More campaign ads


Here’s one by the Democrat in Florida’s Senate race. In case you forgot, Charlie Crist is the former Republican running as an independent who said “Thank G**” he was not a Republican anymore.

And this one from Alan Grayson, also in Florida, comparing his conservative opponent to the Taliban. It hasn’t gone over well.


Tags: , , , ,

12 Responses to “More campaign ads”

  1. Ronald D. Hunt Says:

    Alan Grayson is 13 points up which is very much a feat in his district. Its hard to tell what way the senate race their is going to go however Meek is making a bit of a comeback at Charlies expense and Rubio peaked at about 40% and has been declining for a bit, its still a 3way race who knows what will happen.

    You might like this one to, Alan Grayson when they lie ad.

  2. hollyonthehill Says:

    Uh, I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but the most recent poll – and the only independent one – has Grayson down 7.

    Additionally, in the Senate race, Rubio is up. Way up. In every poll but one, he’s up over Crist by double-digits and Crist is up over Meek.

  3. Ronald D. Hunt Says:

    Democrats internal polling

    “Additionally, in the Senate race, Rubio is up. Way up. In every poll but one, he’s up over Crist by double-digits and Crist is up over Meek.”

    I never said other wise. In a three way race 40% can easily be a plurality or a leading position without passing 50%. Meek has been moving upwards from 20%~ area to around 23-24% and has been steadly moving upwards. Their is still a good chance that Charlie splits the I lean D voters and hands the race to Rubio, its also possible that Meek’s well designed ad’s win enough I lean D’s that charlie splits the I lean R’s and splits the vote to Meeks favor. Really its to soon to know.

  4. rmwarnick Says:

    It’s over-the-top to call someone Taliban when they are not. Just like it’s a bit much to call someone a Nazi or a socialist when they are not.

    Daniel Webster, Rep. Grayson’s right-wing opponent, is a 30-year member of a cultish group of religious extremists with radical views on the relationship between men and women. He’s out of the mainstream, obviously.

  5. Gregory Says:


    Your description of Webster seems to imply that because someone belongs to a religious group that has few members or because their beliefs are not close enough the “mainstream” they do not share the right to participate in government “by the people”.

    How sad that that the dominant (until November) political party, the party that prides itself on inclusion, now seeks to exclude the very people who founded our country.

    I suppose bigotry is ok as long as it targets those we don’t personally care for.

  6. rmwarnick Says:

    I think Webster is well within his rights to run for office. But the voters have a right to know where he is coming from.

    I also think Rep. Grayson went too far in resorting to name-calling. Webster is not a member of the Taliban. He’s also not a Nazi, a terrorist or a socialist.

    Who are the “people who founded our country”? Strong advocates of the separation of Church and State. Thomas Jefferson:

    “Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights.

  7. Gregory Says:

    The assault on Mr Webster for his religious inclinations are not supported by quotes by Thomas Jefferson – they are condemned by them. It continues the liberal left agenda of painting anyone who has any religious affiliation as unfit for public office.
    The assault on Daniel Webster in not based on his political views, his ethics, or his intelligence – it is based entirely on his religious beliefs – the exact opposite of your quote. The implication that because he has religious beliefs he wishes to impose his religious views on others is bigotry and prejudice Jefferson did not support.
    Surely the irony of condemning someone as unfit for public office for the very reasons Europeans initially came this country – religious intolerance – can’t escape any but the most partisan extremists.

  8. rmwarnick Says:

    Webster is a member of the hardcore theocratic right. He’s a Christian Reconstructionist. Webster is opposed to all abortions, even for victims of rape and incest. Webster tried to deny battered women medical care and the right to divorce their abusers.

    Webster hasn’t denied any of this, because it’s true.

  9. John Says:

    What about the laughably dishonest way Grayson edited Webster’s words?

  10. rmwarnick Says:

    I don’t like the ad at all, especially the name-calling.

    Politifact has pointed out that the “Submit to me” sound bite was taken out of context. However, Webster did try to rewrite marriage laws along Biblical lines.

    When Webster was a member of the Florida House, he introduced a bill that would have created something called covenant marriage. This special form of marriage was entirely voluntary, but if couples agreed to it, they would not be able to divorce under state law except in the case of adultery. The bill did not list physical or sexual abuse as grounds for divorce.

  11. Gregory Says:


    Attack Webster’s political positions all you want, I might even agree. But when anyone starts attacking his religion they have crossed the line. It is no more appropriate to attack Webster for his religious beliefs that it is to attack someone else for being agnostic, atheist, Hindu, or Muslim – that was the point of your quote from Jefferson. It is not that people with strong, unpopular, “out of the mainstream” religious beliefs are unqualified for public service.

  12. rmwarnick Says:

    You know, I don’t think anyone, including Rep. Grayson, is attacking Webster’s religion. Only his theocratic political style.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: