Let me first make my stance completely clear. As a member of the proud, yet possibly coarse foundation of American society I wish to make an open declaration based on my First Amendment right of free speech: Don Imus has made himself a broadcast journalistic wimp of the highest order.

I DO NOT condone the words that Imus chose to spew in regard to a specific class of athlete, but I do support his right to open his mouth and forcefully insert his own foot. But somewhere along the line Imus must have missed the memo which clearly explained that it's one thing to denigrate a class of athletes with whom you do not associate and who are in no position to immediately refute you and it's a completely different thing to tell someone like Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM) CEO Rex Tillerson to sit down and shut up. (Umm, yeah I blogged that).

I could end this rant right here and consider myself fulfilled in chastising Mr. Imus but I really haven't brought this full circle yet. It's not enough that I simply rake him over the coals for his poor choice of wording. For me, there's yet a larger issue.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson -- always the one to stir the pot to his own interests it seems -- has adamantly requested that Wal-Mart Stores,Inc. (NYSE:WMT) dismiss a consultant to the company who is connected to a currently-running Senate ad campaign that Jackson says is racist. Republican strategist Terry Nelson is a consultant that Wal-Mart hired last month to help get information to its more than 1.3 million U.S. employees in its first company-wide voter registration drive. Nelson is now connected with an ad for the Republican National Committee that is being termed racist by many, including Jackson.

Wal-Mart spokesman Dave Tovar said "This has nothing to do with Wal-Mart, so it would be absurd for us to comment on it." This stance brings up an important question in the area of ethics: when someone is accused or even convicted of something that is morally, ethically and/or legally wrong, are all parties to whom the accused individual is connected, supposed to sever all ties with that individual?

There are arguments for and against this. I'm willing to bet that a majority of Americans would condemn any and all companies that were connected with a person involved with an alleged racist situation like this -- but should all connections be harped upon? If Wal-Mart hires a strategist , and that strategist later becomes associated with a racist comment or something similar, should Wal-Mart be blamed for hiring a "racist?" That kind of logic really doesn't stand up or we'd be boycotting every company at some point -- because skeletons in the closet aren't always known until the final minute.

What do you think? Should Wal-Mart fire this consultant based on a possible racist comment he made in a Senate advertisement that has no connection at all to the retailer?