaps that the truth is a bigger enemy to one party, than it is to another.
Oh, and ‘hight’ is spelled ‘height’.
Your Welcome.
November 10th, 2006 (4 weeks ago) at 7:33 am
And Jimbo, “your” is spelled “you’re”. Next time proofread your own writing before you start pointing out other people’s typos. Being pompous isn’t attractive.
I agree with you that the truth seems to be a bigger enemy to one party than it is to another. I disagree with you, though, about which party that is. You completely missed Jane’s point. It’s not a matter of “what” the moral misdeed was. Foley was/is a hypocrite. So was/is Clinton. The difference is that the Republicans and Foley acknowledged it, and Foley was ousted. The Democrats and Clinton acted like it’s no big deal, Clinton let a young woman bear the brunt of the public scorn - and the Democrats still honor Clinton.
By the way, who are the dozen disgraced Republicans you can think of off the top of your head?
July 5th, 2007 at 11:06 am
This is exactly what I expected to find out after reading the title nfamous Commercial at The Median Sib. Thanks for informative article