The Devil and Daniel Webster
Daniel Webster is running for Congress in the 8th Congressional District of Florida. He is a veteran Republican politician, having served as the first Republican speaker of the Florida House of Representatives in 122 years. He has also served as the Republican majority leader of the Florida Senate. He is a pro-life conservative. He is not the Devil.
His opponent is Alan Grayson. Alan Grayson is the incumbent, being first elected to Congress in 2008. He is a pro-abort liberal Democrat. He is doing his best to depict Daniel Webster as the Devil.
My good friend Jay Anderson at Pro Ecclesia has a first rate post on this subject at his bog and has saved me quite a bit of work:
Back during the Bush years, I can recall debates in the Catholic blogosphere in which Catholics of a certain left-leaning ilk accused those on the right of having questioned the patriotism of anyone who had opposed the Iraq War.
The thing is that I don’t recall these instances of anyone’s patriotism being impugned (outside of David Frum’s infamous piece at National Review in which he accused conservative Catholic commentators Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak of being “unpatriotic”; but then, any conservative worth a damn doesn’t give a rat’s patoot what David Frum thinks or says).
And, in fact, the left’s protestations about having their patriotism questioned appears to have been nothing more than collective projection, imagining that their political adversaries were doing exactly what they would do if they were the ones trying to overcome opposition to a particular objective of national policy priority. This has been borne out since the election of President Obama: how many times have we seen the words “sedition” (also here, for example), “un-American” (also here, for example), “unpatriotic”, and even “siding with the terrorists” (not to mention “racist”) applied to critics of the Obama agenda?
But NEVER in my years have I EVER heard someone in politics say about someone in the opposition “He just doesn’t love America like I do.”
The left-leaning FactCheck.org is having none of Grayson’s BS attacks on his opponent:
Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida is falsely accusing his opponent of evading the Vietnam War draft, claiming “he doesn’t love this country.”
Republican candidate Daniel Webster didn’t “refuse the call to service,” as claimed in a vicious TV ad featuring pictures of military graves and the sound of “Taps” being played on a bugle. In fact, the former Florida Senate majority leader was given routine student deferments until he completed his undergraduate degree. He then reported for a military physical and was disqualified for medical reasons…
I thought that disgusting ad couldn’t be topped. Boy, was I wrong. I should have remembered we were talking about Alan “Republicans want you to die quickly” Grayson.absolutely nothing is beneath that contemptible POS:
The following proves that
The ad, attacking the Biblical beliefs of Christians and comparing them to the Taliban is disgusting enough. But once you learn the context of the remarks of Grayson’s opponent, which Grayson twisted … no mutilated … completely out of context to make this despicable ad, there can be no doubt of the malicious bad faith on exhibit:
Once again, the left-leaning FactCheck.org lays into Grayson:
We thought Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida reached a low point when he falsely accused his opponent of being a draft dodger during the Vietnam War, and of not loving his country. But now Grayson has lowered the bar even further. He’s using edited video to make his rival appear to be saying the opposite of what he really said. …
The ad compares Webster to “religious fanatics” in Afghanistan and Iran. It says Webster opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest, which is true. But it also claims that “Webster wants to impose his radical fundamentalism on us,” and to support that claim it blatantly misuses a video clip of Webster speaking at a Christian conference in Nashville in 2009. …
A while back, our friends over at Vox Nova posited a question: “Will demagoguery triumph in 2010?” I don’t know. Will it? Or will those allied to Grayson condemn him for this? Of course, Grayson may very well be a hero to them because of his claims during the health care debate that Republicans want people to die quickly … a sentiment not too far off from one expressed many times over at that blog. That shouldn’t stop them from recognizing that his demagoguery is worse than anything we’ve seen all election season. (Tu quoques arriving in 5 … 4 … 3 … 2 … 1 …)
And now I’m left wondering if the guy is just completely nuts:
A while back, our friends over at Vox Nova posited a question: “
To read most of the comments over there, it is clear that they believe Republicans and/or conservatives have a monopoly on demagoguery. But I have never seen ANYTHING like the disreputable, malicious, and calumnious demagoguery of Alan Grayson.
Everything is just so over the top when it comes to Grayson that it raises the question of whether he is emotionally and/or mentally stable. I’m no psychologist or psychiatrist, but he seems to me to border on insane.
Perhaps insane, but definitely a bad guy.
When even MSNBC calls Grayson out on his lies and distortions (one can only imagine the hate mail Contessa Brewer is receiving right now from the lefties who watch MSNCB and aren’t used to seeing their icons called to account), that ought to be a clue that he has gone way too far, even by his own low standards.
Instead, this dirtbag defends his dubious deeds by doubling down on his despicable defamation:
In addition to repeating the lie about his opponent’s remarks regarding wives submitting to their husbands, Grayson regurgitates some others that, once again, the left-leaning FactCheck.org has tagged as false:
… the ad’s claim that Webster would “deny battered women … the right to divorce their abusers” is a distortion. The claim is based on legislation he sponsored in the Florida House of Representatives 20 years ago. The bill, HB 1585, would have allowed Florida residents the option of a “covenant marriage,” which would limit their divorce rights. Under the proposal, couples could dissolve a covenant marriage only in cases of adultery. But that would not have applied to anyone who did not choose to enter a covenant marriage. The legislation died in committee in June 1990. Webster has not advocated for covenant marriages as a congressional candidate…
This is a very bad man. The left lionizes him. That’s all you need to know.
UPDATE #3 (29 September)
I could kick myself for not titling this post “The Devil and Daniel Webster”.
UPDATE #4 (30 September)
The GOP has released a new ad responding to the Devil’s … errr … Grayson’s tactics:
Jay, the title is the only improvement I have made on your brilliant post! I almost suspect that Grayson the Deranged is a Republican mole. He is a perfect villain and looks the part. He has become a national fundraising target for outraged Republicans. He could not be a more perfect foil for the Republicans if he were paid to be.
Grayson is an object lesson in the depths that politicians can plumb in elections. No election is worth the sacrifice of standards of decency that Grayson tramples upon each day in his obsessive desire to hold on to power. Grayson cannot even have the sour solace that his despicable tactics are working. According to the latest poll Webster leads Grayson 43-36.
In one of the most closely watched U.S. House races in the nation, Republican Daniel Webster now holds a 7-point lead over Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson in Central Florida’s 8th Congressional District, according to a new Sunshine State News Poll.
Webster, a former state senator, leads the freshman congressman 43-36 in the survey of 559 likely voters conducted Sept. 25-27. TEA (“Taxed Enough Already”) Party candidate Peg Dunmire drew 6 percent and NPA hopeful George Metcalfe garnered 3 percent, while 9 percent remained undecided (2 percent cited “other” and 1 percent refused to state).
Lee added, “It’s fascinating that both Grayson and the president have virtually the same image (a positive/negative ratio of 34/51), but Grayson is actually disliked more by independents (36/47 favorable/unfavorable) while Obama is only 36/37.”
Female voters are anything but ambivalent about Grayson — “They really loathe him,” Lee reported. With Grayson’s 33/53 favorable/unfavorable rating among women, Webster’s lead among females is much stronger (45/33 over Grayson) compared to a statistical tie (41/40 Webster) among males.
I trust that our readers will understand after reading Jay’s post why Pro Ecclesia is one of the few blogs I check in on every day.