[oldembed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/qiP2utHd6pA?fs=1" width="400" height="275" resize="1" fid="21"]
You gotta love Alan Grayson. He doesn't pull his punches, and throws wingnut tactics right back in their faces.
But the response does not refute any of the charges leveled in the ad – titled “Taliban Dan Webster” - which claimed that Webster, a former state Senate majority leader and state House speaker, wanted to make divorce illegal and deny abused women health care. Grayson’s ad even claims that Webster “tried to prohibit alimony to an ‘adulterous wife’ but not an adulterous husband,’” and that he “wants to force women to stay in abusive marriages.”
I understand that the country is angry at the state of our economy, but that can't justify Republican candidates like Daniel Webster. His beliefs aren't representative of anything this country represents except for the End of Days religious freaks.
The Villagers never had a problem when Republicans and Conservatives lied and said that Democrats wanted the terrorists to win after the 9/11 attacks so Bush could win reelection. In Grayson's ad, there is no evidence that he's wrong about any of Webster's arcane and insane religious beliefs.
Digby writes about the usual Villager response to anything Alan Grayson does.
Uhm. They can't refute it because it's all true. Webster is a far right Christian Reconstructionist loon.
Mrs Webster knows very well that it is a sin to lie so she cleverly accuses Grayson of being untruthful without refuting the irrefutable:
In her statement, Sandy Webster said: "Alan Grayson's latest attack on my husband is shameful. Mr. Grayson seems to have a problem telling the truth and no problem misleading the public. Dan has been an amazing husband and father, and the finest man I have ever known. Mr. Grayson should be ashamed of his nasty smears against my husband."
The Village is having a full blown hissy fit about the ad, although I notice that it seems to be quite a bit less offensive to women than men. I wonder why?
I've always enjoyed Adam Serwer's writing, but I wonder if he will put down Alan Grayson and support the Websters, because only the American Prospect is allowed to use the Taliban analogy when describing extreme right ring religious zealots.