BREAKING : Grayson Team Manipulated the "Taliban Dan" Advertisement

[Techn0Girl]

Very sad face here : x( because I have said time and again how Grayson is one of my Progressive faves .

That "Taliban Dan" video? The one where Grayson berates his political opponent, Republican Daniel Webster, for telling woman that ""Wives submit yourself to your own husband" and then making a rightful comparison from fundamentalism to the Taliban?

Apparently it wasn't true.
Apparently while looking at the entire video what Webster was saying was :
"...I have verses for my wife. Don’t pick the ones that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ That’s in the Bible, but pick the ones that you’re supposed to do. So instead, ‘love your wife, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it’ as opposed to ‘wives submit to your own husbands. ...’

In other words exactly the opposite of what Grayson clipped out of that video.

More at Factcheck.org
http://factcheck.org/2010/09/rep-grayson-lowers-the-bar/

This is especially disappointing to me and I will be eagerly listening to Grayson's response. This is not how I want my Democrats to run a campaign.

We are supposed to be better.

[ibegurpard]

1. oh boo hoo

perhaps you should write them a polite strongly worded letter.

[leeroysphitz]

32. To the "right" people. Probabley good advice...

[EFerrari]

2. Well, that's pretty dumb. n/t

[hlthe2b]

3. that was a mistake. ... BUT

Anyone who wants to force a victim of rape or incest to bear the child--to take away all choice has, in my opinion, conveyed exactly what Grayson's ad conveyed. He expects women to SUBMIT to the wishes and desires of belligerent, controlling old men like himself.

[Uzybone]

6. then just tell the truth

no need to manipluate words or twist facts.

It is just wrong. Don't make excuses for it.

[hlthe2b]

12. I did NO such thing...! How insulting!

and disingenuous. I said he made a mistake in doing so. YOU DO NOT get to imply otherwise~! THAT IS NOT A DEFENSE of his actions. Interesting how you jump to denounce Grayson for his campaign's inaccuracies that you conclude to be lies that he himself intentionally committed-- while feeling free to do much the same towards a fellow DUer. Contemptible.

[Techn0Girl]

8. There is PLENTY to throw at Webster....

as you suggest without needing to resort to doctoring video - as Grayson apparently did.

Why would his campaign do this?
It's going to cost him credibility , credibility that equates to votes this election. And Grayson is right on the fence as it is with respect to voters in heavily Republican Florida.

Frankly I would have reservations about voting for him myself after seeing this. What Grayson says and does with respect to this revelation now may be critical in the eyes of many voters - certainly it would in mine.

I am left dumbfounded as to why Grayson's campaign would shoot themselves in the foot like this when Webster is such an easy target in so very many ways.

[OHdem10]

18. In the scheme of things this is not going to matter a hill of beans.

All is fair in Politics especially campaigns.
Grayson is smart enough to move on to the next attack.

[WillowTree]

13. And what Grayson did only diminishes his OWN credibility.

Not only not a particularly bright maneuver, but a decidedly foolish one that could backfire on him.

[seabeyond]

82. grayson lied. that is wrong. nt

[The Wielding Truth]

4. Don't feel bad. We are up against a bigger problem. Get everyone to vote!

He has been treated so badly by them and he jumped on this to soon. In this case he was wrong and he will probably apologize, but we have to get past this and fight for our country. Progress is not easy. Let's get up and get to work!

[The Northerner]

5. I don't think it'll matter that much

[pa28]

7. That low down dirty dog.

The Republicans are supposed to use those tactics on us.

[ibegurpard]

9. indeed

can you imagine?
I feel faint...

[Bluenorthwest]

10. All Bible believers believe that wives must submit, if not, they are

not real believers. Anyone who quotes the Bible as a reason to oppose gay rights clearly belives that wives should submit and all of that other stuff. They don't like it being pointed out, though. Also, silent in meetings, heads covered. No costly sartorial choices. The works, and it is much more extensive than the anti gay bullshit. Fact is, this is what the Bible says, those who claim it have to claim that too.

[ibegurpard]

11. I think Grayson should seize this opportunity to ask him if he believes that viewpoint

[Techn0Girl]

15. Aren't we all tired of "Insinuation Politics" already? BTW - Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[ibegurpard]

16. these loathsome toads deserve FAR worse than this

[gratuitous]

30. Not at all

But then, if your analysis has all the depth of a sheet of cellophane, I suppose your belief system should match.

[seabeyond]

83. not true. nt

[spanone]

14. grayson responds...

Congressman Grayson, meanwhile, defended his ad.

“What’s not out of context by any stretch of the imagination is the fact that he has a terrible record on women’s rights,” he told MSNBC, noting that Webster subscribes to the tenets of the Institute

of Basic Life Principles, which believes women should not work outside the home, and once voted to eliminate health care for battered women on the basis that battery is a preexisting condition.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0928/Attack-ad-over-the-top-Alan-Grayson-compares-opponent-to-Taliban

[ibegurpard]

17. good for him

[Techn0Girl]

20. Thanks for posting that !

I am saddened by his response.
Grayson is entirely correct (in your link) that Webster does have a terrible woman's right's record.

What he doesn't do is own up to his ad and let it be known that it was out of order - an outright lie in point of fact.

Let's see if his response "matures" over the coming days as this makes the media rounds.
Representative Grayson has lost a lot of credibility in my own eyes today.
And I was a huge fan of his here from the beginning.

Kind of reminds me of... oh well .. :(

[Caretha]

45. You concern is noted

and noted and noted and ............

[BolivarianHero]

72. Shut up...

The viewpoints of the Institute speak for themselves, and the issues on which Grayson attacks Webster are based on the fact the the Institute holds the exact same views featured in Grayson's ad. Webster truly is Taliban Dan, and both his membership in the Institute and his record on women's rights speak for themselves.

I routinely attack Democrats from the left, but Alan Grayson is a man who routinely stands up for progressive principles and who is willing to break his fucking back to make life better for the average American (a position that more Democrats and every single Republicn ought to emulate). In this instance Grayson is right on the money about Webster, about the GOP, and about the radical right. He should stick to his guns.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/28/905990/-FL-08:-Did-Taliban-Dan-really-say-that-Why-yes,-he-did!

[fascisthunter]

23. excellent come back

that's how it's done

[RZM]

36. This is interesting stuff

A good example of the pitfalls of negative campaigning (anyone else remember the bygone days when negative ads themselves were a contentious issue?). I was wondering how he would respond and was kind of hoping for a mea culpa, if only because that would be the unusual thing to do. But I imagine that kind of thing is frowned upon in strategist circles because it might imply weakness and in this case would conflict with the 'firebrand' image that Grayson cultivates. Another interesting question is how much of all of this (both the ad itself and his response) is 'him' and how much is 'his team.'

[Techn0Girl]

37. Oh I agree it's his team....

But he is responsible for cleaning up the mess afterward (i.e. an acknowledgment of wrong).

This Webster fellow seems to be so wrong with so many things that I am amazed why Grayson's team resorted to this.

Frankly , it would have lost my vote (without an apology for the bad cut-and-paste).

[Dawson Leery]

46. That is how the typical Republican/NeoCon/Tea Partier would respond.

It is about time the Democrats returned the favor.

[defendandprotect]

76. Well . . . almost acceptable ... but tampering with video ... not crazy about that -- !!!

[Matariki]

19. That kind of crap is indefensible.

I like Grayson's straight forwardness and have donated to his campaign. But he's got some 'splainin' to do.

His voting record is good. Why does he have to go and do sleazy shit like this?

[msongs]

21. get the real story here n save yer tears for republican appeasers lol ->

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/28/905990/-FL-08:-Did-Taliban-Dan-really-say-that-Why-yes,-he-did!

[Techn0Girl]

22. Thank you but that DailyKos posting is horridly biased....

The DK posting does quote Websters exact words (the same as in the factcheck article):

"Don't pick the ones (ed: verses) that say, um, she should submit to me. That's in the Bible, but pick the ones that you're supposed to do. So instead, love your wife, even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, as opposed to wives submit yourself to your own husband. She can pray that if she wants to, but don't you pray it."

In this speech at least , Webster is clearly calling on his audience to disregard ("don't pick the ones that say...) the wife should submit to the husband verse and instead concentrate on the husband loving his wife.

Any attempt by DK to twist that is ludicrous - the words are right their in front of us (and the video is also in the factcheck link).

The DK writer, Jed Lewison, attempts to twist the facts by childishly bold-facing certain words in the above passage - in effect duplicating,if not compounding the error Grayson made.

Democrats can not blindly adopt Republican smear tactics or we become in effect the same as any Republican.

You can imply that I am a "Republican appeaser" all that you want but if indeed you are in favor of such smear tactics then I would suggest joining a different political party that encompasses the dark side with open arms.

I can think of one right off the bat.

[ibegurpard]

24. Democrats become Republicans when they adopt the same policies

When it comes to campaigning and fighting for your beliefs then the gloves come off.
Go dig out your smelling salts

[ibegurpard]

25. oh and unrec

your pathetic attempt to generate outrage at one of the few Democrats who's willing to knock out some Republican teeth.

[Techn0Girl]

27. You mean like supporting the Patriot Act?

Or the President's "authority" to kill American citizens without trial?
Or like trickling-down billions of dollars in tax breaks to big business?
Or like keeping a hundred thousand young men and women in a war founded on a lie?

You mean those policies?

[ibegurpard]

28. yeah that stuff

and you're outraged at a campaign ad
grow the fuck up

[Techn0Girl]

34. My only relief in this exchange is that you're likely too young to vote.

[ibegurpard]

35. wrong AGAIN

[laughingliberal]

41. Having been involved once in a fundie church that adhered to those beliefs, I'll say this:

The piece in Daily Kos said exactly what I was thinking after reading at FactCheck.org and before reading the Daily Kos piece. I have heard many fundie preachers stand up and make a big deal of admonishing the husbands with "love your wife even as Christ loves the Church." It is almost pro forma with those guys. They think it shows how 'balanced' they are-wives must submit to their husbands but we're not letting the guys off, they have to love their wives.

They do believe wives should submit to their husbands and believe that part goes without saying. When they are addressing the women of the church, that is the part they focus on. As the piece in Daily Kos shows with their quote, his saying of the 'submit to your husband' verse, "That's in the Bible," is saying, 'that's a given.'

[Dawson Leery]

48. I am with Grayson on this matter.

As you stated, the fundies are as bad as Dan Webster. Alan was but pointing this out.

[defendandprotect]

77. Okay ... looks better ---

[Lost-in-FL]

26. I'm still voting for him. nt

[seabeyond]

84. i would vote for him too. he still lied. how many people did he turn off with that. he could have

doen a piece on having your rapist baby, hard hitting and the truth and maybe gained voters.

[baldguy]

29. What in Mr Webster's position on abortion rights?

'Nuff said.

[Techn0Girl]

33. Oh - he sucks at all of that no doubt ....

He in fact is an easy target at all levels.

My point is though why did Grayson's team engage him on the basis of a lie when there is so much truth to shove the gut against the wall with?

[baldguy]

42. I don't think pointing out that Webster thinks women are second-class citizens is out of bounds.

Anything done to expose that is fair game.

It's high time Dems stopped acting like politics is an honorable activity, especially when the GOP is literally trying to kill them.

[GoneOffShore]

31. Concerned is concerned!

It's not time to play nice with the Pugs.

It's time to beat them.

[mudplanet]

38. Fuck being better. Being better got us multiple wars and millions murdered.

It's time to do what's necessary to save our country from fascism, bibli-idiocy and the just plain crazy, evil and stupid.

[Techn0Girl]

39. "Fuck being better ....It's time to do what's necessary to save our country"

You know who else did what was "necessary to save his country ....


(and I got news for you Sparky, we're still in multiple wars and 100,000 men and women are in harms way today)

I weep for the level of education (let alone sanity) in this country.

[defendandprotect]

78. Well, when you go thru the looking glass, you gotta go all the way ....

You ready for Dems to pull 50+ years of left wing political violence knocking

out their leaders? Is that really who you want us to be or you want to be?

You can't be just a little bit pregnant -- and you can't be just a little bit Mafia!

Finally, they come and ask you to steal elections, spy on people, and murder!

[Chisox08]

40. Lets be nice to the Republicans

Because that has worked well for the Democrats over the last 18 months. I'm glad Grayson is getting dirty with Taliban Dan. If I lived in Florida I would vote for him.

[JoePhilly]

47. The GOP can falsely claim the left supports terrorists ... no one blinks.

If a Dem uses a serrated knife rather than a butter knife, ohhhh no ... I must lie down on the fainting couch!!!!

The right can call the left ANYTHING they want (baby killer, socialist, marxist, on and on) and it NEVER gets questioned ... we NEED to cross the line more ... MUCH MORE ... and force the media to deal with the rhetoric.

Cowering in fear under our shawl is not working.

[Dawson Leery]

49. Right on!

[Lost-in-FL]

50. +1,000x1000, nt

[NYC Liberal]

56. And that kind of rhetoric has worked so well for right-wingers. nt

[defendandprotect]

79. Democratic Party silence works for someone ....

and it's been going on for decades -- think about that --

[seabeyond]

85. so not lying is being nice? how about he wants a woman to have her rapists baby.

still the truth without the lie.

who says to not lie is being "nice"

[CLANG]

43. When I first saw the add it seemed like a Breitbart job

I'm actually shocked to find that it was.

[annabanana]

44. There's no argument that Taliban Dan would FORCE a girl to

bear her rapist's kid.. incest or not..

There's nothing twisted about THAT claim.

[RetroLounge]

51. Your concern is noted

and ridiculous too.

RL

[Matariki]

58. Are you kidding me????

Editing video of a person to make it look like they said the opposite thing is FUCKED. I don't care WHO does it. How the hell can you support that? It's unethical.

[RetroLounge]

68. Yawn.

:eyes:

RL

[craigmatic]

52. I don't care if he lied. He's fighting fire with fire and I hope he wins.

[Matariki]

60. Yeah. Who needs ethics anyway.

Seriously, you really think that way?

I support Grayson and know he can do better than deceptively editing tapes.

[craigmatic]

63. Yes I do politics is a contact sport now. They called Clinton a murderer and Obama a terrorist

I have absolutely no problem with Grayson editing a tape to make his opponent look bad (which has pretty much been a standard campaign tactic since the 1980's).

[Techn0Girl]

65. Politics is a contact sport? Grow up young person.

The old Communist Russians (experts in politics and propaganda) had a term for people who think that way. It began with "Useful".

[craigmatic]

67. So what would you have democratic candidates do this fall run positive campaigns and hope for the

best while republicans slime and slander them with inudendo and top down talking points? This way might not be pretty or even civil but it works. Rove and Atwater before him used similar methods and they won. I'm tired of seeing democrats take the high road and lose while they win with lies just to have power for power's sake. At least if we win using tactics like Grayson this country becomes just a little bit fairer for working and poor people. So if that makes me a useful idiot straight out of communist Russia I gladly accept the title. Peace.

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. You can't have it.

You'll either get a winner who pushes good policy or a winner who pushes bad policy.

Voters don't reward boy scouts.

[Matariki]

74. Bullshit. Editing tapes like the hit job on Shirely Sherrod has no place in politics

much less progressive politics.

I don't buy the 'but the only way to win is through sleazy tactics' crap. And I don't trust anyone pushing that bullshit either.

Grayson can win on being tough, hard-hitting and honest. He doesn't need to do crap like this.

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. It demonstrably does.

Republicans win, time and again, by lying and cheating.

And when we run things, we don't change the rules, because that would be insufficiently bipartisan.

Hello! ... the same voting machines which selected GWB are still being used twelve years later.

When Democrats get an opportunity to fix it, they don't. That means they're okay with the absence of rules.

[seabeyond]

86. i hope he wins too, and a person can fight fire with fire and not lie. not have voters

turn away from you, you know, lose those votes needed to win, because a person lies.

[DirkGently]

53. Ouch. I like Grayson too. Assuming this is true, he needs to fix this; apologize.

[Techn0Girl]

54. That's exatly where I see it as well.

[Luminous Animal]

62. See post #55. Factcheck.org is wrong. There is value in avoiding rightwing sources...

And yes. Factcheck.org is a rightwing source.

[Techn0Girl]

64. Factcheck.org is not considered right wing....

They were emphatic against the "Obama is a Muslim" lies as well as many others lies against Obama.

The statement by Webster stands on it's own regardless of who quoted it.

Saying something is right wing just because you don't agree with them is ... well ... silly would be the mildest work I could use.


Open your eyes.
See the world.

[Luminous Animal]

66. Apparently you did not read post #55. Open your eyes. Grayson quoted accurately.

And yes, like MediaMatters.org is leftwing... Factcheck.org is rightwing. Overwhelmingly, the established right rejects the "Obama is a Muslim" lunacy.

[backscatter712]

55. Factcheck.org's analysis has some problems...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/28/905990/-FL-08:-Did-Taliban-Dan-really-say-that-Why-yes,-he-did!

[nashville_brook]

59. that analysis is spot on.

[Luminous Animal]

61. Good. Unfortunately, it is the title of the OP that pops up on Google.

[Yupster]

57. I can't find a poll of this race since July 15

Zogby has Grayson down by eight points, but that's six weeks ago.

[ecstatic]

69. Good for him. Take a gun to the knife fight because the

teabaggers won't stop until they destroy everything we've built.

[lovemyblackberry]

70. I want a W after Nov. 2.

Do what you gotta do to win. Because if he loses then we all lose.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Fuck 'em

Go Grayson.

That rule book we consider so inviolable? We are the only ones who've ever read it.

He's playing the game exactly the way our opponents do.

[defendandprotect]

75. I'm a Grayson fan ... think he's a lawyer -- hope he explains quickly !!

[Shallah Kali]

80. Religion Dispatches - 'Factcheck.org misunderstands Webster's statements, even in context:'

# Did The "Taliban Dan" Ad "Backfire?"
# Post by Sarah Posner

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/3434/did_the_%22taliban_dan%22_ad_%22backfire%22/

But (Katharine) Joyce tells me Factcheck.org misunderstands Webster's statements, even in context:

While the Grayson campaign can be taken to task for taking Webster's comment out of context, in the larger context, they're correct. Grayson's campaign argued that Webster seemed to be supporting submission in his comments to an audience of conservative men, whom he directed to pray that they would better fulfill their biblical duty to love their wives, and leave prayers about women's submission to their wives. However, the emphasis of these remarks, as those familiar with Christian rhetoric could recognize, is not on the optional nature of wives' submission. Wifely submission is part of an often-unbalanced equation to Christians who subscribe to "complementarian" or "patriarchal" marriage roles, where men must "love" and women "obey." Saying that a woman should pray for God's guidance in submission, if she wants to, is not leniency, but rather standard evangelical language that emphasizes individuals must obey biblical mandates regardless of how others around them behave. So, Webster is saying, men must be accountable to God for their responsibility to love their wives regardless of whether she submits -- that they must pray to do right, even if she doesn't.
However, the much more relevant application of this principle on following God's orders despite your circumstances is on women. Submission is a contentious and tricky issue even within conservative evangelical churches. Most churches promoting submission make certain to couple demands for submissive wives with those for loving, servant-leader husbands. But at the end of the day, it's women who bear the brunt of the principle; their obligations are to God, not to a husband who may or may not keep his end of the contract. Accordingly, the message is impressed by countless women's ministries and leaders that women must continue submitting even when their husband doesn't show love, because they owe their obedience, above all, to God. In circles that take submission seriously -- as does any organization associated with Bill Gothard -- that's what wives' options really look like.

Gothard's teachings are not just to homeschoolers, though. As I reported in a 2008 article http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/18/palin_iacc for Salon, as mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin designated her home a "City of Character," after attending the supposedly (but not really) secular arm of Gothard's institute, the International Association of Character Cities. As I noted there, even Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of the evangelical world, has expressed http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/march/35.77.html dismay over the "alarming" nature of Gothard's teachings on authority, and allegations of physical and emotional abuse in his programs. (For the most comprehensive treatment of the IACC, see Silja J.A. Talvi's 2006 piece in http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2450/ In These Times.)

[seabeyond]

81. thanks for posting this. i heard the ad twice today. heard it wasnt true

but they didnt say how. or i didnt catch it. i was wondering, because i was thinking, those are his words.

now i understand

and yes. i dont like this.

[Beetwasher]

87. Some People Just LOVE To Gobble Up Any Load Of Crap That Makes A Dem Look Bad And Them VOMIT It Up

and spew it all over DU. Whether it's really true or not. I wonder why that is? Any guesses? :shrug: