Ford For Tennessee

2:05 pm EST October 22nd, 2006 | Democrats | 8 Comments

I wonder when the newsweeklies will get around to chronicling those black Republicans on the rise like Steele – losing in Maryland, Blackwell – losing in Ohio, or Swann – losing in Philadelphia?

Fordnewsweek

By the way I love how Newsweek characterizes a possible Democratic House as a possibly radical entity after the Republican house of corruption, pedophilia, terrorism and war.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

8 Responses to “Ford For Tennessee”

  1. Oliver Willis says:
    October 22, 2006 at 6:59 pm

    The cover is about a black politician surging in the south. Unlike your candidate Michael Steele, its not all about playing the victim.

  2. Stephanie Dray says:
    October 22, 2006 at 10:31 pm

    It is sad that looking at that magazine cover, my inner girl comes out, and all I can think is, “Wow, that’s a fine looking man.”

    Now, you were saying something about radicals and congress?

  3. Hollywood_Freaks says:
    October 22, 2006 at 11:12 pm

    By the way I love how Newsweek characterizes a possible Democratic House as a possibly radical entity after the Republican house of corruption, pedophilia, terrorism and war.

    uhhh

    Would a Democratic majority go wild, or govern from the middle?

    By the way, that’s not a characterization. That’s a question.

  4. Oliver Willis says:
    October 22, 2006 at 11:14 pm

    It’s a characterization – its written with the basic assumption that a Dem majority would somehow be of mind to “go wild”.

  5. veldmach@student.gvsu.edu says:
    October 22, 2006 at 11:20 pm

    If that leads to a characterization, then it’s also written with the basic assumption that a Dem majority would somehow be of mind to “govern from the middle.”

    —

    Is he black or is he white?

    I love how he characterizes him as being black.

  6. Mr. Sparkle says:
    October 23, 2006 at 11:32 am

    Would a democratic majority go wild, or govern from the middle?

    That sentence reminds me of a segment on a Daily Show episode: the use of the question mark on headlines to mask stupid generalizations.

    For instance, look at the difference between “House Dems: Wild-Eyed, Rabid Nutjobs” and “House Dems: Wild-Eyed, Rabid Nutjobs?” With a simple question mark, the speaker is not saying that the House Democrats are crazy, but “various people” have said it and thus it merits further debate.

    Ahhh, semantics.

  7. frameone says:
    October 23, 2006 at 11:35 am

    And what exactly do you morons think Newsweek means by “go wild”?

    Holding investigations into possible illegal behavior on the part of Republicans? Rolling back tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that the country as a whole can ill afford? Opening up federal funding for stem cell research?

    That’s what conservatives characterize as wild liberal radicalism.

    Now in my book supporting acountability, fairness and scientific progress are pretty middle of the raod positions. But in the very question, Newsweek made the Republican talking point their measure of what the middle is. This despite the fact that the Congress just ended was the one that dragged the whole country through the Teri Schiavo mess.

    If the Dems win, when they step up to enact the agenda they ran on, conservatives will tear their hair our screaming that the Dems have “gone wild” and Newsweek will eat it up.

  8. Duros62 says:
    October 23, 2006 at 1:35 pm

    Warning; the following Congress contains adult material and is unsuitable for children under 18.

    DEMS GONE WILD!!!!

    Dems Gone Wild Mardi Gras!!!
    Dems Gone Wild Doggy-style!!!

    Dems’ Gone Wild First Timers (with congressional pages)!!! Oh, sorry that’s for Reps Gone Wild. You know for the gay crowd.

    Gimme a break and save it for the editorial page.