There was never the possibility of this so who cares?

Dems can win with the western vote, and southerners can just fade into the obscurity they deserve.

There are hillbillies in TN, and Rove was playing to them. You can believe whatever you want ot believe and you will.

And I say all this as a Southener. Southern values is a crock, and the reason we had to fight Civil War v1.0.

And they will probably be the reason we fight Civil War v 2.1

Unless the progressive southerners can finally drive the neo-confederates back to the intenetless holler were they can keep on with the cousin lovin and stay the hell out of the rational discourse.

Harsh but true.

And when we try protest all that made this country great, people call us racists!

I think the comment in the Boston.com article about the Pew Research center findings that interracial dating is not opposed by the majority of southern whites is salient. You guys can give plenty of anecdotal evidence that there are still plenty of racists in the south, just as I can give you anecdotal evidence of plenty of whites who aren’t racists. Like my white next door neighbors who are from, yes, Charles, Waycross, GA- and they have had a black foster child. Anecdotes matter less than valid (emphasis mine) stats on what is really currently the prevailing attitude in a region.

CS, any survey like this has to be taken with a mine worth of salt. Just because I respond on a survey as though I’m open minded about whatever controversy is at issue doesn’t mean it’s so. The effect of perceived social respectability on surveys like this is well known in research circles.

What is more valid is to compare responses to the same survey over time, and then say that attitudes have changed. But you still have a problem assessing the absolute value of that attitude that the survey can’t overcome.

Pyst (mail):
C Stan your home early, did Bush’s loyalty oath mixer in Georgia let out early?

Pyst: Karl gave us the night off since he figured that Kerry is doing our job for us

(link)Takhallus (mail) (www):
C Stanley:

If there was nothing wrong with the ad, why did Ken Mehlman in effect apologize for it?

Tak: If I’m not mistaken, Corker asked for the ad to be pulled because it was “tacky” not because it was racist. I think that Mehlman did make a statement that he understood that some people apparently inferred racism and unlike Kerry, he apparently felt it was important to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

SnarkyShark:
So Rove was extra carefull to make sure all the TN hillbillies got the message.

Snark: This is the kind of bigotry that the Dems practice, the belief that the majority of white southerners are racist hicks. I think you were the one who commented that this ad set the GOP back with black voters; well, I’d say it’s done as much damage or more for the Dems trying to win back the southern white vote, by insulting them with these assumptions. In order to believe that the GOP purposely made race an issue with this ad, you have to believe that there are more racist whites in Tennessee than non-racist ones. Otherwise, the outrage over racial baiting would cause more backlash than any positive effect of motivating the bigots.

I think the comment in the Boston.com article about the Pew Research center findings that interracial dating is not opposed by the majority of southern whites is salient. You guys can give plenty of anecdotal evidence that there are still plenty of racists in the south, just as I can give you anecdotal evidence of plenty of whites who aren’t racists. Like my white next door neighbors who are from, yes, Charles, Waycross, GA- and they have had a black foster child. Anecdotes matter less than valid stats on what is really currently the prevailing attitude in a region.

As far as Democratic reaction to these ads being racist? I wouldn’t phrase it that way at all, but what I do object to is first, the maligning of southern white voters with this accusation, and also the use of the race card by the Democrats to suit their political purpose rather than raising legitimate concerns about racial inequities. By using the issue of racism as a purely partisan political tool, they belittle the real struggle for racial harmony.

if you perceive racism, you must be racist yourself. Like me, I see pictures of the Ku Klux Klan, and people tell me they’re a supermacist group who worked actively to promote a racist agenda. But me, I just see some folks in white bed spreads.

Seriously, it’s not even very subtle irony.;-)

Surgejack- I totally disagree. That’s like saying if you saw segregation as racist, you must be a racist. I’m not implying that this is blatant racism, but its like beauty-in the eye of the beholder. Some will see it, some won’t as is obvious from the varying responses to the ad on this site. At the very least, the ad was controversial. When you have lived around rural southerners, you realize that not all are as progressive as you would like them to be-even in 2006.

Jim Webb ran an ad in the primary showing his opponent with lots of cash and a hooked nose. A lot of people here saw antisemitism. I honestly didn’t, and I am have a Jewish father. But that doesn’t mean that the ad absolutely wasn’t antisemitic, and those who claimed it was, were antisemites. It just means we have differing sensibilities, and perceive the same things differently.

It was a 100% unadultered slander ad, well done but in very very poor taste. The playboy party was more a party sponsored by playboy because of some football event and thousands of people were there. Not hardly the orgy it is implied to be.

I don’t agree that the reaction shows that the critics are racist. It’s absurd. The racism in the ad is fictional, and the outrage over said racism from the political operatives on the other side is ALSO fictional. Saying that they are racists because they saw racism is silly. They played the race card. Not a pretty thing to do, but not uncommon on either side and certainly not indicative that either side holds actual prejudice towards any race.

It’s the personal attack part I am referencing.”

pacatrue, if that was too rough for you then we wont have anyone left here by the end of the month. Nobody else was crying about it but you, and infact he answered me without crying foul himself, so find something better to complain about.

As for my usual contrariness, in this case I earlier argued the point that it would be no less offensive if the girl had been black, and could even have been seen racist then as well but with a different twist on the form of racism.

But I think this ad was pointed less at those who are already racist (suppressed or open), but more a play against the moralistic votes, which is why I didn’t think the girl being black or white made a real difference.

However, having been raised in a rural Southern environment for three years as a teenager (Poquoson, Virginia), my overall take is ANY reference to sex involving a black candidate will have racial undertones to a large portion of the Southern audience, black and white.

doesn’t declaring this Ford ad as not racist seems an ignorant thing to do if you don’t understand who the ad is being marketed to.

the ad isn’t for us. Its for the kind of people who live in small towns who also have some very narrow minded, specific attitudes about race. I’d say they are uniformed when it comes to race.

It’s not enough to keep repeating how the attitudes shouldn’t exist. they DO exist.

I stand by my comment.