Fancy Pants
Josh Marshall posted to this, so most of you will see it anyway. But check out this new GOP smear site on Harold Ford, Jr., called Fancy Ford. I'm not sure about the tone. Am I supposed to get a sense that Ford is a homosexual, or that he's "just" a heterosexual big spender? Some things made me think that there was a sexuality subtext, but then there's the picture of the Playboy bunnies (?).
I guess that a smear site need not choose a smear theory and stick with it (?).
Any thoughts, especially from my Tennessee readers? [Sunday update: Lots of thoughts from readers in the comments.]
posted by Number Three @ 1:17 PM
19 Comments:
I don't see the gay theme at all. I think the charge is just straight up decadence which, supposedly, doesn't play in Tennessee. (Unless, of course, it's super tackified decadence of the Graceland/Beale Street sort.)
What I found most funny was that HF is still chillin with Biz Markie - I guess he's available. If you, you've got what he needs.
(Side Bar to Bug: I've heard your opinion of HF Jr. before. Has there been a switch? Or is this just the enemy of my enemy is my friend routine.)
Side car to the CL: I'm not saying that I particularly like HF. I'm not defending his big spending lifestyle, and I'm not defending Biz Markie. I'm just pointing out the smear site, which I found interesting. And it is, undoubtedly, that, and a smear site, as well. The guys who put this together probably called it that in their meetings. And maybe I'm wrong that there's an implication of gay-ness here.
No question, they're trying to suggest he's a fag. An uppity nee-grah fag who wants your pretty white women. My first reaction was exactly the same as Em's.
With all due respect to CL, this is how the southern GOP operates. In any close election, accuse your opponent of being queer. Frankly, it is now so routine that it's hard to be shocked by it. If there's anything surprising here, it's that they've put the slur on an official NRSC web site. Usually it's just a whispering campaign started by campaign workers and spread methodically through church and society circles. Former SC Gov Caroll Campbell used the tactic to win his first race for Congress against Liz Patterson, telling people that she was a lesbo, despite the husband and kid (her kid's name was "Scooter," clear proof of deviant sexuality). Then there are Karl Rove's infamous whispering campaigns back in the day, working through the Univ. of Alabama Law School. And, not to be forgotten, the Bush campaign spread push poll rumors in the 2000 SC primary that McCain was a traitorous faggit with a druggy wife and negroid chillins'. If I recall correctly, Bush had also spread gay rumors about Ann Richards when he first ran for Texas gov.
Consistsency and plausibility don't matter, as the McCain example demonstartes pretty clearly. What matters is creating a stink of decadence, a reason to be suspicious. In the Ford case, the smear campaign is designed to tie HJ into the widespread and justified belief that his very political family is corrupt (although he's never been connected to any of it). One of the funniest things about this slur is that HJ's most likely opponent in the general, former GOP Newtoid congressman Van Hillary--who is currently leading the polls in a hotly contested GOP three-way--may, in fact, be gay. He comes across as a dumber, hickier, more femme Dan Quayle, and a couple of my well-connected Dem campaigner students have told me in the past that the Dems have had the goods on VH's "secret life" ever since he ran for Gov four years ago, but haven't yet needed to drop the dime. Is this just the same smear game, Dem-style? Maybe. Probably. But then again, what better cover for a gay pol than running as a right-wing, culture warring GOPer. There are plenty of confirmed examples in recent years (mayor of Spokane, that VA Beach congressman, Scalia, etc.). In any event, from what I can tell, this tactic almost always succeeds for the GOP, but has failed on the isolated occasions when the Dems have tried to play along, as in Lindsey Graham's Senate election a few years ago. The GOP is just better at this, and probably always will be.
As a brief follow-up, I'd like to note that the Dems certainly don't want "Van Hillary is gay" rumors getting out at the moment. Although he's the front-runner for the GOP nom, he's the weakest of the candidates for a general election, and I suspect that Ford beats him--at least in a year like 2006. Ed Bryant is just as conservative as Hillary, but smarter and more serious. Bob Corker, the moderate former mayor of Chattanooga, would win in a walk over Ford. Hell, I'd even have to consider voting for Corker, who I tend to like better than Ford, even if party loyalties will likely pull me back in line in November.
Interesting web site. I especially like the tactic of quoting sources such as the Federal Election Commission web site or a rag like the "Commercial Appeal" in order to give the criticisms a patina of legitimacy, but if you follow up on the sources, they are either highly dubious or befuddling. Thus I did a google search on the Commercial Appeal story, and found it (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:Hq4ncpIbfooJ:www.commercialappeal.com/mca/todays_editorial/article/0,1426,MCA_537_4062862,00.html+Biltmore+hotel+A+little+help+from+a+friend+Harold+Ford&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2). As you can see if you follow the link, it's a nameless editorial that offers no sources or proofs for the claims of Armani suits and hotels -- it just asserts them to be true and therefore they must be true. Of course, once it asserts this, then it becomes the authority for the information for the web site. I have to ask myself, why is the piece anonymous? Why are there no sources listed in the editorial? Could it be that the original editorial was written by some hatchet man? The links for the FEC web site are even better. One just ends up at the main page of the FEC (http://www.fec.gov/) and then if you do a search for Harold Ford, you get hits for links that contain excel files full of a host of bewildering data -- hundreds of names, addresses and expenditures. Well, I suppose I should just trust the authors of the web site to have treated the data fairly. Also I loved one of the claims that he spent over $3,100 at the House Member's Dining Room for 60 visits in 2005. Hmmm, how shocking that he would eat so many Freedom Fries at a place conveniently located near work 60 times in one year and incur bills that average $51.66 a visit! I'm sure no other politicians visit the Dining Club so often in year.
But this is highly effective (and amusing) stuff -- few will scratch under the patina to find a fake, and the propagators of this site know it.
PS -- What is a fancy Ford? A Lincoln??
I didn't notice any racial overtones, T McD. He doesn't seem to belong to any particular race.
Stephanie, if you don't think the racial theme is there, you're being naive.
It is not an accident that no black candidate has ever won statewide office in TN. Has any black pol other than Doug Wilder ever won statewide office in the South, period? There is ALWAYS a racial subtext in the South. Although Ford is light skinned, he's clearly not "white" to southern eyes, so the GOP doesn't have to announce that fact. Plus, he's from Memphis, which in TN translates universally as "black," and his family is long-famous (and notorious, especially b/c of his crazy uncle, the recently indicted state senator John Ford) in Memphis politics, all of which means he's not a blank slate. When you call him "fancy Ford," run a website in which you suggest he's livin' the pimp life and partying with white women, you're playing off of preexisting racial fears and stereotypes. Think about that Playmate picture. Why else would you put that up on the website, other than to suggest a horny black man on the interracial prowl? One weird thing about that picture. When I first saw that website this morning, it had a different playmate pic up. In the newer pic, the playmates are much more noticeably white than they were just a few hours ago. With all the attention, did they want to emphasize that theme even more, or do they just have a rotating set of playmate pics?
The whole episode makes it look like the GOP is really afraid of Ford. It's really been the GOP's race to lose, and Ford hasn't exactly created a lot of Dem enthusiasm yet. There's a widespread view that he spends way too much time kissing Bush's ass in order to consolidate his moderate credentials, even at a time when Bush's popularity is in free fall. And Ford's recent commercials on the Dubai Ports deal seem really lame and opportunistic. So why the GOP's getting panicky, I don't know.
Just to see TMcD's head spin:
As a newly minted 18 year old in the Commonwealth of Virginia, a young CL cast his first ever vote for L. Douglas Wilder.
The below is an entry from the "Teachers' Resources" website associated with PBS's Slavery In America. It describes the "Fancy Ball," a mainstay of the minstrel show.
"Zip Dandies: Almost every minstrel show had a black-faced performer dressed in exaggeratedly elegant clothes who carried on with foppish manners. Sometimes called Zip Coon or Jim Dandy, the Zip Dandy performers were usually associated with a stereotypical image of the urban black person. He was dressed in ties and tails with a top hat but had especially deformed physical features such as "beef-steak lips." A favorite scene was "De Colored Fancy Ball" which presented "Dandy Broadway Swells" in skintight "trousaloon," a black or red long-tailed coat with padded shoulders, a fancy ruffled shirt front and collar, white gloves, a jeweled cane, and a long watch chain of gold. The intention was to show how ridiculous blacks could be when they tried to ape the manners of white gentlemen. They were completely self-centered and thought only of courting fancy ladies, wearing fancy clothes, dancing the latest new ballroom jig, and strutting their bodies in ludicrous parodies of what whites believed to be the character of northern, urban blacks in contrast to the Sambo and Coon characters identified with southern, rural blacks."
http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/scripts/sia/glossary.cgi?term=z&letter=yes
(Hat tip to comment on TPM Cafe)
Sadly, the deep-seated stereotypes tapped in this Fancy Ford site can't be deployed effectively against a rich white surgeon. It doesn't matter what kind of high-livin' Frist enjoys, because it's his mighty white right.
The charges in this Fancy Ford site are a red flag for the Southern id--and there's nothing Ford can do about it. The best thing is to just try to change the subject and not wear any Armani suits. The more Democrats express outrage about it, the more publicity the smear will get, and the more effective it will be with the GOP's intended audience. There is no way to win this one.
P.S. In the above post, I'm referencing the new DSCC response site http://www.veryfancyfrist.com/ . Humorous, but hopeless.
Nice pick up on the minstrel show link, Frances. That helps explain why the GOP, a high livin' big money party if there ever was one, would go with such a bizarre (and mundane) set of allegations against Jr.
And you're right, there's no defense the Dems can really play on this. Except to go on the attack about completely unrelated issues. But that's exactly HJ's problem: he often looks to compromise where he should be swinging a baseball bat. Key example: Ford was one of the select few congressional Dems who toyed with buddying up to Bush on his plan to privatize social security. When he spoke on campus here last month, HJ spent a lot of time kissing up to Bush on Iraq before finally levelling a decent critique of his budgetary policies. In short, HJ has bad instincts when it comes to smelling blood in the water. He doesn't see an issue before it's unbelievably obvious and everyone else has already bailed out, even the GOPers, and as a result, he looks like an opportunistic Johnny-Come-Lately when he does criticize.
TMcD -- I agree with you about Ford. He can't get enough of that triangulation game. He's always Sister Souljah-ing his liberal supporters.
But his tendency to avoid the hard-edged attack is probably the better part of valor. Polarization will kill him in any statewide race. In particular, if his race becomes an explicit issue in the campaign he has no hope whatsoever of winning against a Republcan in Tennessee. Perhaps that's the GOP thinking in lauching this site. If they can get Ford complaining about racism, he's dead meat.
Frances, I agree that Ford can't let things get too polarized--at least not over race or ideology. He simply MUST appear to be a centrist Dem, no question about it.
But that also puts him in a tough position, b/c all things being equal, that's a GOP senate seat. The burden of argument/evidence lies with HJ to show why it should NOT be GOP, at least this year. So he's got to find ways to attack without looking like a crazy lefty. I'm sure that's why he jumped on the Dubai Ports deal as a godsend. But that issue is also very short term, and it won't give him much daylight on his opponents in the general, who I'm sure will distance themselves from Bush on that deal--if anybody still cares about it then.
As I see it, Ford would be running a great campaign right now if he were, in fact, the frontrunner in a Dem-leaning state, albeit one with some qualms about a black candidate from Memphis with a dodgy family. Since he's not the favorite, however, he's got to draw some blood. The only way he has any chance of winning this year is if Bush drags down the whole GOP, as it looks like he might. You can probably see where I'm going then. If you only win when Bush looks bad, you shouldn't base your triangulation strategy on people liking you b/c you like Bush and so do they. You need to find independent grounds for centrism and bash Bush and the congressional GOP 24-7, hoping to drive down their positives in the process, making yourself the only viable alternative. Sure it's risky. But it's the only winning play in the game board.
I must admit to finding this series of comments to be bizarre in the extreme. Ford does not appear to be black.
We're not so far from the days of Jim Crow, Stephanie. And segregation codes applied to anyone with discernible black ancestry. To the eyes of the bigots who supported segregation, Ford is black. Not a close call.
And the bigots have hardly died out. Segregation laws were still in full force in 1965, and people then were resisting their abolition with all the energy they had. I can still remember the public parks and pools in Anniston, AL being shut down rather than integrated, and I was born in 1968.
Most white folks in the deep south were civil rights opponents. They had kids and those kids learned those racist stereotypes at their parents' knees. Those attitudes continue to be passed down generation to generation, straight down from their great grandparents who loved their minstrel shows starring Zip Dandy.
I know it's bizarre, but that doesn't make it any less real. The South has come some distance, but not that far. You should have heard the things white Mississipians were saying about Katrina refugees from New Orleans. All those stereotypes were just as strongly held as ever.
Stephanie, to follow up on Frances's comments, note how the "fancy Ford" smear actually plays very precisely from the fact that HJ is a light-skinned black.
That "Zip Dandy" stereotype is all about the high-yellow negro who tries to pass as a white man in urban society, but only becomes a demented self-parody in the process: an extravagant, effete, omnisexual poseur living in a world of wealth and fashion that he does not deserve. Just think about it: the "charges" on the website are so trivial as to be laughable. Imagine, a congressman running for senate hosted some fundraisers and travelled out of state!! The only thing that makes them worth notice is that whole set of racist cultural signifiers that will make people react negatively to the fact that it is HJ (and not Bill Frist or Van Hillary) who's living this lie.
Definitely a mistake. Nobody around here is big HJ fan, at least not that I'm aware of.
But it's enormously interesting to see how this kind of revelation plays for different politicians. For example, it's never been an issue that Bush travels with five personal chefs in his entourage, even when he's being hosted by foreign governments.
Nobody makes an issue of his fancy duds, not even with all the ridiculous "commander in chief" embroidery that he favors. Not many politicians on Capitol Hill wear cheap suits. But it's all ok if you're from the right social class. If it intersects with the kind of powerful stereotypes at issue here, it's devastating.
I will be very, very surprised if this issue doesn't become a serious problem for the Ford campaign.
Did Fancy Ford Jr. buy an Armanii suit during his 2000 campaign with campaign funds? The Fancy Ford web site cites the Commercial Appeal as its authority on this. The Commercial Appeal is an anonymous op-ed piece that cites The Center for Public Integrity as its authority. If you go to the Center for Public Integrity's web site (http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx), which is archived back to 1997 and thus should cover Ford's 2000 campaign, and you do a search for Harold Ford, you get a few hits, but none relating to Harold Ford Jr. If you do a search for the word "Armani" you get 0 results. Do the same thing on Google and you get hits that refer to the Commercial Appeal story once again. However, there is also a story by Washington Life called "Men of Substance and Style" at their web site: http://www.washingtonlife.com/backissues/archives/02apr/fashion.htm
There Fancy Ford is at the Ritz Carlton wearing a shirt and suit by Ermenegildo Zegna and a Brioni tie. It mentions he was featured in a story by Ebony too. The man pictured above him, Chris Olson, is wearing an Armani, but the caption is positioned above Ford. Could this be the source?
At any rate, the claim in the Commerical Appeal that Ford bought an Armani from his campaign funds does not pass initial sniff tests.
Post a Comment
<< Home