GRAYSON: How To Win In 2010

[kpete]

Run time: 00:31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvB-mHXcWzg   Posted on YouTube: September 25, 2010 By YouTube Member: graysonforcongress Views on YouTube: 304   Posted on DU: September 25, 2010 By DU Member: kpete Views on DU: 3461

 
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/25/905278/-How-to-Win-in-2010

[msongs]

1. grayson gets it - appeasing repubs is a loser nt

[RBInMaine]

3. Sadly, it is now the ShitBagger Party and you CAN NOT work with it. So yeah, fuck 'em.

[ooglymoogly]

35. Unless of course you need them for the 'good cop bad cop' kabuki routine. nt

[RBInMaine]

2. Good . MORE MORE MORE. Bloody his fucking eyeballs . THIS is how to FIGHT !

[caledesi]

15. Agree RB.....go Grayson! NT

[ShamelessHussy]

4. looks like he took michael moore's advice to call our religious wackos names like Cleric Gingrich

lol - great ad sir :toast:

and here's another from him called 'When they lie...'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRWbpYMx5ok

[southmost]

5. that's a good way

of avoiding being put on the defense constantly

[toddwv]

6. Lol, Taliban Dan

Grayson is a hoot. It's great to see Dems who aren't curling up in a corner.

[AlbertCat]

17. Lol, Taliban Dan

Yeah.... but the arabic-like font was hokey and a bit much I think. Makes it look a little like an anti-islam ad, not the anti-fanatic ad it really is. Y'know... the image sticks more than the words.

[The Wizard]

27. Losing the radical Islamic vote

will not cost Grayson the election. Exposing his opponent by any means necessary is a winner.
"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
(H.L. Menken)

[Enthusiast]

30. Plus one! nt

[indimuse]

7. Another HOME RUN!

knr!

[corkhead]

8. + 10 brazillion K & R

that gets me fired up and ready to go.

I could watch this over and over and never tire of it.

[watajob]

9. Good, but...

From Jonathan Turley on his blog:

"Vice President Biden noted yesterday that he hoped that the Tea Party might finally get Democratic and liberal votes out of their “lethargy.” The comment struck a nerve with me since various Democratic leaders have expressed surprise and mild criticism over the lack of enthusiasm by Democratic voters. What is striking is the fact that Biden and others continue to consider their own failure to give voters a reason to become active after years of broken campaign promises and outright betrayals of core values. The best that they can come up with (yet again) is that the other people are worse than we are.

It is unclear why Biden thinks, for example, civil libertarians should be energized after the Obama Administration embraced and expanded Bush-era policies in the war on terror. President Obama has shielded Bush officials from any investigation, let alone prosecution, for torture and has fought to block any cases that would hold companies or agencies responsible for violations of human rights or privacy.

It is unclear why Biden thinks environmentalists should be energized after the Administration opened up pristine areas of the East Coast for oil exploration and, even after the BP disaster, downplayed the spill damage to lift the moratorium.

It is unclear why Biden thinks that peace advocates should be energized after the Administration continued both wars and the gushing of both American blood and treasure.

It is unclear why Biden thinks gay and lesbian activists should be energized after the Obama Administration fought in court to preserve Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and then appealed to limit the major victory enjoining DADT.

For over a decade, the Democratic Party has based its demands for political support not on its own performance but on the “lesser of two evils” argument. They simply cannot understand why voters would be less than enthusiastic in fighting for them to retain power. Indeed, from the very start of this Administration, the clear message to liberals has been “you have no where else to go.” What the Administration and congressional democrats did not consider is that liberals, civil libertarians, and environmentalists could decide to simply go no where and stay at home.

Biden was speaking(at a fundraiser in Chevy Chase, Md. when he noted that “maybe the best thing to happen to us lately is the Tea Party wins. Maybe it’ll shake some of our constituency out of their lethargy.” Biden seems to welcome that there is finally a compelling reason for voters to take to the streets: even worse people are running for office.

How about another option? The Democratic leaders could actually fight on principle over things like torture and give voters a positive reason to care about their future. If you want voters to care, you can start by giving them something to care about — other than the job security of Democratic officeholders. If the Obama Administration did not actually jettison these issues for political convenience, it might not have been more popular, but it would have been more respected and it would have garnered far more enthusiasm from Democratic and liberal voters. Instead, the Democratic leadership has repeatedly conveyed that they are concerned only about retaining their offices and power at any cost — hardly a motivating message for votes.

So here is my suggestion for a new campaign motto: “Fighting Lethargy With Leadership.” "

Yeah, they're louses but what are YOU going to do? Although Grayson comes up with more good ideas than most. I'm just saying the constant attack ads are getting a little stale even when factual. We know the Repugs are nuts.

[caledesi]

14. You found something....too bad MOST peeps disagree!

WE are NOT afraid...like some peeps in the MINORITY....just sayin'..

[caledesi]

10. Go Grayson......no wonder the RW thugs want you gone..

you are supposed to be nice, like a good DEM. I read this on FR....they are afraid of him!

[DLine]

11. LMAO @ Taliban Dan

Might as well give them a taste of their own medicine.

[caledesi]

12. Good one DL! nt

[AzNick]

13. Pride to be a financial contributor to this campaign

He plays nasty to fight nastiness.

Good.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. perfect! nt

[paulflorez]

18. Is this ad doing what I think it's doing? Please tell me I'm wrong...

"Wives, submit to your husbands"

and then a picture of women in burqas...

Is this ad validating the demonization of Muslims, then using that against the Republican candidate?

Is that really the path that progressive Democrats are going to take?

Throw some pictures of gays in there and talk about how the candidate molests children, why don't you.

[lumpy]

23. Please...this ad is not "validating the demonization of Muslims."

Webster is advocating the very same thing, wifely submission, that is part of the Islamic culture in some countries.
It is a fact that in some of those countries wearing the burka is mandatory in tandum with the submission of the wife.
No this is not the path that progressive Dems will take. We just don't want a regressive politician such as Webster in the Congress.
Guess you don't agree that Webster doesn't belong in a position of power.

[paulflorez]

50. ends justify the means?

I know that, but not all women who wear burqas are being forced to wear them. How do we know the women in those photos are being forced? Unless we assume that every woman in a burqa is forced to wear it, including those pictures in that ad make no sense.

So we'll do anything to keep Webster out of office, including abandoning our own principles? Ends justify the means? No.

[The Wizard]

25. Validating what?

Are you a concern troll or really concerned?
Religious extremism is threat to democracy, choice of religion aside.
Slippery slope logic is a Pox News technique.

[paulflorez]

51. any kind of extremism is a threat to democracy

Like the extremism against the building of the mosque two blocks from ground zero. Americans see a burqa and they immediately become suspicious. You have a cab driver in NYC almost stabbed to death because he admitted he celebrated Ramadan.

When people see those women in burqas in this ad, it's going to trigger those horrible prejudices. A Democrat will benefit from prejudice against all Muslims.

[ooglymoogly]

37. You miss the message entirely...he is speaking of zealotry;

Muslim zealotry and "Christian" born agin zealotry. Comparing them as equals. Truth must never be politically incorrect. Way to gin up a thorn on the rose paulflorez.

[paulflorez]

52. burqas do not always equal religous zealotry

Many women choose to wear burqas of their own free will, and they should have a right to do so. This ad does not adequately discern between peaceful Muslims and extremists. It comes off as painting them all with the same brush.

There is an extreme amount of prejudice in this country against Muslims right now. People actually believe that all Muslims are extremists. This ad is feeding off that fear. Democrats using fear against a religious minority in this country is a pretty big thorn. If that is not what the ad was meant to do, then it was a poorly developed ad.

[Moonwalk]

40. Are you saying that all Muslims force their women to wear burkas...

...and therefore this is a demonization of Muslims?

If the ad showed a woman with a headscarf, then yes, it would be a demonization of Muslims, as most countries an Muslim woman can decide whether she wants to wear the headscarf or not depending on her how religious she is, just as a man might wear a hat. So showing women wearing a headscarf would be connecting Islam with subjugation of women. But a Burka is extreme, worn by women only, while men get to wear their hat and we usually identify it with the Taliban, a terrorist organization the cuts off people fingers and stones women if they choose to wear anything else, like pants. Thus, it is a symbol of subjugation, terrorism and extreme religious views.

That makes this an ad about women's rights.

Or are you implying, as so many do, that since forcing all women to wear burkas (etc.) are part of a certain Islamic religious belief we should respect it, never mind if it violates the human rights of half their population? The ad can't show little girls going through forced circumcision, would that make the point with you or would you also consider that a condemnation of Muslims?

And, by the way, gays and molested children is apples and oranges comparison. I'm open to arguments against this, but I want to see a valid comparison. A valid comparison might be showing women from a "Mormon" compound forced to wear the pioneer dresses. Would you say that demonizes Mormons?

[paulflorez]

53. No, I am saying the opposite

"Are you saying that all Muslims force their women to wear burkas and therefore this is a demonization of Muslims?"

No, I'm saying that all Muslims do NOT force their women to wear burqas, but this ad feeds off the misconception that all women wearing a burqa are forced to wear it, and thus all Muslims subjugate women. In free societies, some women choose to wear burqas of their own free will. How do we know those photos are not from such a situation? We would have to assume all Muslims force their women to wear burqas in order to assume that photo is indeed of women being forced to wear burqas.

What about a woman's right to wear whatever she wants, including a burqa? I think it's funny when people crow about rights and freedoms, and then pass a law banning you from wearing certain clothing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7919501/Israeli-rabbis-clamp-down-on-burka.html
"At the insistence of the husbands of some burka-wearing women, a leading rabbinical authority is to issue an edict declaring burka wearing a sexual fetish that is as promiscuous as wearing too little."
Husbands forcing women to NOT wear a burqa, how ironic.

No, a man forcing a woman to wear a burqa is NOT acceptable. That ad does NOT show a man forcing a woman to wear a burqa though, just women wearing burqas. I'm supposed to assume that they're being forced to wear those burqas? The only way I could assume that is if I assume ALL women who wear burqas are forced to do it.

But guess what, a man forcing a women to NOT wear a burqa when she wants to is ALSO unacceptable. Nor should laws ban a person right to wear a burqa if they choose of their own free will.

And gays to child molesters IS a valid comparison because the point is taking a demographic such as gays/Muslim women in burqas and using a common prejudice, such as all gays are child molestors and all women in a burqa are forced to wear them by their husband, to instill fear in people.

Not all gays are child molesters (and indeed some straights are child molesters) and not all women in burqas are subjugated (and indeed, some Christian wives are subjugated). My point is the ad does not adequately discern between peaceful, gender-equality Muslims and violent, misogynistic Muslims. It comes off as painting all Muslims with the same brush.

My point is, there is a huge amount of prejudice against Muslims right now, and I see this ad as attempting to feed off of that fear.

[caledesi]

45. you are wrong. nt

[paulflorez]

54. I hope so

I hope so, but considering the "the ends justify the means" replies I received it seems that I'm not the only one who recognizes that this ad is using fear and paranoia of Muslims to scare voters into turning against Webster.

I don't want to see Webster in office, but I don't want to see Democrats use prejudice against a religious minority to win an election.

This ad rips Muslims down a bit. The ad should have done something to show people that not all Muslims treat women that way, that some women do wear burqas out of their own free will.

[Plucketeer]

19. GRAYSON just keeps earning my monetary support!

I'll give to the one's that fight like this! Give 'em HELL Alan! :grr:

[burning rain]

20. Excellent.

A lot of Democrats and liberals have the fantasy that if they run a bloodless, milquetoast campaign and keep repeating that their Republican opponents are fine Americans and good people with whom they just happen to have a difference of opinion, they'll get the same treatment in return. Nope, whatever you do, whatever your biography, Republicans will smear you as a traitor and all the rest. Make haste to define them as the vermin they are, and the more they howl about thuggishness, the more you need to double and triple down. A lot of people dislike a knife-fighter, but no one respects a wimp.

[Enthusiast]

31. Plus one!

Really. Very good point!

[larwdem]

21. good job

[DeSwiss]

22. ALAN GRAYSON FOR PRESIDENT - 2012

The only thing that I see that is "missing" is that we can't clone Alan Grayson to replace all the other tired-ass politicians we have now.....

- K&R

[valerief]

42. +666 trillion!!!!

[Quixote1818]

24. Republicans won't touch this because it scares the hell out of them

This kind of add would take down about 1/3 of republicans across the country.

[The Wizard]

26. Grayson sets the proper tone

Underestimating the depths to which Republicans will stoop is a failed strategy. Kick them in the nads and step on their necks. They are the American Taliban and a real threat to liberty.

[Enthusiast]

32. Yup....step on their necks.

*Snap*

[JCMach1]

28. Dead on- Kudos to Grayson for identifying a hugely under-reported story of this cycle

So many of the teaparty and Repug. candidates are knuckle-draggers on women's issues.

Before this ad, the only peep I heard from anyone was from Emily's List.

[Enthusiast]

29. Sounds good to me. K&R! nt

[RetroLounge]

33. K&R

THIS is the way to do it...

RL

[Overseas]

34. K&R. Glad to see a bold democratic campaign. //nt

[ooglymoogly]

36. This guy hones right in on the Achilles heal and pounds

the arrow home. Here is the real deal. Not the "he loves me he loves me not" that is always one petal short, routine we have been forced to become accustom to.

[ChiciB1]

38. He MAY Be In A Fight To Win His Seat, BUT At LEAST He's FIGHTING

back! HOW I ADMIRE his NGU attitude, AND he's got SOME really, rally intense ads running!

LOVE IT!
:bounce:

[proud patriot]

39. Every Dem should be running similar ads IMO

:-)

[valerief]

41. Terrific ad!!!! nt

[David Zephyr]

43. Grayson shows how to campaign and also how to govern.

He's the prototype for victory.

[Bennyboy]

44. EVERY DEM should be running ads like this..

Instead of the mamby pamby cvrapola they are using. Play with the same fire the right wing uses and hit em hard and often.

[Faygo Kid]

47. +1

[MrMickeysMom]

46. I want to see how the reaction to "submit to me" is polling...

Surely someone is tracking the reaction.

Of course, I think it's fucking GREAT,

[Uncle Joe]

48. Kicked but too late to recommend.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[Ganja Ninja]

49. Our local ABC station wants people to weigh in on Grayson's add.

Representative Alan Grayson's new ad compares opponent to Taliban

ORLANDO - Slinging mud in political ads is nothing new, but one Florida politician is getting the attention of voters everywhere with his latest effort.

In the ad, Representative Alan Grayson (D) likens his opponent Daniel Webster to a member of the Taliban, saying Webster "wants to force battered women to stay in abusive marriages" and "wants to force raped women to bear their attackers' child."

The ad ends with a photo of Daniel Webster and the text "Taliban Dan Webster."

What do you think? Did this ad go too far? Or are these legitimate points? Lets us know by leaving a comment below.

Reply here: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/political/did-representative-alan-grayson%27s-political-ad-go-too-far%3F