# Willie Horton's Social Security Check - A New Low! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 13, 2002, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234 "2002-09-13T05:49:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/21 "2002-09-14T16:55:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > 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. I believe I know the ad you are referring to. In fact, it did _not_ “tie George W. Bush to the dragging death of James Byrd.” Rather, it took him to task for opposing expanded hate crimes legislation, and used the Byrd murder as an example. Crude and stupid, but not quite the same as you are portraying it. > [@](#): > > 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. Technically true, but somewhat misleading. The most blatant race-baiting “Willie Horton” ad was run by an independent PAC and was quickly pulled at the request of the Bush campaign. But the campaign capitalized on the widespread publicity from that ham-handed ad by running its own “Revolving Door” ad. Since Dukakis had already been effectively associated with Willie Horton, there was little question what the ad meant to most viewers–and they rant that one a lot, as I recall. Bush himself referred to Willie Horton by name in his spoken remarks to keep the association alive. It was not one of the shinier moments in American presidential politics. You can find both the “independent” Willie Horton ad and the “official” Revolving Door ad at [this site](http://www.ammi.org/cgi-bin/video/years.cgi?1988,,,,R,,#). Just select a streaming video format and watch old video to your heart’s content. Oh, and before anyone brings up the typical Republican slur that Al Gore supposedly was the first one (in the primaries) to hit Dukakis upside the head with Willie Horton, it’s a lie. Gore criticized Dukakis for the furlough program, but never referred to Horton by name or used his image. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/22 "2002-09-14T16:56:09Z")
Wow, that’s a real winner of an ad. Maybe next time the Republicans can trumpet their compassionate attempt to provide a tax cut to [a whole 47%](I myself would go for the [url=http://www.cbpp.org/2-15-01tax-pr.htm) of black and hispanic Americans.\* - I think that the final version of the cut was a little better, thanks to the minimal Democratic input allowed in that legislation. Nevertheless, that was the original Republican offer. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/23 "2002-09-14T17:34:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*I believe I know the ad you are referring to. In fact, it did _not_ “tie” George W. Bush to the dragging death of James Byrd." Rather, it took him to task for opposing expanded hate crimes legislation, and used the Byrd murder as an example. Crude and stupid, but not quite the same as you are portraying it. \*\*Suuuuuuure, and the Willie Horton ad was just designed as a commentary on Dukakis prison policy. :rolleyes: Gee minty, naive much? > [@](#): > > **Technically true, but somewhat misleading. The most blatant race-baiting “Willie Horton” ad was run by an independent PAC and was quickly pulled at the request of the Bush campaign. But the campaign capitalized on the widespread publicity from that ham-handed ad by running its own “Revolving Door” ad.** And ad which features mostly white inmates walking through a prison “revolving door.” So how is that racial fearmongering? Dukakis’ prison policy was an issue in 1988. Are they not supposed to comment on it? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/24 "2002-09-14T17:42:42Z")
“DUkasis policy”, which of course had been (as noted above) begun by his predeccesor (a Republican), and (as noted above) was a common practice across the US. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/25 "2002-09-14T18:03:25Z")
**wring** : So what? Maybe it shouldn’t have been an issue, maybe it should have. But the specific criticism of the Willie Horton ad was not “this is a stupid issue to talk about;” quite the contrary, the criticism was “this is a racist tactic because you’re using a scary-looking black convict to scare white America.” ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/26 "2002-09-14T18:15:45Z")
my post was in answer to your assertion that Dukakis’ policies were a legitimate target, thus the Horton ad would be legitimate. But, since the actual policy had been enacted by his predecessor **and** it was common practice nationwide (vs. something ‘that kook’ thought up), we need to then re-examine, why, oh why, was the ad done. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/27 "2002-09-14T19:32:33Z")
The answer to that is simple: to win votes. Whoever said politics was about rigorous logical consistency? I doubt LBJ and his supporters really believed that Goldwater would deliberately start a nuclear war. Didn’t stop them from creating the “Daisy” ad. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/28 "2002-09-14T19:46:06Z")
absolutely. which sounds like you’re agreeing w/the position that the ad was designed to have maximum effect w/o worrying too much about real data, and the ‘effect’ was that white 'Mericans should fear Dukakis, 'cause he’d let those eeeeeviiiiilll black rapists out of prison to hunt down yer womins. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/29 "2002-09-14T19:52:35Z")
Delete “white” and “black” from your post and that’s about right. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/30 "2002-09-14T20:12:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > Gee minty, naive much? Gee Dewey, condescending much? ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/31 "2002-09-14T20:28:53Z")
Lawyer fight! Lawyer fight! ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/32 "2002-09-14T20:36:46Z")
Hey, I call 'em as I see 'em. Anyone who can look at [this ad](http://secure.mediaresearch.org/rm2/hume1026/segment1.ram) and suggest with a straight face that it’s nothing more than a criticism of Bush’s stance on hate crimes legislation is either wilfully disingenuous or woefully naive. I chose the more benign explanation. Next you’ll be telling us those Democratic ads urging blacks to vote in 1998 (“When you don’t vote, another church burns…”, etc etc) implies nothing more than blacks should vote. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/33 "2002-09-14T21:05:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\* > > Next you’ll be telling us those Democratic ads urging blacks to vote in 1998 (“When you don’t vote, another church burns…”, etc etc) implies nothing more than blacks should vote. :rolleyes: \*\* Delete the word “black” from your post and I might agree. Are you trying to say the the Republican Willie Horton ads were just about “getting the vote”, but the Democratic ad about “your churches will burn” is playing to the races? **Minty** , if **Dewey** is calling you disingenuous or naive you gotta listen to him. He seems to be an expert in both. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/34 "2002-09-14T21:23:34Z")
**Biggirl** , pay attention: the Willie Horton ad _was_ about race. The subsequent “revolving door” ad was not. I think I was pretty clear on that point. And yes, an ad that ran in majority-black areas, that cite as a reason to vote the prevention of church burnings, at a time when the news is aflutter with burnings of black churches, is indeed playing to the races. I’m shocked you even consider this an arguable point. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/35 "2002-09-14T21:24:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > Hey, I call 'em as I see 'em. Then I’d lay off the hallucinogens. > [@](#): > > Anyone who can look at [this ad](http://secure.mediaresearch.org/rm2/hume1026/segment1.ram) and suggest with a straight face that it’s **nothing more** than a criticism of Bush’s stance on hate crimes legislation is either wilfully disingenuous or woefully naive. (emphasis added) And where the fuck did I say any such thing, Dewey? In fact, if you look up yonder a bit, you might even notice where I called it “_Crude and stupid, but not quite the same as you are portraying it._” Fuck yes, the sponsors were capitalizing on the Byrd murder in a sleazy way for cheap political points. But claiming that all it did was “tie George W. Bush to the dragging death of James Byrd” is flatly misleading, just as it would be misleading to claim that the sole purpose of the revolving door ad was to make white folk vote for Bush out of fear that Dukakis would open the doors to scary black prisoners. In both cases, there were real issues involved, presented in an inflammatory way. Welcome to politics, and wipe that mud off your saintly robes. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/36 "2002-09-14T21:28:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\ ***Biggirl** , pay attention: the Willie Horton ad _was_ about race. The subsequent “revolving door” ad was not. I think I was pretty clear on that point. > > \*\* Yeah, and it was a stupid point-- I thought I was pretty clear on that. Both ads (all the ads mentioned so far in this thread) play on race and you are being naive and/or disingenuous when you claim otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/37 "2002-09-14T21:48:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*And where the fuck did I say any such thing, Dewey? \*\*Well, I’d suggest when you wrote "In fact, **it did not “tie” George W. Bush to the dragging death of James Byrd."** Rather, it took him to task for opposing expanded hate crimes legislation, and used the Byrd murder as an example. By “did not tie” I assume you meant it did not tie Bush to the murder. Call me crazy. And when you eliminate that element, what you’re left with is an ad that just says Bush’s stance on hate crimes legislation is wrong. And, BTW, I never said that tying Bush to the murder was **all** the ad did. I’d like to see you point out where I made such a claim. Indeed, there are other messages in the ad: Bush’s stance on hate crimes is wrong; (implicitly) vote for Gore; etc, etc. What I **did** say is that tying Bush to the murder was **one** of the messages the ad was conveying – indeed, that it was the principal message placed in the ad. Minty, the ad in question was quite visceral. Its images and rhetoric (“I felt my father had been killed all over again”) suggests to the viewer on an emotional level that Bush is somehow responsible for Byrd’s death. Of course it doesn’t come right out and say that. Of course if you parse the language of the ad it doesn’t make that point explicitly. But that’s clearly principally what the ad was designed to do. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/38 "2002-09-14T21:52:28Z")
**Biggirl** , go look at both the Horton ad and the “revolving door” ad at the link Minty provided above. Now, answer me these two questions: 1. Had the Horton ad never run – indeed, if the world had never heard of Willie Horton – and the Bush campaign had then run the “revolving door” ad, would the use of the "revolving door ad “play on race”? 2. If so, why? I mean honestly: an ad that shows mostly white prisoners walking around in a revolving door does not play on race. It suggests your opponent is soft on crime, but it does not play on race. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/39 "2002-09-14T22:07:14Z")
And just to be cute: even if the Bush ads do trade on race, all the ads mentioned in this thread don’t play on race – I mentioned the “Daisy” ad above. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234/40 "2002-09-14T22:17:41Z")
Clearly, we are not talking about shining examples of civic discourse. But… The “hate crime” ad wasn’t _specific_, in the sense that it didn’t appeal _only_ to black people. Most white folks are appalled by hate crimes as well. Perhaps more importantly, the ad doesn’t tie Bush to the crime, it contends that he wasn’t doing enough about it. Thats a rather different kettle of fish. The Soc. Sec. ad, however, is entirely specific in its racism. It states, to the presumably black listener (please note: the ad was meant to run on “black” media) “Hey! The white folks are stealing your money and the Democrats are helping them.” Neither ad is a compliment to thier partisans. But the second is specificly racist and divisive, hence rather worse. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/willie-hortons-social-security-check-a-new-low/128234.md?page=3)