CNN's Erickson: Forget about African-American voters, GOP should start running new "Willie Horton" ads
July 13, 2010 1:13 pm ET by Eric Hananoki
In a July 13 blog post, "King Samir Shabazz Should Be 2010's Willie Horton," CNN contributor and RedState.com editor-in-chief Erick Erickson wrote of the manufactured scandal over the Justice Department's handling of the New Black Panther Party case: "Republican candidates nationwide should seize on this issue. The Democrats are giving a pass to radicals who advocate killing white kids in the name of racial justice and who try to block voters from the polls."
Erickson added: "The Democrats will scream racism. Let them. Republicans are not going to pick up significant black support anyway." From Erickson's post:
Had Horton been white, the Republicans still would have used the ad. But Horton was black and the ad was powerfully effective -- so effective that it and Dukakis's stupid answer about opposing the death penalty even if his wife were murdered destroyed the Democrats in 1988 -- the Democrats screamed racism at the top of their lungs and their accomplices in the media have forever agreed. Willie Horton = racism.
Nonsense. The ad worked. It was powerful. It was the truth. That's why the Democrats screamed racism so loud. It was the only way to stop the GOP from going this direction again. They know the GOP lives in perpetual quixotic quest for the day it gets a significant share of the black vote.
Now we have King Samir Shabazz. He showed up at a polling location in Pennsylvania and intimidated voters going into the polls. The Justice Department pursued the case and, having received a verdict it the government's favor, Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder stopped pursuing the New Black Panthers.
Video has subsequently come out of King Samir Shabazz encouraging the murder of white children.
Republican candidates nationwide should seize on this issue. The Democrats are giving a pass to radicals who advocate killing white kids in the name of racial justice and who try to block voters from the polls.
The Democrats will scream racism. Let them. Republicans are not going to pick up significant black support anyway. But here's the thing: everyone but the Democrats will understand this is not racism. This isn't even about race. This is about the judgment of an administration that would rather prosecute Arizona for doing what the feds won't do than prosecuting violent thugs who would deny you and me the right to vote while killing our kids.
Erickson's employer, CNN, notes that the Willie Horton ad "played to racial fears and portrayed Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis as soft on crime."
I know they have on other posts but they should include it in here too. Repitition is important.
This isn't about race, you say Erick? Well, why did you give us the observation that the Horton ad was "powerfully effective" because of the very fact that Horton was black?
You've outed yourself for the racist you are. We no longer have to offer any thoughtful consideration of your views.
Given the dismal level of discourse by Republicant operatives, is it possible to get an honest assessment of just where the Democratic Party stands in the coming November elections?
Is it really a possibility the voters are going to go with the Republicants?
Ema Nymton
.
Stay Classy MMfA!
Stay Stupid Tommy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVcfymOvoUo
You, troll, otoh, still have no comment on the topic: Erickson's call for more race-baiting ads.
Since when does one white person speak for all white persons?
Since when does one Muslim speak for all Muslims?
Oh, yeah. In your world all _____ (fill in the blank with any word you desire) are alike.
B- Do you see ANYONE on here denying that the New Black Panthers are racist @$$holes? Anyone at all? No? That's what I thought. It's not about "supporting" them. It's about the fact that the charges were dismissed based on lack of evidence, and it was the Bush DOJ's decision to make it a civil case rather than criminal. I'm terribly sorry, I know you were all geared up for a debate over whether or not this idiot was a paragon of racial enlightenment, but that was never the point.
#1. Where do you see MMFA's support?
#2. Where were are the people who testified that they were too intimidated to cast a ballot?
Self-awareness isn't your strong suit, is it, Tommy?
This is a "scandal" based upon the idea that people were too intimidated to vote, is it not? If no such person can be found how can this be justified as a scandal?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVcfymOvoUo
Now, I'll ask again, where are the people who said they were too intimidated to cast a ballot upon that day?
Come on, who didn't get to vote?
Your guessing is no more valid that your imagining. Without someone stepping forward there is no evidence. Without evidence there is no prosecution. Without a prosecution there is no trial.
And therefore there is no scandal--except on Fox.
from the testimony of THOMAS PEREZ, Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division, 5/14/10
Pertinent testimony is found on Pages 18-19.
Who was president on January 7, 2009, Tommy?
forgot to remove the line number.
I love the smell of burning troll in the afternoon. It smells like--beer.
Nope. My mistake. That would be the Michelob I've spilled on my lap.
His job was done. He moved on.
Just like a guy who has robbed in the past has the potential to rob again. But we don't arrest him just because the potential is there, doofus.
We only arrest people who we believe actually committed a crime.
There is no evidence that this guy intimidated anyone who was eligible to vote at this polling place. Therefore, there are no grounds upon which to arrest him.
This is not rocket science. Without evidence that a crime was committed, no one was arrested! Just like without evidence that a robbery was committed, we don't arrest the person sitting in his car outside a convenience store for robbery, even though based on his priors, he has the potential to rob that store!
Stay classy.
Mr. Obama was sworn in on 1/20/08 . .
Jeez, get informed!!
Mr. Obama was sworn in on 1/20/09
And from another article:
When Protesters Bear Arms Against Health-Care Reform[/b]"Petro [former Secret Service agent] says the guns' presence changes the atmosphere surrounding such events. "They're intimidating people like it's a western saloon," he says."
Intimidation's intimidation no matter which side, and there's been plenty on both. Seem's that like usual, the GOP squeaks the loudest and thus gets oiled.
When Protesters Bear Arms Against Health-Care Reform
It won't work on people who don't already watch Fox News, anyway.