November 15, 2007

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton reminds me a lot of Dukakis."

Jim Pinkerton writes:
In '88, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis was leading the Democratic White House hopefuls. On April 12, he debated his remaining Democratic rivals in Manhattan. One of them, Sen. Al Gore, mentioned the Massachusetts prison furlough plan that Dukakis had defended. Under that particular program, criminals - even murderers sentenced to life in prison without parole - had been granted, Gore noted critically, "weekend passes." But Dukakis dismissed Gore: "Al, the difference between you and me is that I have run a criminal justice system. You haven't."...

[Dukakis] had been fatally wounded, politically, by Gore... he just didn't know it....
Pinkerton himself, as director of research for the George H.W. Bush campaign, worked on keeping the weekend passes issue alive, and it destroyed Dukakis.
...Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton reminds me a lot of Dukakis. As he was two decades ago, she's from a big state, has a lot of money, is ahead in the polls - and she's been grievously injured. This time, the issue isn't prison furloughs, but driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in her "home" state of New York. Clinton has broadly defended Gov. Eliot Spitzer's unpopular plan, even as most New Yorkers have reviled it....
This issue, like the weekend passes issue, resonates deeply with the voting public, "but not inside the 'nominating wing' of the Democratic Party":
So once again, Republicans are sniffing political blood.

61 comments:

Bruce Hayden said...

I have more faith in the Clinton machine, and in particular, their ability to manage the media.

I would suggest that the difference here is that the Clintons have run 8-10 major campaigns so far, only losing the one governors race. This is their third national one. Also, many of their winning campaigns have been in somewhat hostile territory - while Arkansas had been Democratic, it was going GOP, and GHWB had had record approval ratings only a year or so before the 2000 election.

On the other hand, this was Dukakis' first national campaign, and he had won at the state level in a state that leaned fairly heavily in his direction, and had a local paper even more in his corner.

So, I would suggest that the level of sophistication and competence in this sort of thing is strikingly different between Hillary! and Dukakis, and that her campaign is much less likely to fall prey to the sort of thing that lost the election for him.

dax said...

Comparing the Dukakis machine to the Clinton machine is like comparing Mickey Mouse to Mickey Mantle.
It's going to take a MSM consistent and systematic questioning of the driver license issue to make it stick.
Does anyone see that happening? PLEEEEASE!

ricpic said...

Get in a tank, Hillary. I dareya! Put on that helmet. I doubledareya!! Show us what a she-male you are.

Please God, please God let her do it!

dirtyword.net said...

'how do we beat the bitch?'
t-shirts, hats, stickers, mugs, buttons, magnets, and more are now available at:


****** dirtyword.net ******

it's the new anti-hillary conservative catch phrase!

Roger said...

I suspect even though Spitzer has dropped the license for illegals plan, this issue is going to continue to bite HRC. And I suspect immigration is going to be a big issue in the general, if not the democratic primaries. Will be interesting to see how the candidates handle it in a state with 24% hispanics.

rdkraus said...

After eight years of Bush, four of those with a Repub Congress, the Repubs did NOTHING about immigration, except irritate their base (and others). They have no credibility on that issue. So what if HRC has none either.

Roger said...

RD: agree wholeheartedly--and I think that the political class' failure to deal with immigration is what makes it a potent issue.

Bob said...

HRC is Nixon in heels. Dukakis was a puppy, Hillary IS a rottweiler.

Modern Otter said...

Dukakis? Maybe. But I think there was something more portentous about the news last week of Walter Mondale's endorsement of HRC. It takes one entitled-but-unelectable candidate to know another.

jeff said...

Republican's may (or more likely will) seize this as a campaign issue, but will forget about it once the election is over. Just like the previous eight years. Or worse, after the election, come up with things just as bad as this DL deal.

Trooper York said...

Hillary felt very kittenish today. Her new life with her new lover had invigorated her and make very playful. She had to speak to the nation tonight, but she was distracted by her new life of sensual pleasure. She had slumbered, but now her senses were awake. But how to distract the country from her program of raising taxes and destroying capitalism. Suddenly she had it . She would wear a low cut blouse and her new bra. She could toy with a necklace at the beginning of the speech. Putting it on while arching her back and pointing the girls toward the lens. Then she could pretend to drop it with a girlish little giggle and a flirtatious smirk as she dipped down toward the camera and give a tantalizing glimpse of her famous cleavage, never displaying it outright, but giving hope to her mesmerized audience. She would adopt a girlish and coquettish demeanor sort of Suzanne Somers channeling Diane Keaton. And best of all, they would never know, she wasn’t wearing any pants.
Brought to you by Concerned Citizens Hoping to Humanize Hillary.

jeff said...

Trooper, come on. It's morning here. Why are you killing the rest of my day?

Pastafarian said...

Sorry, it's over for her. Like it or not the Democrats are gonna lose this one too. They'll manage to lose like they always do.

Eli Blake said...

There is one huge difference though:

It is hard to see how anyone would pay a significant price with any large group of voters for bashing murderers, but the GOP has already paid a significant price with Hispanic voters for bashing immigrants (illegal or otherwise).

What people don't seem to understand is that you can't just neatly place Hispanics into separate buckets marked, 'US citizen,' 'legal resident' and 'illegal,' because many families have people who run the range from U.S. citizens all the way to people living happily in Mexico or in other countries with no intention to come to the U.S.

I'd cite myself and my cousin as an example. We are both American going back to 1630 (in fact the ancestor who came that year had rented the Mayflower to the Pilgrims ten years before that even.) She is however, married to a man from Central America (he is a legal resident.) They have other family members here (I don't know their immigration status, nor do I care) and they take the kids (all U.S. citizens) down there to visit every couple of years-- but are now worried about what the effect will be of a border wall, requiring passports to cross in from Mexico and other facets which will make their trip more difficult. Further, my cousin's husband, though he is legal, has been hassled more than once and asked to prove he is legal. Many other Hispanics have had the same experience, even U.S. citizens.

And once a person thinks you are attacking their family, you've pretty much lost them in terms of whatever else you want to say.

And the numbers don't lie. In 2004, George W. Bush got 40% of the votes of Hispanics, and that was pretty consistent across the country. In 2006, the group had moved sharply to the left and in many states (Florida less so due to the Cuban community) the percentage declined to as low as 20%.

Here in Arizona, we had a textbook example of how immigrant bashing hurt the GOP last year. J.D. Hayworth, a six term Republican congressman in a Republican leaning district, made bashing undocumented immigrants a centerpiece of his campaign, even writing a book about it. Hispanics in his district, many of whom had voted for him in years past, voted overwhelmingly for Democrat Harry Mitchell and he upset Hayworth by less than 6000 votes. In district eight (a border district) Republican Jim Kolbe retired from what had been a safely Republican district. The GOP nominated immigration hardliner Randy Graf, who wanted to build a border wall. Hispanics, who had supported Kolbe, broke heavily towards his opponent, Gabrielle Giffords, and she won big. It also helped her that a lot of businesses who make money trading with, in and through Mexico were worried about the impact of a potential border wall on business.

The GOP also lost a border district in Texas because of the immigration issue.

The most popular Republicans here in Arizona among Hispanics? That's easy-- Congressman Jeff Flake and Senator John McCain, who have not joined their colleagues in attacking illegal immigrants as a centerpiece of their campaigns.

Now, I'm not disputing that there may be a grain of truth to the article. But I am pointing out that unlike with the prison furlough issue, the attacks on undocumented workers do carry a political price for the GOP and it will continue to cost them with Hispanic voters.

Pogo said...

Eli,
Why would hispanics favor illegal immigration?

Why should non-Hispanics support illegal immigration?

Henry said...

Doesn't this go back to the fact that Senator Clinton is a Senator from New York? Northeastern politicians don't win the presidency. The Republicans (Pataki, Romney) are too moderate to win the southern Republican primaries. The Democrats are too liberal to win southern Ohio.

Senator Clinton has been masterful at maintaining flexibility on tough issues; certanly she's done better at it than Governor Romney. (Note how the frame around Clinton is that she's dishonest about her real positions while the frame around Romney is that he doesn't actually have any.)

But there's only so far she can run from her Northeastern allies -- Spitzer being just the most egregious of an unfortunate lot.

jeff said...

"bashing undocumented immigrants"
Or illegal immigrants.
"bashing Immigrants"

Two entirely different things.

former law student said...

Because they can be deported at any time, illegal immigrants form a compliant workforce which will accept lower wages and more dangerous working conditions than a legal resident will. The existence of millions of illegal immigrants benefits only those who exploit their labor -- namely fatcat Republicans.

PatCA said...

Of course the Republicans are sniffing blood: they know that the election will be about terrorism and immigration--IOW, about national identity and survival.

Hillary can push health care all she wants, but the Reps knew that eventually she would have to address those issues to the entire electorate, not just the primary voters.

And she did. Rove could not have stage-managed it better.

jeff said...

"The existence of millions of illegal immigrants benefits only those who exploit their labor -- namely fatcat Republicans."

That isn't really true. I stipulate some businesses exploit the labor, but namely fatcat Republicans? I suspect there are some fatcat Democrats that own businesses also. Plus the benefit of the voting block that eli talks about has been vastly disproportionately benefits Democrats.

jeff said...

Plus the benefit of the voting block that eli talks about has been vastly disproportionate toward the Democrats.

Proof reading is my friend.

rhhardin said...

Hillary has worse troubles than a tank.

Is it only men and dogs that hear the audio overtones when she talks?

I can't believe that even women could stand even a month of that.

ht classical values.

Yachira said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yachira said...

I am certainly not a professional political pundit. But I'd bet my eye-teeth and left-n*t that Hillary's dead-in-the-water, and totally unelectable on a national scale. Period.

XWL said...

I can see Wolf Blitzer channelling the memory of Bernard Shaw's question to Gov. Dukakis and asking Sen. Clinton, "If Bill raped Kitty Dukakis, would you want to kill him?"

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I want Hillary to be the Democratic candidate. As the campaign continues, her mask is slipping and the horror is beginning to peek through.

As the the driver's licenses for illegal aliens: the reasons that I am adamantly extremely opposed to the idea....besides the fact that they are ILLEGALLY in the country are

1.A driver's license is an open door for voting. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/nvra/activ_nvra.htm
I don't want to allow non-citizens to vote for dog catcher much less for the President of the United States.

2. Many States and Counties draw from DMV records for jury pools. I don't want criminal illegal aliens who are flaunt our laws to be on a jury pool

3. Banks, Brokerage firms(ME), credit card companies and lending firms, as well as stores that extend credit use a driver's license as proof of identification and a social security number for tax/interest reporting and tracking. Allowing illegals who have presented false information to get their DMV license encourages more fraud in the financial area. Don't we have enough trouble with the sub-prime melt down already? How likely is an illegal alien, who is already a criminal, to pay on credit that has been falsely obtained.

The big argument is that we need to know who is driving on our roads and that it is a safety issue. Bullpucky! It is all about allowing non-citizens and illegals to vote.

Now if they want to issue a temporary card that clearly indicates that this is NOT a citizen, possibly that might go down with the public. BUT, to freely give away the privileges of citizenship and all that goes with it (voting, jury duty, extension of credit, mandatory auto insurance, paying TAXES)is a bitter pill that the public is just not going to swallow.

Contrary to what Hillary and Bush and all the rest of the lickspittle politicians think, the American people are not stupid and we can see the handwriting on the wall..... bye bye America as we have known it.....welcome Third World economy.

rcocean said...

Illegal immigration is HRC's weak spot. She will defend it, if pushed, and could lose massive amounts of votes because of it. Like supporting the ACLU the Democrats will never nominate anyone who doesn't support illegal immigration for POTUS - no matter what the cost.

The problem is, the Republicans are not only the stupid party (cf Pat Robertson) but they contain a large number of open borders WSJ types.

And if they nominate Huckabee, McCain, or Gulliani, the GOP will be unable to attack her greatest weakness. And they will lose.

Michael said...

XWL: I can see Wolf Blitzer channelling the memory of Bernard Shaw's question to Gov. Dukakis and asking Sen. Clinton, "If Bill raped Kitty Dukakis, would you want to kill him?"

No, she'd accuse Kitty Dukakis of being a nut and a slut, while going on and on about some vast right wing conspiracy.

reader_iam said...

Hey, I just this very minute got a call from Hillary Clinton! She told me to look for something special in my mailbox.

Should I be afraid?

reader_iam said...

(Campaign notes: We are getting lots and lots of calls on behalf of one candidate or another, some of them as pre-recorded messages from the candidates themselves, and some pre-recorded from representatives for or supporters of them.

Far and away, we've gotten more from the Barack Obama campaign than any other. It's not even a close contest. Three other things of note: The Obama people have actually called "live,"; that is to say, real people are at the other end of the line, and they like to chat and "dialogue." In an least three cases, an actual phone number--847 area code--showed up on the caller ID. And the calls have come in to us by name. That is to say, as opposed to a generic "hello, sir or ma'am" type of thing, the person on the other end requests to speak to either my husband by name or me by name.

We live in Iowa, by the way, and we are registered "no party," so that probably helps account for the volume of calls we get, and that we get them from candidates from both parties.

/this installment of campaign notes)

reader_iam said...

Everyone wants us to register and come hang out at the caucuses!

Gee, it's nice to be wanted.

Trooper York said...

Cool reader_iam, I didn't know you live in Iowa. Are you near a cornfield? Have you ever been to a hog-butcherin', or a barn raising? But most important of all, if you build it, will they come?

Luckyoldson said...

Dax,
The driver's license issue isn't an issue anymore.

Trooper York said...

Reader, we tease because we love.

Hoosier Daddy said...

What people don't seem to understand is that you can't just neatly place Hispanics into separate buckets marked, 'US citizen,' 'legal resident' and 'illegal,'

And what you people don't seem to understand is that many don't restrict it to Hispanics but illegal immigration period. The fact that Hispanics are targeted vs say, Chinese is probably because they estimate 10% of Mexico lives in this country illegally. Illegally because they have completely bypassed the process in place that my grandparents on down had to go through to get in and make a go in this nation.

I find it amazing that we seem to be the only country that has no problem turning a completely blind eye to millions of people coming into the country with no documentation, no health screenings, nothing. Zip.

If you're going to insist that we simply have to let every Hispanic cross the border with impunity then anyone in the world should be able to hop on a plane or boat and call the first American city they land in as home. Otherwise you're nothing more than a racist.

Luckyoldson said...

All of the talk regarding whether Hillary is somehow like Dukakis is rather silly, especially considering the dramatic difference between Hillary's campaign machine, Bill being in the wings, and their many years of winning elections..and shouldn't we be discussing situations like this instead:

From today's Los ANgeles Times:

Federal investigators smuggled the components of liquid-based bombs past screeners in 19 airports nationwide in secret tests earlier this year, showing that a terrorist could thwart the latest U.S. security regulations.

"Our tests clearly demonstrate that a terrorist group, using publicly available information and few resources, could cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of the passengers," concludes a Government Accountability Office report that was released Wednesday night by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Using cheap, easily available components, GAO investigators made an explosive device and a firebomb that, when tested, exploded with sufficient force to cause significant damage.

Investigators then used public information on the Transportation Security Administration's screening procedures to devise ways to carry the bomb components through airport checkpoints without being challenged.

Whether Hillary, Rudy, Mitt, Edwards or Obama win the election, doesn't something like this shock the supporters of our current administration?

Up until recently, the Republicans held a true majority in Congress, and Bush has been in office for almost seven years, continuing to tout their spectacular record as the defender of America against terrorists.

Sloan and others constantly talk about how we haven't been attacked since 9/11, but most people know we also weren't attacked for almost eight years after the tower attack in 1993...so things can certainly take a turn, and right now it doesn't appear we're any safer than we've ever been.

I think we've just been very, very lucky, and while we're waiting to see who is elected, instead of wasting time comparing current candidates to people who are thoroughly irrelevant...shouldn't the American people be demanding things like this be addressed and a better system implemented?

I don't know about many here, but I do travel quite a bit and this kind of thing scares the hell out of me...and if there's another attack like 9/11 Americans on both sides of the aisle will suffer greatly.

Revenant said...

[Dukakis] had been fatally wounded, politically, by Gore... he just didn't know it....

This is a nice meme, but it isn't even remotely true. Saying that Dukakis was "fatally wounded" by that remark makes it sound like he had a good shot at winning until Gore brought up the furlough thing.

But Bush was in an incredibly strong position. The country was in great shape, people loved Reagan -- there wasn't much need for change. The election was his to lose, and unlike Gore in 2000 he was careful NOT to lose it.

The furlough issue certainly widened Bush's lead -- no question about that -- but he would almost certainly have won even if nobody had noticed the Horton incident.

reader_iam said...

Trooper, I know. I was busy posting elsewhere how many comments certain commenters have posted at Althouse.

As to your questions, which I will now proceed to treat seriously, just to be annoying:

1) I don't believe it's technically possible to be far from a cornfield in Iowa. I'm much closer to the Mississippi, which I can watch flow by through my window at this time of year (no leaves).

2) No, though I've certainly butchered a pork dish, and yes--but back as a little kid, in Indiana.

3) I wish.

P.S. It occurs to me that I've never lived exceptionally far from a cornfield, whether in Indiana, Illinois, Delaware (place I lived longest) or here. Perhaps that explains ... something.

Revenant said...

What people don't seem to understand is that you can't just neatly place Hispanics into separate buckets marked, 'US citizen,' 'legal resident' and 'illegal,' because many families have people who run the range from U.S. citizens all the way to people living happily in Mexico or in other countries with no intention to come to the U.S.

First of all, it is two groups, not three -- "people who are here legally" and "people who aren't". Legal immigration isn't much of an issue.

Secondly, what you mean is that we can't do that without offending some Hispanics. Ok, that's a given. But we can't *refuse* to do it without offending most of the rest of the country, myself included. So my response to the offended Hispanics is "tough cookies". There are many more Americans who hate illegal immigration than there are friends and relatives of illegal immigrants.

And yeah, I know that you think that the loss of Hispanic votes cost the Republicans some seats, and maybe it did. But you're ignoring the other half of the equation, which is that toadying up to illegals prevented the Democrats from picking up even more seats. Here in my district, to name just one example, the Democrats failed to pick up "Duke" Cunningham's old seat because the Democratic candidate tipped her hand as a supporter of illegal immigration.

reader_iam said...

Um. The Mississippi certainly does NOT "flow by through my window" at this, or any other, time of year. We're at a high enough level that such a thing would mean Armageddon.

LOL.

reader_iam said...

LOS, hang on to your seat--I'm going to agree with you.

I do not believe we're safer, and I do think that's a disgrace.

jeff said...

Global warming Reader. Global warming. I used to drive thru your lovely state a few years ago on a regular basis. All 400 some miles of it. At 65 miles per hour. I think the last time was the ice storm 3 years or so ago. That was an adventure.

reader_iam said...

Speaking of politics, Karl Rove will join Kos as a contributor to Newsweek's 2008 Campaign coverage.

I think those two should do an edition of Bloggingheads.

Revenant said...

Speaking of politics, Karl Rove will join Kos as a contributor to Newsweek's 2008 Campaign coverage.

Yikes. Reading that will probably give you cancer of the bile duct.

tc said...

All women are good for one thing -which Hillary isn't. See below:
Women love conversation...words even more than actual sex, many times. Men are the opposite...that orgasm is the key. Appropos of that, I re-post a previous post:

"breast-beating hysteria" ? I love all womens breasts -and,of course,vaginas, for that is where the real pleasure/elevation to "God" lies. But I am, unavoidably, first attracted to big natural breasts (and I can tell the difference with near unerring accuracy...especially when I see them swing -or not- when she bends over...). But all women's breasts always have something fascinating about them...even the little ones.
9:45 PM
tc said... I got so excited thinking about women's breasts, I forgot to post this:
jewsyonkersislam # 440 Address on Yonkers schools to Yonkers Board of Education and supporting newspaper documentation (see jewsyonkersislamiii-tc.blogspot.com

jeff said...

TC, how many threads you spamming today with that?

Richard Fagin said...

Sen. Clinton doesn't remind me one bit of Mike Dukakis. Gov. Dukakis was honest to a fault. I don't recall his need for "triangulation" or whatever other scheme the Clintons use to "fool 'em today."

I felt kind of sorry for him. The "Dump the Duke" bumper stickers that were on a lot of Massachusetts cars in 1978 were well deserved. He had no grasp of human nature. His understanding of economics was lacking (he was the brains behind "no fault" car insurance and other fiascoes). But there wasn't the least hint of sleaze about him. Still isn't.

Luckyoldson said...

Richard Fagin said..."Sen. Clinton doesn't remind me one bit of Mike Dukakis. Gov. Dukakis was honest to a fault."

Mike was just fine, but in over his head.

As for that "triangulation" thing...it sure worked well for eight years right here in America.

*Oh, and do you remember good ol' honest Lee Atwater being behind the Willie Horton slam that crushed Mike? Karl Rove's mentor?

Luckyoldson said...

TC,
Nuts.

Eli Blake said...

pogo et al:

Obviously you didn't read my post very well.

"Hispanic U.S. citizens," "legal residents" and "illegals" are often members of the same families (like my cousin's extended family).

La Familia is a very important concept in the Latino community.

But hey, go look at the numbers. Hispanics moved more sharply to the left than any other demographic last year. I told you why that was. If you want to argue otherwise, then give me a better explanation for it.

Eli Blake said...

jeff:

Yes, Hispanics have in general voted more for Democrats than Republicans.

However, President Bush got 40% of the Hispanic vote last election, so it has hardly been as heavily Democratic as, say, the votes of African-Americans or homosexuals.

But hey, if the GOP keeps trying to make it so, then as Democrats we'll take what they are giving us. Prop 187 and what it did to the Hispanic voting base in California is very instructive to how these things work out. Back in the days of Reagan, they weren't so universally Democratic.

It may be that in a state like Iowa where there aren't that many Hispanics immigration is still a winning issue for Republicans. But here in Arizona, it isn't. That should have been proven last year but if you nominate a GOP nominee who keeps harping on the issue, then I'll predict boldly right now that Arizona (which has voted Democratic once since 1948) will vote for the Democratic nominee.

Bruce Hayden said...

"Hispanic U.S. citizens," "legal residents" and "illegals" are often members of the same families (like my cousin's extended family).

So, because some in a family came here legally, we are apparently supposed to turn a blind eye to the rest of their families coming here illegally.

Trooper York said...

Ramon Miguel 'Mike' Vargas: This could be very bad for us.
Susan: For us?
Ramon Miguel 'Mike' Vargas: For Mexico, I mean.
(Touch of Evil, 1958)

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"La Familia is a very important concept in the Latino community."

Yes, and it is also a big deal for La Cosa Nostra. So, what's your point. It's ok to break the law as long as it is one of your family members?

The Exalted said...

ah ha ha

after the past 7 years, your point of comparison to nixon is...hillary!

ah ha ha

Revenant said...

Prop 187 and what it did to the Hispanic voting base in California is very instructive to how these things work out.

People always harp on what 187 did to the Hispanic voting base. They ignore what it did to the other voting bases. Yes, it made Hispanics less likely to vote Republican. It made white people MORE likely to vote Republican. Were it not for the fact that California law makes it easy for illegals to cast fraudulent votes in our elections, the net effect for the Republican Party would have been positive.

You keep harping on how it is important not to alienate Hispanics. You don't seem to consider it important to avoid alienating whites, blacks, or Asians, despite the fact that supermajorities of all three groups are against illegal immigration. The fact of the matter is that nearly 70% of the overall population wants illegal immigration reduced, versus less than 10% that wants things eased up for illegals.

Yes, Hispanics are a rapidly-growing demographic group in America... because of illegal immigration. They are increasingly influential in border states... because of illegal immigration. But none of that changes the fact that solid majorities of Americans think, that illegal immigrants hurt the country more than they help it, that they should be arrested even if they haven't broken other laws, that businesses which hire them should be fined, and that we should increase border security and build a fence to keep them out. This isn't just a Republican issue. The majority of Democrats -- including most of the blacks and union members -- want illegal immigration stopped, too.

Being perceived as tough on illegal immigration was a net POSITIVE for Republicans in 2006 -- not a net negative. If they'd pulled a Bush and gone soft on illegals they'd have gotten their asses kicked even harder in the midrerm elections.

La Familia is a very important concept in the Latino community.

Making sure that the Latino community is happy really isn't important to the vast majority of the country that isn't Latino. They want to make sure that *their* communities are happy. And being up to their necks in illegals isn't making them happy.

Richard Fagin said...

Yessireee, Bob, that thar tryanguulayshun worked so well right here in America, we got us a Reepublicun congress for the first time in 40 years. Yeah, howdy.

The Willie Horton ad would have been just as effective if the subject had been Albert de Salvo rather than Willie.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Revenant: Neutralized this one, too. Just call me...."Celery"...cuz I'm stalking you in the commentosphere.

Revenant said...

Neutralized this one, too.

Aiee! Noooo

dick said...

LOS,

Sorry but the Willie Horton issue was brought up by Algore, not Lee Atwater. The ad appeared one time for the Bush campaign. The issue was a valid one and Dukakis has to this day not apologized to the families that Willie Horton terrorized in the other states when he took off. In fact even after Willie Horton took off, Dukakis said that the program was the right thing to do. Just what we need - murderers out on work release programs.

As for Dukakis and sleaze, check that prison he wanted to build in the middle of the state where the people did not want it - on an aquifer on land owned by his supporters and in an area where there was no transportation for the families to visit the inmates while the state already owned an unused military installation with the buildings already up and in the Boston Harbor. Nope, no sleaze there at all. Payoffs galore. Then when the Bill Weld was elected he had to figure out something to do with the buildings that Dukakis put up out there in the middle of nowhere.

John Stodder said...

I just did a search of all the comments on this thread and was shocked that no one used the magic word: Advertisements.

Dukakis never really tried to explain the furloughs. The issue became a major issue because of an advertising campaign by an independent right-wing group that used Willie Horton's scary-looking face to illustrate the point.

It wasn't Dukakis' weakness that did him on that issue. The press was mostly on his side with regard to weekend passes. Willie Horton's rape and murder spree was an unfortunate incident that didn't undermine the fundamentally enlightened qualities of Dukakis' policy, from the press' point of view. But the press doesn't call the tune, folks. The people will learn much of what they know about both candidates through advertising. Unless Hillary can figure out a way to stop ads on this subject from being produced and sold, she will have to contend with the fallout from this issue.

I wouldn't go as far as Pinkerton, though. Two can play at this game, and surely will. The Republicans in this race all have issues and comments that Democratic-aligned groups can exploit too. A lot of people are going to see Rudy in that dress if he gets that far.