How disappointing: Harold Ford Sr. called pro-life activists “trackers,” not “crackers.” For a minute there I thought some real substance was going to be injected into the political debate, just in time for the election. Maybe it will also be……

My main concern wasn’t that particular statement (which I should have recognized as a joke), but the larger “trend” of people denying the evidence and common sense in favor of the “scandal” that they wanted to see happen.

you guys are turning into them.

Oh my word, DaveS, I was totally kidding about firing him for saying a word that sounded like “cracker”. I was just “reacting” like the knee-jerks on the other side would’ve if one of our guys had done it.

It was an honest mistake. It was promptly corrected. What’s your problem?

Sarcasm AP!

I like you guys, that’s why I keep coming back. Can’t take a little ribbing for a mistake? You guys dish it out all the time.

Do you people understand the English language? It was “tracker”.

Nice “reporting” Hot Air.

It was an honest mistake. It was promptly corrected. What’s your problem?

Nice “reporting” Hot Air.

The thing is that there seem to be folks out there who DO presuppose that Harold Sr. is the sort of person who’d call someone a “cracker”. Maybe they’re mistaking him for one of Cynthia McKinney’s staffers, or with Cynthia’s father, who definitely DOES seem to be such a person.

But, the jinn has left the bottle. It has as much substance as the “winking blonde” add is racist, so tit goes for tat.

I think that Ford’s opponent handled the matter well on Hannity. “You guys take care of it”, as in “I don’t want to touch this one with a 10-foot pole”.

Now, let’s sit back see what’s made of it.

The term is already out there, and is apparently widely known by people who involved in these types of campaigns.

“Cracker” in this case would express his frustration at being ambushed by pushy newspeople and partisans for his son’s opponents.

That presupposes that he is the type of person who would call someone a cracker.

It has become overwhelmingly obvious since this post first went up that “cracker” would make little sense and wouldn’t be uttered by a seasoned politician who knows he’s on camera, and that “tracker” would make plenty of sense.

…actually, it make MORE sense that he called one of the guys pestering him a “cracker”. “Cracker” in this case would express his frustration at being ambushed by pushy newspeople and partisans for his son’s opponents.

What the deuce is a “tracker”? Is it a news- or broadcast-industry term? Do people being stalked by folks with video cameras say “They’re tracking me” in some parts of the country?

That notwithstanding, as satisfying as it might be for some for Ford Sr. to be shown up as a villain (which is schadenfreude in the extreme), one thing is clear:

1) Harold Jr. DIDN’T call anyone “cracker”, and he’s the one running for office, and
2) the more folks listen to the recording, the more folks hear “tracker”, not “cracker”.

I’m even convinced that it’s “tracker”, as thick-headed as I am, as much as it mystifies me what a “tracker” might be in this case.

Even if he had said “cracker”, it’s not really a career-ruining word.

But I still don’t think having the camera in his face proves he wouldn’t do something as stupid as Allen did.

I wouldn’t worry though. This seems to have died down considerably.

They’re getting worked up, because it really sounds like he said “cracker”.

I understand that. I thought he said “cracker” at first also. But what separates us from the left (in general) is that we are able to look at these things with some maturity. It has become overwhelmingly obvious since this post first went up that “cracker” would make little sense and wouldn’t be uttered by a seasoned politician who knows he’s on camera, and that “tracker” would make plenty of sense. The very existence of a camera in his face confirms that there was in fact a “tracker” present.

Whatever. I agree with NTWR that this could make us look foolish. Now Hannity’s getting it out there so we can look even stupider. If some people don’t realize that at this point, then there isn’t much that little old “me” can do.

When people on our side start sounding like people at DU…I don’t think its a small matter

…I seem to remember someone saying something like “‘we’re above that sort of thing’ is not an ethic, it’s an epitaph” on another thread.

Speech here’s been pretty free, and the discussion’s been interesting…it’s just that the spur to that discussion MIGHT not be what it was thought to be.

That’s the pesky thing about free speech: people begin going off the reservation, and stop discussing facts strictly and wander into opinions of those facts. We remember, I’m sure, how numerous opinions are proverbially described as being.

This is turning into a school-yard level discussion. So neeener neeeener neeeener! *sticking out tongue*

I was sure he said “Rosebud”.
Pablo on October 25, 2006 at 9:10 AM

Then it got weird, then stupid, then weirdly stupid….

HE SAID ROSEBUD!
runner up:

I think he said “I would like to sack her”…oops wrong video.
right2bright on October 25, 2006 at 12:22 PM

only because of the video reference.

All I know from all this is that crr6 is young, but graduated! congrats!

I trust that Ian is correct and for that reason accept that he said “tracker”, but it very much sounds like “cracker”. Even Hannity right now is saying Ford said “cracker”. He just played the clip twice.

Sure you believe it is obvious he’s saying “tracker”, but others disagree.

You are getting pretty annoyed about such a small matter. I fail to understand why…

When people on our side start sounding like people at DU (paranoid or insistent that there is some great controversy where there is none) I don’t think its a small matter. Not being nuts is our biggest advantage over them, and is something that we can generally be proud of.

What I don’t understand is why people are getting so worked up over something that the guy didn’t even say.

So please, people, quit embarrasing all of us and give it up.

DaveS on October 25, 2006 at 3:26 PM

You are getting pretty annoyed about such a small matter. I fail to understand why, but I won’t press you on it.

Is the acceptance of “tracker” simply because HFJ said so?

The acceptance is because it is quite obvious what he said.

Here, regarding the George Allen controversy from Wikipedia:

Allen twice used the word “macaca” to refer to S.R. Sidarth, who was filming the event as a “tracker” for the opposing Webb campaign.

Or from this site, written 2 or 3 weeks ago:

Since Senator George Allen’s “Macaca” scandal broke in late August, it has become common knowledge that political campaigns in high-profile races send “trackers” to follow the opposition with video cameras, hoping to record any gaffe that can be broadcast for the whole wide world to see.

So please, people, quit embarrasing all of us and give it up.

Is it just me or has the quality of the comments here gone way downhill since this latest round of open signups come on?

TBinSTL on October 25, 2006 at 2:10 PM

Naturally, when comments are opened up to new commenters, you’re going to hear from more goofballs and drive-by trolls as well as folks who make salient points and have something constructive to contribute to a discussion. Over time, many of the trolls get weeded out or just stop commenting.

So, hang in there and don’t be so elitest.

That is seriously what was said, yes.

That’s what his campaigns official “explanation” was, but that was nothing more than an insult to our intelligence. He very, very clearly said “macaca”.

UPDATE: The word used was “trackers”, not “crackers”. I apologize for the error.

What brought about this confirmation AP? Like I, and others have said, on a relisten after the “tracker” suggestion, it seemed possible at first. But after multiple relistens, it continues to sound like “cracker”. Is the acceptance of “tracker” simply because HFJ said so?