The man behind Willie Horton ads has new target: Hillary Clinton

[laststeamtrain]

The man behind Willie Horton ads has new target: Hillary Clinton
Sean Cockerham | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: July 14, 2007 10:58:32 AM

TACOMA, Wash. — The presidential election season has begun. So Floyd Brown is out hunting Democrats.

Brown is among the nation's best-known conservative political knife throwers.

This is the fellow responsible for the "Willie Horton" television ad that helped derail the Michael Dukakis presidential campaign in 1988. Brown later wrote a book called "Slick Willie: Why America Cannot Trust Bill Clinton." He also created a 1-900 line in 1992 so callers could hear edited excerpts of telephone conversations between Clinton and Arkansas lounge singer Gennifer Flowers.

George H.W. Bush, the Republican president at the time, repudiated the Flowers phone line "as the kind of sleaze that diminishes the political process." Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry once accused Brown of being "personally responsible for some of the sleaziest politics this country has seen."

Now Brown and the national conservative group he founded, Citizens United, are working on "Hillary: The Movie" to come out this fall.

"This project aims to expose the truth about her conflicts in the past and her liberal plot for the future," Citizens United says on its Web site.

Citizens United is a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that Brown founded in 1988. Brown is now chairman of the board, and his protege, David Bossie, runs the day-to-day operations of Citizens United as its president.

<more>

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/17945.html

[MannyGoldstein]

1. It's Too Bad That People Focus On Sensationalistic Claptrap re: Clinton

It takes the focus off her actual record - which is bad enough.

[laststeamtrain]

2. Good one! n/t

[paulk]

5. what horrible "actual" record is that?

seriously.

I haven't seen much in her real record that sets her apart to the extent you keep referring to.

I find the hatred of her record, as expressed by you and so many others on this board bewildering.

Can you explain this somehow?

In what ways is her record that far outside of the mainstream of the Democratic Party to warrant the sort of derision you daily heap on her?

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Let's See...

Off the top of my head...

Iraq War
First Usurious Bankruptcy Bill
Patriot Act
Cheerleader for permanent 'free' trade with China (she was only a candidate then, couldn't vote)
Evading the censure of Bush for flagrantly violating the Fourth Amendment.

I believe there's a few others that I'm not remembering, but those are plenty. Heck, either the Iraq War or permanent 'free' trade with China, by themselves, should be enough to disqualify her from contention - both were obviously awful positions, that could only be taken out of ignorance or political posturing.

[paulk]

7. Iraq war?

Do you mean the IWR? A lot of Democrats voted for that, and a lot of Democrats never considered the IWR a blank check for the invasion of Iraq. It was always clear that the IWR was a political tool dreamed up by Rove to damage the Democrats with before the 2002 election. The Bush admin. always maintained that it didn't need the IWR to invade anyway. I'm always amazed by the willingness of the left to take the hammer the right hands them, and then use it to bludgeon themselves with.

The "First Usurious Bankruptcy Bill"? I'm sure you're aware that only 13 members of the Senate voted against that. That hardly puts Clinton outside of the mainstream, and it seems rather absurd on your part to list that as some damaging vote, especially since she opposed the later, and far worse, bankruptcy bill that passed in 2003.

The Patriot Act? There was only one Senator who voted against that. Again, that hardly puts Clinton outside the mainstream.

What exactly are Clinton's position's on free trade?

from NY Mag

“We just can’t keep doing what we did in the twentieth century,” she told a reporter from Bloomberg, adding that we may need “a little time-out” before the enactment of any further trade deals. Accordingly, in 2005, she voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Last month, she announced her opposition to the South Korean Free Trade Agreement. She has backed legislation that would impose trade sanctions on Chinese goods unless Beijing stops holding down the value of the yuan."

Once again, not out of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, and, in fact, moving quite a bit to the left of her husband's administration.

Censure of Bush? Perhaps she didn't feel like wasting her time on something that wouldn't even get out of committee in a Republican controlled Senate. Not everyone is as enamored of empty gestures as the left. Many politicians would rather use their time on things that would actually get something done.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Oy

1. The IWR was the IWR. War is the most important thing that Congress deals with. I happen to think that the majority of Democrats, who voted against the IWR, did the right thing.

2. She was a vocal supporter of permanent 'free' trade with China. This was a hideous bill. Voting in the mainstream of Democrats by no means makes something the right thing to do, at least in my book.

[paulk]

9. I don't view Senate and House votes as equal, where

in the Senate, representing an entire state, a vote counts for more. The Senate vote was 29-21 Democrats favoring the resolution.

Of course voting in the mainstream does not make a decision correct, that's not my point. My point is that HRC is not outside of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, as she is portrayed by many here as, and, as such, is not deserving of the bile heaped on her by many for her positions on these issues.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Mainstream Does Not Equal Correct

If it makes you feel any better, I would never vote for anyone who voted for the IWR or permanent 'free' trade with China. I don't care if every Democrat voted for them - nor should you. These were black and white votes, and they failed.

[BeyondThePale]

3. Lee Atwater has risen from the dead?

and undoubtedly he wants to eat brains (sadly he will starve among the * administration)!

[libodem]

4. How come we, Democrats, never have

have any cool, dirty, underhanded, rotten, slander, organizations, like the republicans. We could use some slimy, think-tanks to muddy the waters of our opponents. Yeah, baby. Liberal Institute, of Progressive, Studies. A few crafty, lawyers, with a few loose billions, to hound those motherfuckers in the White House, with subpoenas, and law suits. Oh, but for a few, stained blue dresses, and some testimony under oath. It's the right thing to bring these pigs down.

[MasonJar]

11. Perhaps there should be some ads exposing him! Definitely if the

Swift Boaters come out again. All we dems must come out with both barrels blazing. This man may be associated with the latter group.