Back in 1988, I was instructed that I should believe, along with everyone else, that the “notorious” Willie Horton ad was racist. Or maybe “they” told me I should think that several years later. I don’t remember the timeframe, all I remember is that in this bizarre guilt-by-association tactic lots of other Republican communiques and operatives have been slimed through the establishment of some tenuous connection to that horrible, awful, terrible racist Willie Horton ad.
We all know what an awful ad that was, even though very few folks have ever seen it. I had understood that Willie Horton was some kind of a violent offender who had been sent to prison for a long time, and under the governorship of Michael Dukakis he had been released, or escaped, and allowed to re-offend. The Democrats didn’t like having this pointed out and had managed to convince a lot of people it was inappropriate to discuss it…which may or may not have meant it was unfair to blame Dukakis for this re-offense or potential re-offense.
Well in that new Ann Coulter book, the point is made that the facts in this case are just as damning against Dukakis, and against modern liberalism in general, as you could possibly imagine. Yes Horton re-offended, breaking into the home of Cliff Barnes and Angela Miller, binding Mr. Barnes to a chair in his basement, torturing him for hours, repeatedly assaulting and raping Ms. Miller. Horton was an escapee from a weekend furlough, and no, to any sane person Horton had no business whatsoever being subject to a little “break” in his prison sentence. His crime was robbing a seventeen-year-old gas station attendant, attacking the attendant after the money was handed over, stabbing him nineteen times and shoving him in a garbage can to bleed to death.
To me, Horton had always been in my “undecided” file because there were a lot of facts that had not been made available to me. And there I’m referring to the thumbnail biographical sketch of Mr. Horton, as well as the content of this oh-so-offensive ad.
Well, the facts regarding Mr. Horton can be found in the book. I found the ad when I was searching the innernets, looking for someone to supply the devil’s-advocate point of view. Coulter being Coulter, I thought I should be able to find someone who didn’t like what she had to say, and perhaps be able to get their side of the story. I thought right. This fellow is none to fond of her, and has done an exemplary job of stating the case against the Horton argument, as she presented it.
In 1988, Ann Coulter was probably too busy finishing up law school to follow the Bush-Dukakis race very closely, but she devoted a chapter of her latest book to the infamous Willie Horton ads. There are no citations of sources for the excerpts included in this post, which is just as well, since most of the “facts” are anything but…
From Ann Coulter’s Godless (Chapter 3, p. 66):
There are actually two Willie Horton ads, and they are generally conflated. Both were terrific ads. The Bush campaign’s Willie Horton ad never showed a picture of Horton, which complicated their sneaky plan to appeal to Americans’nearly hysterical hatred of black people. The only ad to show Horton’s face was produced by an independent group that included Horton’s victims, Cliff Barnes and Angela Miller. The victims’ ad was made on a shoestring budget and was probably seen by about six people in West Virginia.
Actually, Ann, there were four Willie Horton ads.
One official Bush campaign ad called “Revolving Door.”
Two ads “produced by an independent group that included Horton’s victims, Cliff Barnes and Angela Miller” respectively in each one (a clip of the Miller spot can be seen approximately 1 minute 50 seconds into this YouTube video). And those ads began running in California where presumably more than six people viewed them.
There’s more, but…it would be misleading to say the best is yet to come, because the counterargument doesn’t get any more compelling than that. Ann Coulter said there were two ads; this guy found four. The producer of the “weekend passes” video used to work for Roger Ailes, and if there was a more solid connection between the video and the Bush Sr. campaign someone would’ve gotten in trouble. But as it was, nobody did.
So to recap. Liberal policies exposed the public to dangerous criminals. Cliff Barnes and Angela Miller paid the price for this. Someone thought this was a legitimate issue for the campaign of 1988 and made some videos reporting the facts — accurately. Our liberals didn’t want people to know the facts, and challenged the legality of this. Our liberals lost. This made them mad and so they started waging a P.R. battle. And for reasons nobody can rationally explain, we all started giving our liberals everything they wanted in this P.R. battle and we’re still doing it.
Meanwhile, the facts say when we put these guys in charge of things, violent criminals are allowed to hurt people. Reality is supposed to get more complicated than that, present us some confounding factoids deep down in the wrinkles when you study them up close, that put everything in a gray area. But when you start looking into it, that isn’t what happens at all. It really is that simple. Dukakis had a policy that was idiotic, and emblematic of what our modern liberals tend to do when they have power. Criminals go free, and innocent people are hurt.
The rest, really, is just a bunch of red herrings.
Regarding the comments section of the post that’s been linked: There are seven comments at this time. Four where the left-winger who’s criticizing Ann Coulter “holds court” among the like-minded; nothing is as good for getting a tea party going as some colorful Coulter-bashing. So he gets his high-fives and pats on the back, and then comment #5 is from “Anonymous.” This all takes place shortly after the post went up, which is roughly the timeframe of the book’s publication on 6/6/06. Anonymous is not me. You’ll just have to take my word for that…anyway, the comment is of the “you missed the point” variety — which I find to be accurate — reminding the left-winger what the subject matter is. Releasing life-sentenced murderers on weekend furlough is freakin’ insane.
And then comment #6 is just a joy to behold. You’ve heard it said that liberals have empty arguments and indulge in name-calling when they are cornered. You may not have believed it…well…there’s your proof.
And then comment #7 is just an exercise in lack of self-restraint, from me. Well…not really. I’d do it again. For one thing, if you can’t keep your mouth shut on just one thing, I think this is a great place to let things slip. Vicious murderers being treated like they’re in prison for contempt-of-court, or keeping a library book too long, or jaywalking or something — and innocent people being hurt as a direct result. There’s no reason for it to keep happening. It’s become a matter of routine, and that’s a poor reflection upon all of us.
And for another thing, I’m genuinely curious about the counter-argument. Maybe this guy didn’t present all of it. Why is the word “racist” applicable to this whole situation? So far, based on the facts I’ve been able to collect, the “R” word got dragged out because Horton happens to be black, and there is a mix of black and white actors walking through the “revolving door.” Yeah that’s right — the ad is racist because they didn’t choose an all-white cast as a metaphorical presentation of the guy who brought the whole subject up, who in real life is black. And…unmentioned in the “revolving door” ad. So is he really on-topic? If so, the ad is racist, if at all, against white folks. If he’s off-topic, then the only argument I can see that the ad was racist, is that it wasn’t skewed against white people quite enough.
I’m just not following.
If I had to pronounce my uncertainty unacceptable and require myself to come to the most sensible conclusion I can, it would have to be that “racist” is just something liberals say when they know they’re wrong. That does seem pretty solid. It passes the “twenty people” argument — it would be easy to round up twenty liberals who think the Willie Horton ad is racist. I doubt like hell that if I could interview them one at a time, I’d get back one single explanation as to why it is racist. I’d guess if there’s any single answer I’d get back from two of those interviewees, or more, it would be “I dunno.”
Of course, there’s only one sensible thing to do here. If I continue to open my mouth every time I’m not sure of what’s going on, eventually I’m going to get into trouble. So I had better stop talking about it.
And maybe that’s exactly the point, huh? We keep exploring the issue, liberals are exposed as people who let vicious murderers out of jail so the murderers can hurt people. So we had better stop exploring it. Don’t want to get into trouble.
