Willie Horton's Social Security Check - A New Low!

The BBQ Pit
1

Not going to comment much, this story screams for itself.

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8460-2002Sep12
or here, at Media Whores, with extra outrage sauce…
http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/)

I’m stunned. Truly stunned. I mean, I knew they would do almost anything in thier craven lust for power…but this?

Dingdingdingding! A New Low!

Howzabout this for a springboard to track the lowest of the low, campaign ad wise.

Trouble is, the next one is going to have to be lower than this. And that ain’t gonna be easy.

2

hehehehehe, you gotta’ laugh or cry. heheheheheheh.
Hell I’m a grand ol’ party member, but this shit is too damn funny!

The extra funny and sad thing is the person who wrote this stands a good chance of being non-partisan. Ben Stein is a good example of someone who wrote for major republicans and extreme left wing groups as well. Most of these campaign ad guys are just hired guns.

As foing doing “anything”. I’ts not exaclty a secret that anyone in a position of power is the kind to do anything to get there (GOP od Demo or other).

They are all scumbags.

3

That much should be obvious. How such a stupid ad could have actually been made is confusing. They had to know how it would make them look…

4

So then why was it made? Just for shits and giggles on poker night?

More proof that, even in real life, preview is your friend.

5

I note with considerable amusement that the apparent problem is with Social Security, as opposed to the whole short life span thing.

I don’t know about you, but I’d be working on the life span problem…

6

Does anyone except me have a problem with a sitting governor(or any elected representative of the people) being the head of a PAC?

While it is apparently legal, is is wise?.

7

I’m surprised anyone would dare run an anti-Social Security political ad. At least not anyone who wanted to win an election.

Why did they bother producing the ad if they didn’t intend to run it? After they wrote it did it still sound like a good idea?

8

I still don’t understand the alleged reasoning in the ad, but it sounds like the most despicable sort of race-baiting.

9

And Republicans wonder why minorities are just the teensiest bit suspicious of their party.

10

Yet another example of why reparations are a Bad Thing.

:rolleyes:

11

What the hell does this have to do with Willie Horton? Or am I wrong in expecting the title of elucidator threads to have anything to do with the content?

First it was doctored photographs and conspiracies. Now it’s Willie Horton.

Next it is going to be “Elvis and Bigfoot” on a thread about arthritis cures. Sheesh.

Regards,
Shodan

12

I got it Shodan.

The cited instance is a dispicable attempt at race baiting to win an election, as were the infamous Willie Horton ads.

13

It’s a classical reference to the “WIllie HOrton” ads that ran during Dukakis’ run for the Office (IIRC, Willie was a prisoner who’d been furloughed from prison and while on furlough committed murder/rape ??. )

14

I dunno about any other threads, but I think the Willie Horton in the thread title is representative the GOPs relationship with blacks in their ad campaigns.

Makes sense to me, but then again since I’m gonna die before the rest of you I try not to carry grudges from thread to thread.

15

Right. He was a convicted murderer serving a life sentence. Nobody ever came up with a sensible reason why he had been furloughed.

16

This ad isn’t even in the same ballpark as the despicable NAACP [1] ad run in the 2000 election that tried to tie George W. Bush to the dragging death of James Byrd, complete with black-and-white footage of a chain being dragged behind a truck. Spare me the hysterics.

Granted, this ad is extraordinarily clumsy – the use of the “reparations” angle is particularly stupid, and I deplore the “whites vs. blacks” message – but what, pray tell, is the problem with the GOP reaching out to minority voters by showing how GOP positions would benefit them? In this case, Social Security is a raw deal for African Americans, who, statistically speaking, don’t live long enough to collect much in the way of benefits from the system they’ve paid into for a lifetime. Sure, as Cheesesteak points out, it’d be better to increase African American’s lifespans, but that is a problem that will likely take generations to correct. Social Security privatization, on the other hand, would benefit the pocketbooks of working blacks immediately upon retirement.

Historically, the black vote has been a nonfactor in GOP politics. I’m surprised that more of you aren’t pleased to see the GOP aggressively courting those voters. After all, that’s the only thing that will truly give black voters political power – as long as the Democrats can count 100% on the black vote, as long as the GOP doesn’t try to court those votes, there is no incentive for either party to address that voting bloc’s political concerns.
[1] An ad independent of the Gore campaign, it’s true – but then, the Willie Horton ad was independent of the Bush Sr. campaign as well.

17

Why, to make room for all those pot smoking three time losers. We can’t be imprisoning murderers and rapists when there’s a War On Drugs going on!

18

I was going to say the same thing, Biggirl, but I thought Horton came a little before all the mandatory sentences and other drug war nonsense.

19

It was common practice among most states during that time that inmates who were going to be paroled soon have short (anywhere from one hour to 78) passes outside of supervision. It was a way to judge (in short times) if they were ‘ready’ to be released on parole.

w/o such programs, the person goes from 24 hour supervision to “hey, stop by your parole officer’s office once a month” . IT’s an abrupt change, and the supervising authority doesn’t have any idea of how the person is doing until quite some time later.

Having operated a half way house (where folks were working towards parole, and yes, they some times had passes), I saw it as an effective way of having an ongoing assessment of their progress towards rehabilitation. If they failed (by rule breaking) and went back to prison, that’s better than if they had no supervision, so that the first time you’d realize they were screwing up was a new criminal act (vs. a status offense).

Now that they’re not doing it, there’s less support and oversite for the brand newly released inmate, and IMprofessionalO, that’s not a good thing.

But the short answer to “no one could come up with a sensible reason” was that “It was standard practice at the time for any parole eligible inmate”. And of course, most did not run off and rape/stab people afterwards.

Some people commit more crime after being released. That’s a fact. We are totally unable to achieve 100% accuracy for predicting which ones will, and what type of crime. So, the choices are: A. Keep everybody locked up forever. B. Keep some locked up and release others, making the best selection with the available information. The furlough type program was a means to achieve additional, critical information to make that choice.

The bare faced reality was that apparently Mr. Horton was going to re-offend. He would have reoffended had he been furloughed or paroled. If he’d been released on parole (some time later) and committed the same sort of acts, I doubt the victims would have been saying “well, at least he’d been on parole, not a furlough”.

It is horrible what the victims went through. Mr. HOrton bears the responsability for it.

20

You could be right DrL. From what I remember of the time, many states were looking to allieviate overcrowding. The furlough program was one (stupid) solution— instituted by the Dukakis’s Republican predecessor.