P.S.  The election’s today.

Maybe the NYT got mixed up and thought Tinker (aw, the jokes that are possible with that name) was the Republican.  ‘Cause normally the NYT despises race-baiting unless it’s done by the Dem.

If the NYT had anything to say about the Childers slur on Davis, I totally missed it (we damned sure know that the DJ had nothing to say about it).  Btw, has Childers apologized for this ad?  Has he been asked to?  I believe it should be requested that he apologize for it.  It was despicable.  It’s time the Dems were forced to quit using race as a weapon (while having the galling nerve to accuse the Pubs of doing it).

Maybe we can get Jesse Jackson to get his knife out and punish Childers instead of Obama?  ‘Cause the KKK ad was definitely “talking down to” and showing lack of respect for the intelligence of blacks.  It was the lowest, scum-scraping form of emotional, racial clawing.

Childers never apologized.  He lied and said he didn’t know anything about the KKK flyers.  This kind of politics is always done in the 11th hour.  The flyers hit the african american areas of the district the eve of the election.  Heck, Childers campaign had vans running around some areas of the district with signs saying Greg Davis was in the KKK.  This is a pathetic way of turning out votes.

Didn’t Davis apologize for his part of the ads?  Why hasn’t Childers been forced to apologize?  Oh, never mind, no accountability from the media?  I guess same as that KKK attack.  Amazing pattern isn’t it.

Glad you put this up alan.  I thought the exact same thing when I read the CA this morning.

I’ll agree that the DCCC’s flyer was dirty politics. It was also part of an Independent Expenditure campaign--NOT approved by Childers himself.  You simply can’t compare that ill-advised, stupid flier by the DCCC with the TINKER APPROVED TV/Web campaign.  It’s not the same thing and you know it, Alan.

OK, Sailor.  I’ll play ball.  I would tend to believe that Childers did not endorse it, but he didn’t publicly denounce it in any meaningful way.  Wouldn’t accepting another $1M from DCCC be a defacto endorsement by Childers of DCCC’s tactics?

In other words, IF Childers was so “offended”, wouldn’t prudence dicatate that he put some distance between himself and an organization that peddled racist propaganda on his behalf?

I agree that Childers should have clearly denounced the eleventh-hour tactic by the DCCC.  I certainly would have. But you asked if someone could tell you the difference between that and what Tinker did.  I think I answered your question.  There is a difference.

As for Childers refusing money from the DCCC, let’s get real. He can’t afford to run w/out it and it’s not like what they did was illegal or even immoral.  Just tacky. Doesn’t come close to Willie Horton or Swiftboat campaigns, IMO.

question...how come davis got crushed for independent expenditures run on his behalf by the rncc (nursing home ad) yet childers’ gets a pass here?

oh wait, b/c democrats and the media that owns them (or is it the other way around) play by different rules.

race baiting is all fine and dandy so long as it is being done to hurt republicans. 

davis wins in november.

Hernando Man, “race baiting is fine and dandy so long as it is being done to hurt republicans...” the example of race baiting not working is in the Tinker campaign was by a Democrat to hurt a Democrat!!!!  Don’t tell me Willie Horton didn’t hurt Dukakis.  Both sides use it and it is disgusting.

Also, this “democrats and the media that owns them..” so when did Rupert Murdoch and the other mega corporate media outlet owners in this country become democrats? You’re so partisan you can’t look at anything objectively.

Sailor, the only difference between Tinker and Childers was the messenger . . . not the message.  The messages in both pieces were in fact identical.

If you believe that Childers should comprimise his principles to take campaign contributions from an organization that ran racially inflamatory ads to benefit him, then that’s on you (and your candidate).

You didn’t see Obama and HF Jr or the NYT coming out decrying the tactics in the Childers race.  The ads that hurt the Davis image the most were by 3rd parties, NRCC, whatever. 

Childers could apologize and he didn’t.  Obama and Jr. could have said something and they didn’t.  NYT could’ve spoken up and they didn’t.

We all know why.

first of all, have you any idea which candidate from which party was the first to mention willie horton?  do you?  no?  well it was AL GORE in the DEMOCRATIC primary in 1988.  again, interesting how Democrats will always race bait. (i’m being objective here)

so..rupert murdoch owns CBS, ABC, NBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc etc.  no?  Fox News is hardley “the media”

oh, murdoch DOES own the ny post...which endorsed BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA...to wit: In a 2008 interview with Walt Mossberg, Murdoch was asked whether he had “anything to do with the New York Post’s endorsement of Barack Obama.” Without hesitation, Murdoch replied, “Yeah. He is a rock star. It’s fantastic. I love what he is saying about education. I don’t think he will win Florida...but he will win in Ohio and the election. I am anxious to meet him. I want to see if he will walk the walk.”

True.  Murdoch isn’t conservative per se (esp. socially look at how the Fox broadcast network pushed the envelope when it got started).  But he saw a market that wasn’t being tapped (people who did want the leftist slant) and went after it.

It seems simple to a lot of folks and there’s this big myth that Murdoch is some Reaganite.  Yet, it’s really not.  If the other side of the political divide had had the stranglehold and he saw a market, he would’ve gone the other direction.

Most journalists, journalism professors, editors, etc. are either liberal, see that appearing to be is a good career move or at least “cool” and gets them invited to the good parties.  That’s a truth and unworthy of having to be proven.  There are exceptions, but the statement is “generally” true (even if only relatively in some places).  In NY, in DC, in Jackson, in Tupelo, etc., etc., etc.

murdoch is also australian.

First, Alan , Childers isn’t “my” candidate.  I don’t know him and I don’t live in the district.  you’ve basically high-jacked your own thread by turning this into a pro-Davis campaign segment.  If he was, in fact, hurt by what the NRCC did in independent campaign ads against him, has he refused money from republican PACs, etc?  My point that you guys are obfuscating is that BOTH sides are guilty of employing these under-handed tactics and I don’t approve of them.  HOWEVER in answering your lede question, the difference between Tinker and Childers was that Tinker’s vileness came DIRECTLY from her campaign. PERIOD.

there are huge differences in saying that travis childers failed do pay his property taxes (which is true) and that travis childers’ nursing home had serious and reportable flaws (which is also true) and what Congressman Childers and the Democratic Party did to Davis by claiming he is a racist and a klansmen.

you can try and label it whatever you want, but the point remains that when in doubt, the democratic party and their candidates/office holders will ALWAYS go to the race card.  always. 

obama hussein even race carded HIMSELF just to interject race into the presidential election.

Here’s the other thing about Willie Horton and the Swift Boat Vets:

Both were true.

Amen to that. Both were true.  And b.s. on the myth that the GOP campaigns produced the Horton ad.  It was an independent guy.  And I about fell out of my chair reading some guy here trying to say the media is balanced?  Dude, what planet are you on?

Let’s don’t get off in the weeds.  Basic fact and Alan’s point is that Dems don’t criticize race-baiting against Pubs or when it works.  Childers won; so, it doesn’t matter. And Sailor’s legalistic point (even if sincere) about who paid for matters not a hill of beans when it comes to criticism.  Obama, Jr. and Childers could have condemned the slurs on Davis, but chose not to.  That silence speaks.  End of conversation.  Dems continue to abuse the emotions of decent black people so they can stay in power.  That’s the key point.

Point is, that Democrats (who historically have been the group against civil rights, populated the Ku Klux Klan, and enjoined civil rights reform as a matter of political expediency) would seemingly get a free pass when using race as a fabric to divide when it’s against a Republican opponent, but if race is used against a Democrat, for whatever purpose, hypocritically, Democrats call it out.

It’s a double standard that suggests it’s OK to use it if it advances a Democrat’s situation, but not OK if it is against a Democrat.

the only difference between the two ads was that it worked on one of them but flopped on the one in memphis.the democrats are going to find out that the old days of them using the race card and and no one else can are about to come to an end.