Has Rep. Alan Grayson gone a bridge too far in his campaign to keep his Orlando-based congressional seat? The media ruckus over his "Taliban Dan" attack on his challenger, Dan Webster, would suggest so, but his campaign thinks not, despite having been caught editing a video clip to make Webster appear to say the opposite of what he really said.
Grayson's spokesman, Sam Drzymala, concedes "the ad has gotten a lot of attention," but says that only means "people are hearing about his (Webster's) awful record, including trapping women in abusive relationships."
As evidence of the Grayson battle plan's success, Drzymala cites three things: an internal poll the week after the primary that had Grayson ahead 13 points, 40-27; the $4 million raised from some 50,000 individuals nationwide, and its ground game, which the Orlando Sentinel reports "has been canvassing...since October, a time frame nearly unheard-of by a freshman congressman." (The poll, by the way, was done while a negative ad campaign was being waged against Grayson and others by Americans for Prosperity.)
What the hullabaloo over "Taliban Dan" obscures is the barrage of in-your-face assaults by Grayson that built to this juncture. The district, Florida's 8th, leans decidedly Republican. Conventional wisdom would posit that, given that history, Grayson would tack to the center. Conventional wisdom couldn't be more wrong.
As the Sentinel reported, Grayson is an unabashed liberal who "has developed a reputation as a bare-knuckle brawler with attacks that seem plucked from the Republican playbook...It has earned him rock-star status among the Democratic faithful...MSNBC's Chris Matthews has called him 'Captain Cojones.' He is trailed by a smitten film crew making a documentary called 'Street Fighting Man: The Political Mind of Alan Grayson.'"
In contrast, the same report describes Webster as "the low-key owner of an air-conditioning business" who in 28 years in the state Legislature rose to become both House speaker and Senate majority leader before being term-limited in 2008.
"Webster hasn't responded with attack ads of his own," the Sentinel reported, preferring to make the election about "brokenness in Washington."
Grayson's weapons of choice have been TV attack ads and almost daily email blitzes. Webster's web site denies all charges.
August 25: Upon learning that "Daniel Webster" had won the Republican primary, he emailed supporters a mock news release, quoting himself: "Didn't he die, like, 150 years ago? ...Can't the Republicans find anyone to run against me who's alive?" It concluded: "Webster, when asked to comment, replied 'Tippecanoe, and Tyler too.'"
August 27: Grayson's first TV ad eschewed the humor, going after Webster's vote to cut $1 billion in state aid to public education and to divert school funding to private school vouchers.
September 2-5: When Americans for Prosperity poured $261,000 into attack ads against Grayson and two other Florida Democrats, Grayson called David Koch, one of its billionaire founders, "the man who would be king" who, he said, had bought a "get out of jail free card" in 2000 with donations to the GOP after being indicted on 97 counts of violating the Clean Air Act and escaping $350 million in fines "for six cents on the dollar."
September 17: He called Webster a "chicken hawk" who advocates "indefinite" occupation in Afghanistan, putting this video clip in evidence, and questioned his avoiding military service during the Vietnam War with seven deferments.
September 20: After the 60-Plus Association, which AARP has identified as "a front group for the pharmaceutical industry," rolled out $5 million in ads warning seniors in the districts of 16 Democrats (including Grayson's) about health care reform, Grayson emailed, "It looks like the drug companies really, really hate me."
Grayson then tied those ads to Webster who, he said, "wants to cut Social Security by over $1,000 per year for every senior in Florida." On video, Webster had said he wanted to "take back some of the COLAs for the entitlement programs" to 2007 levels, a loss of about $100 a month if he meant Social Security cost of living adjustments, which he now denies.
September 23: Next, Caligula's horse. "During the Roman Empire," he emailed, "the Senate was simply a debating society, chosen by the Emperor, and serving at his pleasure. To prove this point, in 39 A.D., Emperor Caligula appointed his horse, Incitatus, to the Roman Senate... (Today) Big Money doesn't put horses in Congress. Just the hind-quarters of horses."
"Big Money," he explained, is the wealth supporting Webster's campaign from the coffers of "Big Oil" (Americans for Prosperity), "Big Pill" (60-plus Association) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's $100,000 ad buy.
September 25: "Taliban Dan" began airing this past Saturday. It purports to quote Webster: "Wives, submit yourself to your own husband," as evidence of his "radical" ideas about women's role.
Webster at first refused to talk about the charge to a local TV reporter, but Monday his campaign released the full video clip. (Both the ad and the full clip can be viewed here.) In it, Webster advises husbands at a religious gathering about biblical passages they should not choose when praying for loved ones, the very passages the Grayson ad quotes.
Grayson's campaign manager, Susannah Randolph, defended the ad, noting Webster's ties to the organization that hosted the gathering, the Institute in Basic Life Principles, which, the Sentinel reported, "has taught that women should be subservient to their husbands and not work outside the home. While in the state House in 1990, Webster spent $4,340 of taxpayer money to print and mail a district flier urging constituents to attend one of the group's seminars."
New waves of Grayson emails tried to refocus attention on Webster's legislative attempts to deny abortions even in cases of rape or incest, to deny battered women health care as a "pre-existing condition," and to create "covenant marriages," which, among other things, could be dissolved "only in cases of adultery," but not if the wife were the adulterer or the adultery were committed "with the intent to procure a divorce."
"We make decisions on messaging based on the content of the message," Drzymala told me. "For example, Webster's record on women is a very serious issue."
A bridge too far? November 2 will tell.
This is cross-posted at www.jrbarras.com
We all know why conservatives wouldn't read deeply enough to "get" these ads, but why are Stewart and pals being so simple? I think they just want to prove their moderate cred... but in doing so they are a) lying through their simple representation and b) hurting one of the few guys who has had the gonads to stand up against the Republican smear machine and special interests. That's why the right wants his scalp now.
Let's not be stupid and misread these ads so we can appear "sensible" to those who don't know better. Let's understand the meaning and context of this ad, and get behind one of the best and most courageous leaders the Democrats have.
9/29/10 -- In the only independent polling we've seen of this race, Alan Grayson trails former state Senator Dan Webster. The poll, condcted by Sunshine State News, shows Webster leading 43 percent to 36 percent. An incumbent congressman at 36 percent almost never wins; Grayson is in real trouble.
So does Grayson deserve to lose for it? If all was right and just in the world, yeah, Grayson would lose. But if all was right and just in the world, obstructionism for political gain would never be allowed when America is hurt in the process. If all was right and just in the world, it would be understood that EVER making two sets of rules--one for the majority and one for a particular minority--is ALWAYS unconstitutional and not even up for political debate.
All is not right and just in the world. Constitutional rights are not extended to minorities, so we need left-wing politicians in there to try to legislate for the rights they're already promised. So do I want Grayson to win for that greater need? I just don't know.
It appears Mr.Grayson has become his own worst enemy.
They are never amusing, and they raise my blood pressure when they go unchallenged.
In most cases, their factual basis is not easy to check, and I suspect that the statements are eagerly devoured and passed on by those with similar motivations to mislead.
Because Grayson’s ad is so easy to refute, it is my opinion that he had no intention to mislead, but instead only to amuse.
Of course, to those who have a personal stake in perpetuating misleading statements, Grayson’s ad violates their notions of propriety reflective of their hidden agenda.
I applaud his humor. "A breath of fresh air"
Apparently his subtlety caused his humor to slip beneath more than a few folks' senses, undetected.
Politicians do not use comedy or satire in their ads unless it's so broad as to be unmistakable. There is too much chance of being misunderstood and taken to task for it. Subtlety is NOT a desirable feature for political ads, and in any case Grayson is about as subtle as an earthquake.
When attacked and you have no defense, take the worst things you are accused of -- lies, distortions, obstructionism -- and turn them on your attacker to try to fog the waters with that old dodge: See, everyone does it! Every schoolboy throwing spitballs knows that.
Grayson's sin was giving right-wing bigots and conspiracy theorists ammunition. Some of the postings here make that pretty clear.
I'm not big on calling anyone a liar.
And let me add this, while "obstructionist" at least has a clear meaning, what is the meaning of "socialist?" Someone who perhaps supports social security, medicare, or any other government-funded social benefit? In which case the vast majority of American politicians from both parties are in fact socialist, and in fact what we want in office?
Or is socialist just an attack-dog label applied to a President who, because of his skin color, is widely believed to be foreign born and because of his non-anglo name is widely believed to be Muslim? You want to talk horrible names? Get "socialist," "Kenyan," and "Muslim" out of political debates and you'll take vast steps towards clearing up the air. Do that, and I'm with you on the "obstructionist" and "liar" thing.
Representing the American people is an honor, not something to assuage your personal narcissistic requirements for power.
Over the last week or so I've seen report after report where Democrats are utilizing these sorts of tactics and I am ashamed to have been raised as a Union Democrat. This type of behavior does not represent the bulk of the Democratic Party, just as I assume those right wing nut-jobs shown all in the media don't accurately represent the average Tea Party person.
At what point are we, as citizens, going to tell these power hungry beltway jerks enough is enough?