Alan Grayson has sunk to a new low. Below is his latest political ad against his opponent Dan Webster. But Webster released the full video which Grayson pulled the partial quotes from and clearly Grayson’s video is totally irrespsonsible.
Does this type of ad belong in American politicans?
Check it out on FACTCHECK.ORG
Here’s the original video from Webster.
Please share widely!
It’s kind of funny, they’re pretending they raised it from people who were offended by “Grayson’s lies”, but you know that most of it came from men who thought “Finally, a politician who isn’t afraid to say that wives should submit to their husbands! I gotta donate! Honey, cancel the dinner reservations and cook up some pork chops!”
about either Grayson or Webster. But from what you’ve posted, it does appear that Grayson’s ad twists Webster’s remarks to say something that he didn’t actually say. And that’s bad practice from anyone.
and splices his questions into real video answers from a celebrity or politicians, it is humor. And if politician takes some remarks by an opponent and interprets them in a way which is unfavorable, that may be unethical. But when someone splices an answer like Grayson did, I think it should be illegal or maybe actionable in a civil court. I just can’t imagine how you can defend someone who has done this or for that matter vote for someone who does this. But I’m sure many people will.
http://topics.myfoxboston.com/…
The audio he uses is part but not all of a sentence – and it completely distorts the intent of that sentence. I know that some have said that the group Webster belongs to does believe that women should be subservient to their husbands. That does not mean Webster does, unless there are other quotes – that, in context, say that. Had they existed, Grayson would have used them.
<
p>This, however, is something that Republicans have done as well – one of the more despicable times was in 2004. In 1971, Kerry was invited to speak before the SFRC on the Winter Soldier hearings. Kerry started his statement by doing what he was called to do – to report what he heard soldiers testify to. He then started a sentence by saying that soldiers spoke of …. (and gave a long list of atrocities that were in fact confessed to by soldiers in the full transcript that had had earlier been given to the committee). Kerry then used the rest of his time to call on the committee to provide what was needed by many of the veterans, arguing against continuing a war that couldn’t be won, and then expressing a hope that our foreign policy would change.
<
p>In the ad, the SBVT, start the tape where the list of atrocities began. They then accused Senator Kerry of lying and of making those accusations himself. In fact, Kerry stated that soldiers confessed to those things – and they did. The committee and the military had the ability and means to investigate what was said, John Kerry didn’t.
<
p>Both of these ads rely on the fact that people think they can believe what they see with their own eyes. Both Webster and Kerry said what those ads said they did. But neither ad is true.
<
p>No excuses should be made by Democrats for what Grayson did. No argument of the sort that it’s ok because Webster probably does believe that. In both cases, they are intentionally distorting what was said – and doing so to smear a political opponent.
<
p>
This site is for discussing Massachusetts issues. Why should we feel obliged to watch and critique every TV ad by every politician in the country?
<
p>I barely know who either of these people are.
Don’t be so partisan. Make believe we are talking about Jim Diment, Larry Criag, Ted Stevens, John Boehner…
<
p>
C’Mon!