I have long considered Rep. Alan Grayson (D[emagogue]-Fla.) a boorish contrivance and I suspected him as well a grotesque opportunist. His amateur theatrics, self-satisfied quips and overrehearsed, puerile insults -- all rather conspicuously designed to attract some face-time on cable TV -- have always struck me as more than signposts of an aggressive man on a progressive mission. They struck me, instead, as distinct glimmers of pubescent evil -- as the wicked proclivities of a wholly self-centered pol on a monumental ego trip; one, indeed, who is willing to do or say anything to keep trippin'.
His latest campaign ad -- "Taliban Dan Webster" -- has now resolved my suspicions. Grayson is a grotesque opportunist, no doubt about it, with the conscience of a viper.
The basics, by now, you probably know. "In a new ad," reports FactCheck.org, "Grayson accuses his Republican opponent Daniel Webster of being a religious fanatic and dubs him 'Taliban Dan.' But to make his case, Grayson manipulates a video clip to make it appear Webster was commanding wives to submit to their husbands, quoting a passage in the Bible. Four times, the ad shows Webster saying wives should submit to their husbands. In fact, Webster was cautioning husbands to avoid taking that passage as their own." That "cautioning," Grayson left on the cutting-room floor: "Don’t pick the [Bible verses] that say, 'She should submit to me,' " counseled Webster.
I don't know Dan Webster or his record. Maybe he is a creep, a "religious fanatic," a fundamentalist oppressor of women. I just don't know. But, for sure, I -- we -- now know Alan Grayson. As FactCheck introduced its latest revelation, "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" -- that is, the "Taliban" bit.
Grayson's principal advice to his fellow Democrats has always been that Dems and progressives should learn how to play rough, just as those soulless pseudoconservatives and raucous tea partiers do. Match them blow for blow and then some, says Grayson.
In theory, he's correct. But is his the practice other Dems should follow? -- to not only match the far righters blow for blow, but to match misleading blow with misleading blow, to counter wholesale lies with wholesale lies? In short, to wallow in the tactical sewers with them and emerge dripping with the same foul slanders?
Thanks, but that's where I draw the political line. Granted I don't have many lines, so it's awfully refreshing to run into one every now and then.