"In a way, you might say that David Duke is the son of Willie Horton. Duke is more overt, of course, but he's really just pushing the same buttons and sending the same coded messages that the Horton ads did so effectively for the Bush campaign last year"

The quote from Judd Rose draws a poignant parallel between David Duke, a notorious figure connected with white supremacy, and the notorious Willie Horton project ads used in the 1988 U.S. Presidential election by George H.W. Bush's team versus Michael Dukakis. By specifying that "David Duke is the kid of Willie Horton", Rose recommends that both Duke's rhetoric and the Horton ads operate under the exact same racially charged techniques and rely on the exploitation of racial worries and prejudices for political gain.

In the context of the 1988 project, the Willie Horton advertisements were greatly criticized for their racial undertones. Willie Horton, an African American man, committed criminal activities while on furlough from jail, and his story was utilized by the Bush campaign to paint his challenger, Dukakis, as soft on criminal offense. The ad's perceived intent was to stir racial worries amongst predominantly white citizens by associating crime with African Americans, therefore indirectly conjuring up ingrained societal bias.

David Duke, with his specific ties to white supremacist ideologies as a previous Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, represents a more overt symptom of these racially charged tactics. By mentioning that Duke is "more obvious", Rose indicates that while Duke's bigotry is specific, the underlying techniques are akin to those of the Horton advertisements-- both use coded language or "pet dog whistles" to attract voters' racial predispositions without explicitly acknowledging them.

The phrase "pushing the very same buttons and sending the same coded messages" highlights the idea that both the Horton ads and Duke's rhetoric leverage worry and department within society. The efficiency of the Horton ads throughout the Bush project serves as a testament to the power of these subtle yet powerful strategies in forming public opinion and affecting voter habits.

Ultimately, Rose's contrast highlights the continuity and determination of racially exploitative techniques in American politics, stressing the need for critical awareness of how such methods perpetuate inequality and department. This observation remains pertinent as conversations about race, media, and political interaction continue to progress.