Congressman Ford, and I hope next year Senator Ford  it is good to see you respond to these cowards and fools.  Democrats need to come together never ever tto allow "swift boating" again.  Daniel A. Greenbaum

I'd say if this is the best they've got, you're in good shape!

These are the same tired tactics of a tired Republican party. You represent what they fear the most -- positive change.

Keep up the great work and march on to victory! 

An utterly sensible response by a worthy public servant to an utterly non-sensical smear by innuendo from utterly cheap politicians who have nothing whatsoever to offer to solve American and world problems.

In the Dubai Ports Word scandal, the voters were not reacting to a national security issue, but something much deeper.

And, after reading your post, I believe you were, also.

Institutions are those laws and social norms that form the fabric of a nations life; that allow it's citizens to go about their daily business without undue concern.

If America's institutions were healthy, the DPW deal should have engendered nothing more than a healthy debate, not the widespread panic and anger that we saw.People were fearful, and not about national security, but of the future of the United States of America.

That is just not right. The only reason to have a government is so it's citizens feel safe.

But not just ordinary citizens were afraid. A smear campaign in response to a disagreement over a single issue is not merely disporportionate, but an indication that, even among the core of our society, our elected representatives, our best and brightest, trust in our institutions is wavering.

This should be an alarm, a wake up call to both you and your fellow congresspersons of all parties, that there is something terribly wrong, something that trancends party lines, trancends politics, and represents a clear and present danger to the United States of America itself.

If our faith in our institutions dies, one day we will wake up to find that we are just a large group of people living on the North American continent, not Americans.

Oh, there will still be courts, and laws, and cities, but we wont be special, it won't even matter that the American dream has died, quietly. in the night, because noone will care any longer.

I am not a congressperson, I never said I had the skill and the judgement to guide our nation, and to be the caretaker of the hopes and dreams of millions of people, that responsibility, that honor, was claimed by you and your fellow congresspeople.

And all of you failed. You can't even keep the dream alive among yourselves, let alone those you lead. 

But we will all pay the price. Go back to Congress, Mr Ford; and tell your fellow congresspersons that this is important, that somehow, someway, they need to fix this.  They have to restore trust in our institutions, in Congress, and in our government.

If they don't, the day will come when it won't matter anymore. 

A Brief History of 'Fancy' Blacks in America

What's a fancy? From Slavery in America, an educational site based on the PBS original documentary:

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.

Jason H. Lee,  Minstrelsy and the Construction of Race in America
(via the Brown University Library Digital Collection):

Minstrelsy explained that if any black Americans decided to try to "become white" through the adoption of white values, dress, or manners, he was destined to fail as his natural inferiority would never allow him to rise from his lower place in the racial hierarchy. In the song "De Color’d Fancy Ball" the minstrel performer sings, dresses, and prances in an attempt to emulate white culture. He dances the waltz and even tries to speak some French, demonstrating his "sophistication." Although this song represented minstrelsy’s attack on northern black dandies, it also represented the more fundamental white criticism of black attempts to transcend their blackness. Caught up in the moment of dance and merriment, the minstrel character nonsensically exclaims:

Chas-sez croi—sez prom-ber—nade Oh de joys ob dan-------cing!
Chas-sez croi—sez prom-ber—nade Oh de joys ob dan-------cing!
Chas-sez croi—sez prom-ber—nade Oh de joys ob dan-------cing!

This description confirms Toll’s explanation that in every way minstrels emphasized, blacks fell far short of white standards. No matter how hard they tried, minstrelsy guaranteed its audience that black Americans would never be able to penetrate into the realm of whiteness—they would never be able to receive full citizenship within the true American body politic.

University of Virginia Professor of American Studies Eric Lott
(via The American Experience):

I think the stereotypes that emerge from the 19th century minstrel show circulate to the present day and are crucial in defining white people's sense of who black people are, I'm sad to say. Whether it's in the perceptions of black people who drive fancy cars -- Miles Davis complained about being pulled over every five minutes for driving a Maserati -- or whether it's in the hardly updated version of Jim Crow and something like the welfare mother. I think there are still the lenses white people put on when they look at black Americans, and it's sad but it's kind of desperately indicative of the way in which this country still hasn't surmounted the kinds of feelings that gave rise to minstrelsy in the first place.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee - Vile racists, ignorant of history, or both? 

 This response reminds me of the problem we, who live in other states, have when we are asked to support a candidate for the Senate or the House.  Our perception of that candidate is formed, largely, by what has happened in the past month or so.  But, those actually living in the candidate's state will usually have formed their opinions based on several  years of experience.

Hoppy in Sacramento

I read it to mean the fight Ford is taking to our opponents, the way he is drawing their fire, the $4.4 million he has raised, the support from the Vice President of the United States (the last one we could be proud of, anyway) who hosted a fundraiser this week that raised $350,000 more before the port ads took off, the success on the ports issue, the national attention he is drawing to this race, the fact that the National Journal and washingtpost.com this week ranked the Tennessee race among the top 9 in the country.

That, I think.

Though it's apparent Bush's standing as Securitymeister has disintegrated with his Port Insecurity plan, I remain saddened that Americans have granted him a pass to illegally wiretap Americans who have nothing to do with terrorism.

I saw your ad and it was masterful. Now can an ad be advanced that promotes our freedom over our Constitution-breaking president? Or do we really need to wait for proof that he's spying on average Americans who oppose his incompetence, cronyism and dishonesty?

Kevin Hayden

To reiterate (sorry) ACDC...I do not believe that the 'port security' was the number one concern of Americans over the DPW deal...I think there is simply a conviction, sub-consciously, that Dubya's Middle-East 'policy' is all mucked-up, and whatever he supports must be wrong.

And there is ample basis for that pervasive idea.

As for real security issues, I would oppose the deal from a security standpoint solely on the basis that even though, today, there might be no great danger, six months from now with passions in the Middle-East at their present stage, who knows what could transpire among the Saudis, the Pakistanis, The Egyptians and The Emirates?

Terrorism's influence in the UAE might then be a grave concern.  Why risk it?...other than Bush's & probably Baker's possible financial gain from such transaction... 

Again, if the UAE is a potential threat, then why do we allow the Emirate Airlines to still operate an terminal at JFK Airport?  I could think of worse things that could happen with a terrorist-controlled plane than a terrorist-controlled ship.

As for possible benefits of the deal and why you would "risk it", it's a national security asset in the long-term. Over the past few years, the UAE has become an increasingly important part of the global economy. Their cooperation is valuable for stability not only in the Middle East but in the global economic system as well. Stronger economic ties between the US and UAE increases the incentive for the UAE to cooperate in maintaining global security.

Two points, Mr. Beers:

 1. A Democrat that votes and pals with the Republicans may do more damage than a real Republican, because they use him to claim bipartisanship and underline how "out of the mainstream" the progessives allegedly are.

 2. While the website is an ugly and racist attack, Mr. Ford should take it as a lesson. He can be a gentleman and pal around with the Republicans, and suck up with his voting, but it goes to show that when they are finished having their way with him they will treat him like dirt. All of his triangulating will have gained him nothing.

The smear is analogous to the old legal aphorism: When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. When you have nothing, muddy the waters.

That is what the Repos are trying to do with their smear of Congressman Ford. 

The UAE does not have open elections, bans all Jews from the emirate, and has a steady record of abuse of migrant workers & confiscation of passports/travel documents, making them virtual slaves. They were/are one of the main sources of workers, transferred by force, to Iraq for American contractors, who in turn treat them like dirt.

Please don't call them friends. They are a convenience.

It is so refreshing to see someone lead the way on tough issues.  It seems like the common trend is to avoid issues that require real thought.  Being a young voter, it's so nice to know that someone (Harold Ford, Jr!) is concerned about our future.  We need Democrats that will be truthful and vocal about their opinions.  It helps us trust the government again. 
When candidates and parties can't win on the issues they turn to the negative campaigning.  It's so cowardly, and that's exactly what the Republicans and their candidates have turned to.  Why?!  Grown men/women do not need to act like that.
It's wonderful that we have such a great option for Senate.  We need more Democrats like Harold Ford, Jr. that will stand up for himself when others attack him.   We need more people like Harold Ford, Jr. Period. 

As you wrote, "Our nation has nearly 50 million people with no healthcare and their site says nothing about that." I guess you would agree that those 50 million people are among the most likely to be forced into bankruptcy should they suffer a major illness or injury.

Yet you (and some other congressional Democrats) voted for the anticonsumer Bankruptcy "Reform" Act of 2005. This lobbyist-written bill was a big defeat for working families, but a gigantic gift to the highly profitable and unethical credit industry. Yet you supported it.

The only thing worse than a Republican is a bad Democrat.

One would think we wouldn't need it, but with the inert responses that often come out from the MSM when democrats take a stand, here is a summary: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/bush-pundits-dems-feig_b_17157.html

of one part of the harm that Bush has done and continues to do to our country.  There are so many ways to strike back at their talking points, and the tendency to be defensive only hurts our cause.  Gather up this menu, provided by David Sirota and hand it back, piece by piece.  The facts are on our side. 

Jan Knaus

So you don't trust the government with knowlege of your activities.

Thats good, privacy is a basic American institution. But you are seriously concerned about the threat to your privacy, and thats not good.

As a matter of fact, if you think about it, it's silly. The government doesn't need any evidence, any information to arrest you, put you in jail, kill you. I mean, the entire Iraqi army couldn't stop the government from arresting Saddam.  The only protection you have is the institution of law, the tradition of following the Bill of Rights and it's ancilliary corpus.  

Reread your post...what you are complaining about is the destruction of the institution of law as it affects you.

You are into politics, and you complained about incompetence, cronyism and dishonesty. That is pretty much the definition of politics in America, Republican and Democrat alike, so how can you complain unless you are worried about something deeper that that?

You also complain about government spying and databases, but think about it. Private agencies like Equifax, Choicepoint and Acxiom not only have a far vaster database about you, but they can destroy your credit, your employment, or even your abitlity to house yourself and you have no recourse at all. No institution protects you, and few have the resources even to put up a token struggle.

But you don't worry about them. That is because you still believe the institution of law protects you from them, and you still trust that that part of the institution is still intact...so far. 

In Argentina, for example, they don't believe any more. You have to pay cash for a house in Argentina, because noone trusts the courts to protect a mortgage. The same is true for almost any other activity that requires trust in government, which is why Argentina is doing so badly, in spite of much the same advantages as America.

Complain about the underlying principles, not the instances. For every instance you prevent, ten new and different examples will appear. 

Mr. Ford should take it as a lesson. He can be a gentleman and pal around with the Republicans, and suck up with his voting, but it goes to show that when they are finished having their way with him they will treat him like dirt. All of his triangulating will have gained him nothing

Yes. And JC Watts is the poster boy for exactly this type of treatment and he was a republican. They used his face at their national convention giving him lots of air time to convey they had 'diversity' in the party...but when JC got 'too big for his britches' or 'uppity'..they yanked his chain....DeLay refused to allow him to get funding for his congressional district and made Watts looked like a greedy graspy ingrate in the process....just another 'blackboy' who didn't know his place.

The smear is analogous to the old legal aphorism: When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. When you have nothing, muddy the waters.

Or to make it a more common aphorism 'kill the messenger'...Hiliary has said this several types they never ever address the substance of the issue...only the character of the messenger.

That is what the Repos are trying to do with their smear of Congressman Ford.

It is a repetitious pattern, used on all GOP opponents.  The entire time Bush has been in office, he has held up Clinton as the one to blame for each and everyone of the transgression his administration is responsibility for.  Blamegame has been their entire game.  I cannot think of anyother time in history that people can recall the name of a former President so readily after a new administration has been in office for over 6 years.  It almost seems like Bill Clinton never left office in terms of how often we hear about what happened in his administration...and that is directly proportional to Dubya's screwups and incometent bungling.....which means  DAILY... 

joejoejoe -- Thanks for educating me about the historical use of the term "fancy." Based upon this solid post, I have to renounce my earlier skepticism that the website was knowingly racist. "Fancy" does, indeed, have a racist connotation as employed against Ford. Well done, and shame on the GOP for being either "vile racists, ignorant of history, or both." Shame on me for not withholding my judgment for longer. Absolutely fantastic post.
Pantheon

I am with this poster.  Mr. Ford does not deserve this treatment.  But Mr. Ford seems to only realize that "we will win when we stand together" when he needs our support.  His records show that he is a Democrat in name only.  Republicans would not mind him so long as he provides the "bi-partisan" vote in Congress but they would not want him to be in the senate if they can't control his vote completely.  He has consistently voted more with the Republicans than with the value a Democrat should stand up for.  I recall he was one of the few social security wafflers here at the TPM cafe.  I would support him if he truly stands up for the Democratic values.  Until then, he has my sympathy.

It is also apparent that they feel safe to do so.  This is a calculated act - the number of people they would please versus the number of people they would offend.  Clearly,  they must think they would come out ahead with attack like this.  History shows that they are right - it is an ugly fact about Americans.  It is safe to attack minority to please the majority - self proclaimed christians and bigoted.

Silly Ford.  He should have gone to the "Signtures" where he would be fed for free, no?  Too bad, he is not a Republican congressman.

Rep. Ford,

Your ad on port security was excellent. I hope other Democrats will follow suit in using a strong, decisive tone with a simple message, and none of that annoying sentimental music that we are supposed to associate with the heartland.

I want to give you some additional ammunition against the cochamamie plan to have a foreign company countrol aspects of our port operations. My objections have very little to do with the country being the United Arab Emirates, although I don't think that is a non-issue--I'll say more about that later.

My main objections have more to do with the fact that global capitalists operate on a world stage and have an amazing ability to turn terrorist and other aversive acts into a profit opportunities. While the leaders of any company will claim that they are committed to our security when such a lucrative contract is at stake, I maintain that they will never take our security as seriously as we do. That is human nature. It is remarkable to me that President Bush, the supposed "security president," doesn't take our security as seriously as we do.

My secondary objection to the DPW deal is that I think this adds several extra layers of complication to our security operations, operations which we know are already inadequate. Frankly, I did not know that foreign companies controlled operations at our ports--I learned this as a result of the DPW deal. The owners of DPW are no doubt just your average global capitalists and I have a dislike for them that is neither more nor less than other global capitalists. However, it seems logical that if DPW operates parts of several major U.S. ports, our ports will be dealing more closely with the port of Dubai itself. They will be drawing from a labor pool that is significantly more hostile to the United States than the British labor pool is. The opportunities for infiltration of our ports will increase markedly and DPW will soon lose interest in all the onerous security measures that would be required to guard against terrorists.

Finally, do not believe the cries of Republicans and the punditocracy that we have insulted the arab world by not doing this deal. They were already insulted by the illegal invasion of Iraq, the colonization of Iraq's resources, and the torture at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, to just name a few things that already made them very angry at us. 

and John F. Kennedy.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Enough of the DC Dems - Molly Ivins

Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton

After all Congressman Ford

 What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

Congressman Ford, as one of your constituents I'm sorry that you're subjected so such an unjust GOP smear campaign.

However, you've voted on the wrong side of every issue that I care about as my congressman. If you want my vote, you have to represent me and my views. I'm not going to "promote" you to higher office when you don't give a damn about what matters to me. You were wrong about the bankruptcy bill. You were wrong about the war. Your support of President Bush disgusts me deeply.

Frankly, I'd just as soon see a real Republican representing Tennessee in the Senate than see you, a Republican in Democratic clothing, representing Tennessee in the Senate. I won't vote for the Republican, but I'll be damned if I'm voting for you, either.

You're simply unelectable this year. And I look forward to your having to get a real job and perhaps commune with your constitutents for a year or two. Maybe then you'll get an idea of what matters to us.

What's this?  Rep. Harold Ford being critical of the Bush administration?  Way funny.  Over the years, Ford (like Joementum) is one of the small Democratic regulars who frequently appear on FOXNews(GOP-TV) to voice their support of the Iraq war and USA Patriot Act -- the Ford "hearts" Bush meme is something most bloggers have come to know.

It's got to be an election year. 

I do not advocate support of Ford (nor Lieberman) because of their voting records on SOME issues in Congress...On many of the issues, they are, as a matter of fact, too cozy with the Bush view(s).

I strongly advocate supporting Ford (or possibly another Democrat from Tennessee) simply because when it comes to re-organizing Congress in 2007, it is paramount that we have as many (D)'s behind congressional names-rosters as possible.

I leave it up to the voters of the Great State of Tennessee to wisely choose their Congressional representatives, and maybe Ford, (knowing those voters) is guilty of submerging what is the right course under expediency in some of his decisions.  That is a bit less than 'brave', but it shows a good deal of discretion.

Ford, even though having a record of SOMETIMES voting WITH the Bushite Conservatives, is still preferrable to a genuine hide-bound neo-con who ALWAYS votes against the peoples' interests in favor of corporations.