Alan Grayson: Gone in 60 seconds

Last week, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) released an ad which plumbed the depths of lying douchebaggery, in which he slanders opponent Dan Webster by claiming Webster dodged the draft during the Vietnam war. In fact, Webster duly registered for the draft and received a series of academic deferments while attending college. He was in the ROTC during his college years and upon graduation attempted to enter the armed forces but was rejected for medical reasons and ultimately ended up with a 4-F classification. FactCheck.org roundly criticized the Grayson campaign for their patent dishonesty.

Just days later, Grayson released another ad calling Webster "Taliban Dan", smearing him as a religious fanatic and repeatedly playing a video clip of Webster quoting a biblical verse, saying "she should submit to me". Hot Air provides the full context of that clip here, and suffice it to say, FactCheck.org was once again not amused:

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.

[ ... ]

Webster’s positions on abortion and marriage, and his religious views, are certainly fair game. But Grayson crosses the line when he uses manipulated video to cast Webster’s views in a false light, just as he did when he concocted a false accusation that Webster had been a Vietnam draft dodger.

Personally, I think it's perfectly OK to go negative in a campaign ad about one's opponent. Campaigns are just as much about one's opponent as they are about a candidate's own positions. But if you're going to go negative, tell the fucking truth.

Those two ads totaling a mere 60 seconds just might sink Grayson's campaign. According to The Blaze, the backlash against the Grayson campaign has already begun, and it's probably just getting started. I half expect to see a contrite (yet totally insincere, of course) Alan Grayson call a press conference announcing the dismissal of several "over-zealous" campaign staffers who released ads without his knowledge in an attempt at damage control.

But as he himself says in both those spots, he's Alan Grayson and he approved these messages.

Update: It seems Grayson himself has closed the window of opportunity on any such press conference.

How a stimulus package works

Actually, I don't even think stimulus packages as conceived by Democrats work even this well, but this is still pretty funny. With thanks to my buddy AB.

It's a slow day in the small Saskatchewan town of Pumphandle, and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody is living on credit.

A tourist visiting the area drives through town, stops at the motel, and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs before he picks one for the night.

As soon as he walks upstairs, the motel owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.

The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.

The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill to his supplier, the Co-op.

The guy at the Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her "services" on credit.

The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with the hotel owner.

The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter so the traveler will not suspect anything.

At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, picks up the $100 bill and leaves.

No one produced anything. No one earned anything... However, the whole town is now out of debt and looks to the future with a lot more optimism.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a Stimulus package works.

What a difference nine years makes

My memories of 9/11/2001 are as crystal-clear as the weather that day. I remember every detail of that morning. I remember my shock and horror, and the seething anger that came later.

I remember, too, the brief period of political unity that followed. With the horrors of that day so fresh in everyone's mind, there was little disagreement that we were, in fact, at war. We knew that this would be a war like no other, one without geo-political boundaries or even a clearly defined end.

But predictably, that didn't last long. As the Bush administration responded first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, the Left saw political opportunity in the president's handling of the ineptly-named "War on Terror". Outside of Afghanistan, everything Bush did was wrong in their eyes. Iraq? Wrong. Gitmo? Wrong. Intercepts of calls placed to terror suspects overseas? Wrong. Just two years after 9/11, Lefty icon Michael Moore told his fans "there is no terrorist threat". Everything was framed by the Left as an indictment of George W. Bush's evil intentions around the world.

So here we are, nine years later and 20 months into Barack Obama's presidency. The Obama administration is desperately trying to return to the pre-9/11 school of thought, treating global Islamist terrorism as a simple law enforcement matter. With each new attempt by radical Islamists to commit mass murder of Americans (last Christmas Day's attempted knickerbomber, the failed Times Square bombing, the too-successful Ft. Hood shootings), we're assured by our betters on the Left that these are just lone nutcases. They're not really representative of Islam. It's all cool now. As for Afghanistan - the theater of operations the Left considered far too important to divert resources to Iraq - well, never mind that now. Let's just leave Afghanistan to the tender mercies of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

A dark running joke following 9/11 went something like this: "Why did radical Muslims kill 3,000 Americans? Because they couldn't kill all 300 million of us." Never forget that if they could, they would.