Tuesday, September 21, 2010


Regular readers of my blog know that I am no fan of my Congressional "representative", Alan Grayson.  As far as I'm concerned, the man is an embarassment, not just to me, but to the district and, frankly, the country as a whole.  He rode in on Obama's coattails, and hopefully he will be riding right back out again in November.  He is a political bomb thrower who has never been hampered by the inconvenient ethics of honesty and professionalism.

He has sunk to many, many lows over the past year and a half that he has been in Washington.  He's smug, he's smarmy, and he's willing to sink to any level to further his our interests.  The latest example of this is a new ad that he is airing about his opponent, republican Daniel Webster.  This ad is nothing short of an outright lie.  He, being a lawyer, will argue that there is a grain of truth in it.  I, as a voter, argue that it is low, deceiving and, well, par for the course from this piece of work. 

Here is the ad (via the Orlando Sentinel):

Kudos to the Sentinel for reporting the fallacies in this ad.  I have to admit that was surprising - the paper is known to local conservatives as the "Slantinel".

So the grain of truth in the ad is that Webster had six deferments.  He was in college at the time of the Vietnem war, and it was routine to defer college students from the draft.  Neither the Johnson nor Nixon administrations wanted a "brain drain" in the country.  If you were in college when your number came up, you were deferred.  So five times Webster was deferred.  The sixth time, he reported for duty and was found to be 1Y status and was not asked to serve.

There were thousands of deferments issued during the Vietnam war.  Some recipients include former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Al Franken, former VP Al Gore, Sen. Henry Waxman, NM Gov. Bill Richardson and former DNC chief Howard Dean. 

I would love to see an intrepid reporter ask the above mentioned "draft dodgers" how they feel about that label, as well as the fact that, according to Grayson, they should not have been allowed to serve their country because they supposedly refused to back then. Wouldn't it be interesting to see their responses on YouTube?  Giles?  O'Keefe?  Any takers?

That Grayson is willing to lie in a campaign ad is nothing new.  The man has to look up to see the gutter.  As a constituent, I have received pamphlets in the mail touting the millions in pork he has brought home.  In the anti-earmark political climate that exists today, running on the amount of pork he has pillaged from the wallets of taxpayers isn't a winner.  Then, of course, there is the infamous "Alan Grayson saved our schools" ad - a creepy bit of work that is one lie after another (be sure to check out this WESH news report on just how false this ad really is).  If Alan Grayson saved the schools, why did my daughter's high school just have to let staff go and juggle the students' schedules to accommodate the $380,000 budget cut they just got hit with at a time when they are trying to comply with class size regulations in overcrowed schools?

Alan Grayson cannot run on his record in Congress because he was in lockstep with Pelosi.  He cannot run on what he wants to do in his next term, because it will be more of the Pelosi, Reid, Obama progressive agenda.  So all he has left is smearing his opponent.  It's not just a cheap shot, it's an outright fabrication - and this isn't his first time peddling lies.  They say that everyone eventually finds their own level.  The question is, do we, as a district, really want to sink to Grayson's?

Remember in November.

No comments:

Post a Comment