No, of course not. A Naples, Florida heiress is totally different.
Posted by Karol at 09:09 PM
Wait, I don’t get what exactly was “harsh and untrue” in that ad? Weren’t they dating at the time? Wasn’t she calling him now and again – or asking him to call her?
And I think only racially-paranoid could look at the ad featuring a blonde inviting Mr. Ford to call her and conclude “it plays on racist fears”. Fears of what? Suppose it’s the caricature White Plantator With A Gun Father, character straight from comics, who is fearful of smiling Mr. Ford – but in the ad it’s the blonde bimbo who is aggressive – she’s the one luring the hero into her nets. Besides, anyone who speaks of “fear” in this situation, is emotionally deaf. In worst case scenario, that’s gotta be “outrage” or even “anger”, but “fear” – that’s something from a Psych101 textbook. In any case, people with no sense of humor should stay the hell away from the politics, or they wouldn’t be able to stay sane and live through it all.
Btw, you have to be specially trained, I suppose, to see a difference in skin tone between Mr.Ford and his wife on that picture.
Despite gilded-class assumptions raised by Ms. Ford’s fashion pedigree and her mother’s wealthy third husband, Anson Beard Jr., a former Morgan Stanley senior executive, Ms. Ford quickly points out that she grew up in Naples, Fla., playing paddleball as a teenager and perfecting her tan.
Does the reporter realize the word “despite” is a preposition in this sentence, which means in spite of?
*I might be displaying my foreigner’s ignorance, but grammatically I expect this sentence to point out “whose” assumptions Mrs.Ford does not complies with
*as is, it looks like assumptions are raised by…her mother’s husband – and so she’s arguing with him (and why getting perfect tan would be a good argument against a M.S. executive, escapes me)
It’s just a strangely-constructed paragraph. I think you’re right-she could also have said that because the reporter who raised these questions made her defensive, i.e it was in response to the media’s assumptions about her-but it reinforces those prejudices, it doesn’t refute them.
Maybe she’s trying to claim she came from a merely upper middle class family with lots of leisure time and disposable income, but wasn’t the daughter of super-affluent industrialists. Hence, the “gilded age” reference.
It’s so funny how Democrats are always competing to be known as the poorest person in their home state.
But think about it…do you really want a person who can’t afford to pay their rent to actually be sitting as the ranking person on the Finance Committee, or debating about job creation ?
On the other hand, we have the Socialist Millionaires Club in the US Senate.
After seeing John Kerry, the late Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, Herb Kohl, et al, I’ve never seen such a collection of zillionaires make the preposterous claim that they’re the rightful heir to…Tom Joad !
“But think about it…do you really want a person who can’t afford to pay their rent to actually be sitting as the ranking person on the Finance Committee, or debating about job creation ?”
Instead what happens is that they’re elected by people who can’t afford to pay their rent, so that the latter can be “rescued” by tax dollars.
I also don’t want people who can afford to pay their rent sitting on the Finance Committee or any other. “Job creation” is something they can’t produce for the rest of us (save leaving us alone), no matter how responsible they are in their own lives.
I also agree with “IAmTheWalrus’s” comment. The Democrat’s do always seem to be bragging their poor supporters. They also love to promote themselves as being poor, (just like the people)which is quite hilarious because they are definitely not poor, otherwise how would they campaign for future candidates? I say at least republicans admit to their need for money. We are not greedy republicans, just honest.
I agree the Times are just trying to get a story from Ms. Ford and her claim of “not having any baggage.” Ms. Ford said she didn’t “have any baggage” because she doesn’t have any baggage. Not because she is trying to hide her past. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/harold-ford-jrs-wife-emil_n_459931.html Ms. Ford has a right to be scared of the politics and bad publicity that comes with being with a political leader. A quote from Ms. Ford from the Times says, “People will say things that are untrue and harsh,” implying that the media digs for peoples dirty pasts. Emily Ford and Harold E. Ford Jr. are two people that love each other but also have their own separate passions one politics and the other designer clothes.
The media is muckraking, to create a mess out of Harold Ford’s claim to politics that is why he is in the news. That is also why his wife is in the news. Muckraking is a common unspoken thing that goes on in politics media all over the place. It is a term used when a scandal is going done. And that is exactly what is happening. The Times are taking advantage of a story that should not even be considered news worthy.
I know everyone likes to paint Ford as some political opportunist with an astoundingly corrupt political lineage-which he is-but I don’t see how any registered Democrat with half a brain could prefer Charles Schumer’s empty-headed mini-me to him. Then again, these are the same people who elected Charles Schumer and Elliot Spitzer.
Only kinda sorta on topic but…man is she a snappy dresser. That coat she’s wearing in the article is very flattering.