Proving that a black man can do anything a white man can, like making a racist anti-Obama ad!
There are three things wrong with Ken Blackwell’s anti-Obama attack ad, courtesy of the Tea Party Victory Fund, which the former Cincinnati mayor and former Ohio Secretary of State leads:
1. It focuses on the Obamaphone, which is not an Obama give-away program, but an old program that has always offered free cell phones to the poor under certain conditions. Thus it is misleading and dishonest.
2. It stars the “Obamaphone Lady,” one of the ignorant and embarrassing Obama supporters captured on video by James O’Keefe clones to stereotype Obama supporters as fools. Yes, she’s a particularly appalling idiot. Both parties have plenty of them, however, and using any idiot to mock the candidate he or she supports is the epitome of cheap-shot, unethical politics. In this regard, the ad, like the video, is unfair and irresponsible.
3. The particular idiot chosen for this exercise is black, used to criticize a black President, whose strongest support comes from the black community. As a result, the ad is racist and offensive.
Following the question, “Have Barack Obama’s policies empowered or enslaved Americans?“, the ad shows the unidentified black female (and did she give her approval to be used this degrading way?) enthusiastically proclaiming her support for the President during a roadside rally. “He gave us a phone. Keep Obama in president!” she says.
The James O’Keefe wannabe then asks her how she got a free phone, and she explains, “You sign up if you are in food stamps, you are in Social Security, you’ve got low income. Keep Obama in president. He gave us a phone.” “Can we afford four more years of Barack Obama?” the ad concludes.
Blechhhh.
I’ll have that bath, now.
Blackwell probably believes that because he is black and created the ad, it is inoculated from accusations of racism. I disagree. It’s a Willie Horton ad, but far worse. Horton was a violent criminal who was allowed out of jail due to a ridiculous Mike Dukakis furlough policy and, predictably, struck again. The fact that he was also black made the 1988 Bush attack ad extra-effective for the racists in the voter pool, but the issue was still a legitimate one. Blackwell’s ad, in contrast, is a fake issue that plays on multiple stereotypes, insulting Obama supporters, Democrats, the poor and blacks in one grand fart of unethical ad-making.
Blackwell claims, in a fundraising letter,
“This commercial is a microcosm of the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans want to create an environment where free people make their own choices and pursue their dreams. President Obama and the Democrats want to create a dependency on government that ensures that Americans rely on Washington from cradle to grave. What this lady said is so offensive because it’s so blatant–she finally comes out and says what we all know that the Democrats really think.”
Completely unfair, completely untrue, and completely offensive. Mitt Romney should personally request that this ad be placed in a lead box and buried deep enough that it can never contaminate another election.
Ken Blackwell’s Tea Party ad is racist, and a disgrace.
__________________________________
Facts: Washington Examiner
Graphic: Booker Rising
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
I am in a contrarian mood right now, with that in mind I had to read though this post a few times……..Yeah I got nothing. I would like to say my home state was in play a bit more but I am seeing some desperation there, at least I am hoping that is the cause of this ad and not that this is becoming the status quo.
The cause of the ad is that Blackwell is a jerk.
Agreed
I agree that the ad is distasteful. I think racist is a big strech. Either way Romney should speak against it.
I think the best defense is that just because racists will find that it supports their racist views, that doesn’t make the ad racist. Here was the Atlantic’s take on the video, which pretty much states my feelings about the ad:
Let’s start by saying it’s racial. The Obama Phone video belongs to a genre popular on conservative blogs in which poor people, usually black, confirm conservatives’ worst 47-percent fears by saying they can get something for nothing because Obama’s in office. The message is, “Here’s what Obama’s supporters really look like.”
The standout in the category is “Obama money”: Back in October 2009, big lines formed formed for Detroit housing assistance applications after the city underestimated how many people would show up to apply. The scene was chaotic, and local TV reported there were rumors that $3,000 checks would be handed out.
The meme on rightwing blogs became that it was an angry mob in search of “Obama money.” A Detroit radio station interviewed people in line for “Obama money.” One woman says, “I don’t know where he got it from but he’s giving it to us. … O-BA-MA O-BA-MA!” Rush Limbaugh excerpted the audio, saying, “This is the model citizen in Barack Obama’s vision.” He continued:
“These are the people who would be wealthy and rich today were it not for the fact that the achievers of this society since this country was founded stole everything they had. And so Obama looks at these people as victims of an unjust and immoral country, and by God, he’s going to make sure that they think he’s making it all good for them. And they all do. Dumb, uninformed, shockingly, saddeningly stupid, the model citizen for Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.”
Drudge’s only commentary with the Obama Phone video is “OBAMA HAS MY VOTE, HE GAVE ME A FREE PHONE,” but the conservative internet quickly picked up a broader electoral theme: this is what the 47 percent — the people Mitt Romney referred to as “dependent upon government” at a secretly taped fundraiser — looks like. Some samples:
“The 47% that Romney referred to,” Matthew Moosavian tweeted.
“The choice in this election! Psss along,” conservative syndicated columnist Cal Thomas tweeted.
“Romney’s ‘47% of Americans don’t pay income taxes’ wasn’t a gaffe. Many of those people want their ‘Obamaphone’ from the govt,” Katie Johnson, of the Wisconsin College Republicans, tweeted.
“I’m paying for the #ObamaPhone but I can’t have one. The 47% aren’t the victims. We 53% really are!” Rob Barrett tweeted.
“Obama voter. G-d help us,” the Steve Malzberg Show tweeted.
OK, but is the video just blatant racism?
Romney was not the originator of the 47 percent meme; like several other talking points he’s used this election, he appears to have picked it up from conservative blogs. But as “inelegant” as Romney says his comments were, they’re measured, thoughtful, and considerate compared to where they came from. For example, the racists over at Stormfront just love this story. One reader posted the video under the headline “Negro Obama Voter Says ‘Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone,'” and added, just in case the subtext wasn’t obvious, “First I thought this was a joke but it’s real. Racial inferiority on display.” The aggressively racist responses have included, “The media tries not to show scum like this because then it would be easier to see what non-whites are really like” and “what does this talking baboon mean by free? When I pay my taxes it sure as hell ain’t free.” So, yes, it’s totally and obviously racist according to some racists who rushed to a “White Pride” Internet forum as soon as they heard about it on Rush Limbaugh’s show. To any conservatives offended at being associated with such vile people, let us say it for you: Using one mockable person you found on the Internet to make generalizations about half the country is lazy and stupid.
Agree with Travis. Distasteful, exploitative, cheap-shot; yes. Racist, no.
What would it matter if the skin color of this target ad was white? It would still be despicable. Calling it racist because the target was a black.Obama supporter is to my mind racist. I have white intelligent friends who absolutely love Obama. They couldn’t have made that video because they don’t have a free phone. They like Obama for different reasons, none of which have anything to do with skin color.
I don’t understand the comment. If you read my original objection to the video, it stated exactly this. Do you understand the Willie Horton reference? When Obama’s biggest bloc of supporters is black, and an ignorant, foolish black woman is used in an ad to suggest, “This is what the typical Obama supporter is like,” that’s an intentionally racist message. It doesn’t have to be taken that way. But the message will be effective to racists. “Calling it racist because the target was a black Obama supporter is to my mind racist.” How do you figure? I very much doubt that the video or the ad would have been so widely distributed if it had been a white idiot. Just read the disgusting comments in the various forums where it has been posted.
And don’t call me a racist again. I’m not, and nobody who knows me or reads this blog thinks I am. I resent it, and you don’t get a second warning.
I was calling out the “whole smear” video and references from the Atlantic article as racist, not you. I think you are of a very fine and fair mind. I was actually agreeing with you although after I sent it and re-read it, I thought it might be confusing. Sorry, I was just trying to contribute, but not to the confusion.
Sorry I snapped, Judy. Thanks.
Geez Jack, no problem. I thought I was doing so good, you had my back on a previous comment on another topic that a blogger dissected. It’s actually kind of flattering. I’m not used to people actually listening to every word I say…. (or blog, I’m new to this too).
ken shame on you are you broke? do you hate yourself that much you’re a liar just like your boy romney these free phones started in 1985 put you want to lie and say its a obamaphone you’re lowdown ken.
Why aren’t you yelling at Ken on HIS website?
Who cares who or what race a person is…is what is at issue here. I believe that the majority of Obama domestic agenda were forthright aimed at blacks and where he could get a marginal amount of people involved in very unethical programs. Please if you have the where-with-all or just plain guts help me to understand in a debatable fashion, what on earth is right about allowing people to have entitlements such as a cell phone? It does not matter about the ad that stipulates a rather mentally challenged person who happens to be black praising Obama for allow her the available means to get a cell phone. As a seasoned professional, the ad worked…therefore, some or most will say “it was successful.”
However, the entire program is totally wrong! If we start paying for cell phones, hence force, tweeting, and any other app that a person desires, why do it? America must accept the facts that there are going to be rich, middle class, and poverty level people living in the same nation. Now as for me, here is what we’ve been burdened with: Obama Phones, ObamaCare, the Obama Justice Department, the Obama FBI, as well as the Obama Unaccompanied Minor program, DACA, DAPA, amnesty, or basically, a system of governance without the rule of law. How much more does any real American want to take of this guy directing the USAG Eric Holder to do police over seeking in Ferguson, Missouri? Baltimore, MD? LA, CA? New York? Atlanta, GA? C’mon people! If the man wants to give away phones let him reach into his own pocket and pay for it. Stop having innocent taxpaying Americans from having to level this clown’s playing field. Or, to keep it real simple, just read the 2012 Report on Head Start to see how unethical that program is and for whom, then let’s overhaul Welfare Reform.
Please in a clean non-racist debatable form. I can be reached at comtemplativebeing.com, and Quora.com, LinkedIn.com even at goodreads.com