Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)

[GodlessAstronomer]

Partisanship is an unusual claim to make against me.

(D - Could it be anything else? )

 

[cganesh75]

everytime there is a political ad on tv.. its nothing but an attack Ad. none of these tools want to talk about what they would do for the people.. instead they throw shit on the opposing guy. pathetic.

 

[Craig234]

I think Alan Grayson, who is indeed a popular Congressman with progressives including me, edited the video clip in question to misrepresent what his opponent was saying.

I also think he has failed to take responsibility for the mistake, as shown in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nndt0jMoGds&feature=related

(Note that left-wing media going after him).

I think this is a serious mistake I can't see an excuse for.

Having said that, there are issues, and he's got far better positions than his opponent. There are many actual claims about his opponent in that same ad - are they accurate?

As far as we have seen, they are.

So what we have is a Congressman with much better positions, who makes several attacks on his opponent and misues out of context video misrepresenting a statement.

And anything Republicans do is no excuse for Grayson's error here; but as the OP has never that I can recall had any balance, it's good to note there's a whole industry for Republican lies that have gone as far as to change who becomes president (Al Gore did not say he invented the internet, but he did lead the funding of its development in Congress, a great thing that political liars turned into an attack.)

Grayson should apologize for this, and put out a correction and remove the ad.

 

[StageLeft]

Show me where a Historian is showing I am not truthful.

The only ones saying that are jealous liars like you.

You have been proven wrong so many times there is simply no point in providing more evidence.

 

[Atreus21]

So you support libel and slander if it supports your own cause?

Uh, yeah?

 

[Atreus21]

I think Alan Grayson, who is indeed a popular Congressman with progressives including me, edited the video clip in question to misrepresent what his opponent was saying.

I also think he has failed to take responsibility for the mistake, as shown in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nndt0jMoGds&feature=related

(Note that left-wing media going after him).

I think this is a serious mistake I can't see an excuse for.

Having said that, there are issues, and he's got far better positions than his opponent. There are many actual claims about his opponent in that same ad - are they accurate?

As far as we have seen, they are.

So what we have is a Congressman with much better positions, who makes several attacks on his opponent and misues out of context video misrepresenting a statement.

And anything Republicans do is no excuse for Grayson's error here; but as the OP has never that I can recall had any balance, it's good to note there's a whole industry for Republican lies that have gone as far as to change who becomes president (Al Gore did not say he invented the internet, but he did lead the funding of its development in Congress, a great thing that political liars turned into an attack.)

Grayson should apologize for this, and put out a correction and remove the ad.

Craig, you just earned my respect.

 

[Carmen813]

Just wanted to add that I think the ad is without a doubt despicable. It represents something that has become all to common in our politics: outright distortion and lies about opponents.

Frankly, if Grayson were smart he would immediately cease airing this ad and release another apologizing.

 

[HumblePie]

Yep dumb thing for the guy to do. If he did it and not a marketing company he employed instead. Because we all know politicians spends endless hours into the night creating 7'x9' posters to place all over the place by themselves.

Then again, he should be in charge of approving or dis-approving his ads. If he isn't, then he is an idiot.

 

[PJABBER]

I think Alan Grayson, who is indeed a popular Congressman with progressives including me, edited the video clip in question to misrepresent what his opponent was saying.

I also think he has failed to take responsibility for the mistake, as shown in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nndt0jMoGds&feature=related

(Note that left-wing media going after him).

I think this is a serious mistake I can't see an excuse for.

Having said that, there are issues, and he's got far better positions than his opponent. There are many actual claims about his opponent in that same ad - are they accurate?

As far as we have seen, they are.

So what we have is a Congressman with much better positions, who makes several attacks on his opponent and misues out of context video misrepresenting a statement.

And anything Republicans do is no excuse for Grayson's error here; but as the OP has never that I can recall had any balance, it's good to note there's a whole industry for Republican lies that have gone as far as to change who becomes president (Al Gore did not say he invented the internet, but he did lead the funding of its development in Congress, a great thing that political liars turned into an attack.)

Grayson should apologize for this, and put out a correction and remove the ad.

Thanks for that post, Craig. This is not a partisan issue, it is one where all parties need to hold all politicians, even those with whom we might agree on issues, to a higher standard than we have in the past.

Once a politician, especially a firebrand like Grayson, feels they are immune from any standard for honesty, once the hubris sets in, it is too late and it becomes time for them to step aside for a better man or woman.

The video you post shows that even the most lefty in the press, even those who absolutely agree with Grayson's political agenda, see that attacks based on lies can only backfire and weaken whatever issues based message there is.

ALL politicians, Rs and Ds alike, are tempted to go negative, as negative campaigning works. Our challenge as voters is to demand that politicians act to a higher standard and penalize them with unemployment when they don't.

A politician may discount the criticisms of his opponents, but to have such hubris as to reject those of his allies is folly indeed. Thus, it is not the opponent which will correct the waywardness, but the ally. As Brewer attempts in the video, but Grayson cannot fathom in his posturing.

 

[PJABBER]

BTW, this is not the first time Grayson has lied in this campaign, it is but the most recent. It is thus all the more important for him to be called on it each and every time it occurs, not by any opposition as he won't pay them heed, but by those who are in his corner.

If Grayson and others who indulge in this charade cannot stop themselves, they should not be elected, no matter how much we might agree with the issues they stand for.

Patriotism Falsely Impugned

Democratic Rep. Grayson wrongly says that his opponent 'refused' Vietnam service; claims he 'doesn't love this country.'

FactCheck.org
Wednesday, September 22, 2010 at 3:49 pm

Summary

Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida is falsely accusing his opponent of evading the Vietnam War draft, claiming "he doesn’t love this country."

Republican candidate Daniel Webster didn’t "refuse the call to service," as claimed in a vicious TV ad featuring pictures of military graves and the sound of "Taps" being played on a bugle. In fact, the former Florida Senate majority leader was given routine student deferments until he completed his undergraduate degree. He then reported for a military physical and was disqualified for medical reasons.

Analysis

Rep. Grayson’s ad — entitled "Draft Dodger" — appeared in his Florida district on Fox News last week. It is one of the nastiest we have seen so far this year, and it’s false.

Link to video

​

Alan Grayson TV ad: "Draft Dodger"

Grayson: I’m Congressman Alan Grayson and I approve this message.

Announcer: [Sound of "Taps" in background] Daniel Webster was called to serve our country six times during the Vietnam War. Each time Daniel Webster refused the call to service. It breaks an old soldier’s heart to think that Webster could ever be elected to Congress. He doesn’t love this country the way I do. Daniel Webster doesn’t care about us.

​

The ad opens with a shot of Daniel Webster’s face imposed over a military graveyard. As the picture changes to a photograph of a soldier next to another graveyard shot, and a mournful rendition of "Taps" plays softly in the background, the announcer — who according to the Grayson campaign is a veteran who served in the military for four years — says Webster "was called to serve our country six times during the Vietnam War" and "refused" each time. The announcer goes on to say: "It breaks an old soldier’s heart" to think that Webster could be elected, because "he doesn’t love this country the way I do."

But the ad’s charge is disproved by the very documents that the Grayson campaign provides to support their claim. A Grayson spokesman provided copies of Selective Service documents that were obtained under a public records request in June. They show that far from refusing to serve his country, Webster reported for a military examination as soon as he graduated from college, only to be disqualified on medical grounds.

The Grayson campaign provided the same documents to Mark Schlueb of the Orlando Sentinel, who reported that "Webster received college deferments, which were common during the Vietnam War, then reported for service and was disqualified for medical reasons."

Draft Dodging?

Records show that Webster was deferred from military service five times due to academic study from 1967 to 1970 (once in high school and four times while he was in college at the Georgia Institute of Technology). Once he completed his undergraduate degree, he was given the classification 1-A (which means he was available for military service) and was asked to report for a physical examination. The documentation shows that on the date of his physical, July 26, 1971, Webster was rejected and given the classification of 1-Y, which means that he was "qualified for service only in time of war or national emergency."

But according to the documents, the 1-Y classification was abolished just months later, on December 10, 1971. Local boards were ordered to reclassify all 1-Y registrants. Webster was reclassified on May 16, 1972, as 4-F, or "not qualified for military service."

So Webster was given deferments from the military in order to complete high school and college — common during the Vietnam War — then upon graduation reported for service and was ultimately disqualified because he failed the physical examination.

Records don’t indicate what medical problems led to Webster’s rejection from service, but Webster said it was due to problems with his feet. According to Schlueb’s September 17 article, Webster said: "I remember them pulling me out of line because I’d had problems with my feet when I was a kid. They used these corrective shoes on me with steel plates in them, but it really never fixed them — they’re weird-looking. I can’t really stand a long time on my feet."

​

A Pollster Explains

We contacted the Grayson campaign for an explanation. Curiously, we were referred to one of the campaign’s paid pollsters, Jim Kitchens, owner of The Kitchen Group. The campaign reported paying $18,000 to Kitchens last April for "polling." (See page 247.)

Kitchens argued that Webster made a personal choice not to go into the military, and that had he intended to serve after graduation, he would have signed up for officer training and undergone a physical examination during his junior year in college. It’s true that some undergraduates did that. But we can’t accept Kitchens’ spurious reasoning.

The ad states clearly that Webster "refused the call to service," which is simply false. Webster may have made a choice not to volunteer for officer training, and not to volunteer for military service before completing his undergraduate degree. But that’s not the same as refusing to serve when called. And the fact is that Webster reported when the draft board declared him to be available for military service.

​

An ‘Old Soldier’

The ad attacks Webster’s patriotism directly with a particularly nasty insinuation. The announcer says, "It breaks an old soldier’s heart to think that Daniel Webster could ever be elected to Congress. He doesn’t love this country the way I do. Daniel Webster doesn’t care about us."

The announcer is never identified, so the viewer has no way of knowing if he is really an "old soldier" or not. We asked a Grayson spokesman about that. The spokesman told us that the announcer is a four-year military veteran, but would not release the announcer’s identity.

Grayson himself never served in Vietnam — born in 1958, he was only 17 when the war ended in 1975.

According to his official biography, he didn’t serve in the military at all. He worked as an economist, then a lawyer. But — following the reasoning of Grayson’s own pollster — he could have volunteered for military service had he wished to serve.

Grayson’s ad concludes with a message on screen saying, "If Daniel Webster didn’t serve America then, why should he serve now?" Viewers might ask the same question of Grayson. (He now says had the Vietnam War still been going on, he would have dropped out of college and volunteered.)

– by Lara Seligman

Sources

Selective Service. Registration Card. Provided to FactCheck.org 21 Sep 2010 by Mark Schlueb of the Orlando Sentinel and Grayson campaign spokesman Sam Drzymala.

Selective Service. Extract of Registrant Classification Record. Provided to FactCheck.org 21 Sep 2010 by Mark Schlueb of the Orlando Sentinel and Grayson campaign spokesman Sam Drzymala.

Selective Service. Classifications, 1948-1976. Provided to FactCheck.org 21 Sep 2010 by Mark Schlueb of the Orlando Sentinel and Grayson campaign spokesman Sam Drzymala.

Schlueb, Mark. "Alan Grayson TV ad calls Dan Webster a draft dodger." Orlando Sentinel.17 Sep 2010.

The Kitchens Group Site. Accessed 21 Sep 2010.
Federal Elections Commission. Filing FEC-C00424713. Washington: GPO, 2010.

Congressman Alan Grayson. Biography. Accessed 21 Sep 2010.
​

 

[umbrella39]

Gotta love it as PJIBBERISH proves he is still one of the lying liars spinning the truth.

Complex issues will not be solved by slogan spouting.

No shit, when I read the topic I thought he was finally going to out himself. Guess he still needs time...

 

[PJABBER]

No shit, when I read the topic I thought he was finally going to out himself. Guess he still needs time...

Never hid it, I am a classical liberal and proud of it! :awe:

And you are just... wrong?

 

[Atreus21]

Appears the ad has cost Grayson. He's behind 7% in some Florida polls now.

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2010/09/29...d-in-polls-to-republican-daniel-webster-by-7/

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Democratic Rep. Grayson wrongly says that his opponent 'refused' Vietnam service; claims he 'doesn't love this country.'

Wow, political ads over here in Western NC are really tame compared to some of this struff.

Fern

 

[hal2kilo]

The "progressive" Democrat's favorite poster child, Florida Representative "Lyin'" Alan Grayson (D - Could it be anything else? ) has released a campaign ad that wildly distorts his opponent's words through very selective editing.

Grayson says "Taliban Dan Webster"

In the full video, however, Webster is talking to husbands at a gathering of a religious organization about biblical passages to choose when praying for loved ones. He actually says:

"Find a verse. I have a verse for my wife; I have verses for my wife. Don't pick the ones that say, um, she should submit to me. That's in the Bible, but pick the ones that you're supposed to do. So instead, love your wife, even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, as opposed to wives submit yourself to your own husband. She can pray that if she wants to, but don't you pray it."

Grayson, a "progressive" loon, feels free to remove all the words before and after the phrase "she should submit to me," and represent them as Webster's ideology.

The Truth

In a statement from the campaign Monday afternoon, Webster’s wife and campaign manager derided Grayson’s ad as “shameful” and “ludicrous.”

I would say that is about par for "Lyin'" Alan Grayson.

Hurry! call the Rebuplican Waaambulance!

 

[QuantumPion]

This is the type of bold-faced-lying that disenfranchised me from the Democrat party and made me a Republican today.

 

[PeshakJang]

Hurry! call the Rebuplican Waaambulance!

You seem pretty upset when a right-leaning individual uses "selective editing"

The reaction of this administration was shameful, but that doesn't excuse people posing as journalist to spout lies and enuendo. MSM news departments better start getting their shit together and vetting any video or audio that passes in front of them in this day and age of digital editing.

You even started a thread about it!

 

[Red Dawn]

This is the type of bold-faced-lying that disenfranchised me from the Democrat party and made me a Republican today.

You prefer the Republican version of bold faced lying.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Disappointed. Was expecting a autobiography of blabber himself with a title like this

 

[hal2kilo]

You seem pretty upset when a right-leaning individual uses "selective editing"



You even started a thread about it!

That was about a news story not political campaigning. Please don't even begin to lecture me about honesty in campaigns with the Karl Rove Crossroads bullshit he's spreading.

 

[Craig234]

Just an update: I contacted Alan Grayson's office to say this was wrong and he should apologize, and the aide said they'd 'definitely pass the message to him as they agree.'

 

[PJABBER]

Just an update: I contacted Alan Grayson's office to say this was wrong and he should apologize, and the aide said they'd 'definitely pass the message to him as they agree.'

Thanks, Craig. It is only when each of us takes personal steps to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of honor that we can say we have a democracy. Lord knows there is enough hubris to go around no matter what Party is in charge.

 

[BoomerD]

Fabulous thread title...

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/WMDlies.html?q=WMDlies.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

 

[PJABBER]

One of the truisms in politics is that the wash is hung out to dry with an "October Surprise" before elections. Some big fat embarrassment waits to be unveiled, usually against a challenger, as they may not have yet been fully vetted, but sometimes against an incumbent.

This week we see Jerry Brown, Attorney General of the State of California, and candidate for Governor, being recorded in a conversation with a staffer who advises him to characterize Meg Whitman, his opponent, as a whore. Brown, of course, agrees.

Jerry Brown and friends, keeping it classy!

As that story is getting a lot of airplay, I don't need to dwell on it at length at the moment.

There is another story, however, that hasn't broken widely and is, again, reflecting just why we need a clean sweep of most of the incumbents in the U.S. Congress.

Look, if you are a candidate, run on your own damn merits, if you have any. Don't try to shanghai elections by running ringers and foils. You will get caught and you will lose.

Congressman John Adler (D-NJ3), you are also a liar.

Dems Admit Rep. John Adler Planted Fake Tea Party Candidate

by Mike Roman
BigGovernment.com
October 8, 2010

Democratic operatives in New Jersey are turning on Congressman John Adler (D-NJ3). Due to “ethical qualms” they have revealed the Adler campaign is behind the bogus “NJ Tea Party” candidacy of Peter DeStefano.

In May, Geoff Mackler, Adler’s Campaign Manager, along with Democratic consultant Steve Ayscue gave a presentation outlining the “DeStefano Plan” at the Camden County Democratic Committee headquarters:

“The goal was to take 5 percent of (Republican Jon) Runyan’s vote,” said a Democrat with direct knowledge of the Adler campaign and CCDC operations.

“Steve Ayscue designed the plan with Geoff Mackler following his lead.”
​

DeStefano first emerged in an internal poll circulated by the Adler campaign in July that showed him getting 12 percent of the vote. Until then he hadn’t announced he was a candidate.

He was immediately dismissed by Tea Party groups:

“Peter DeStefano is not, and I emphasize, not a Tea Party candidate, by any stretch. He is a shill for someone else, but certainly not what the Tea Party stands for.”
​

Adler denied that his campaign was behind the deception:

“I know we weren’t part of it.”
​

Seems that wasn’t true.

Democrats: Adler campaign backed Tea Party candidate

JANE ROH • Courier-Post Staff • October 7, 2010

Congressman John Adler's campaign and the Camden County Democratic Committee recruited ""NJ Tea Party'' candidate Peter DeStefano to confuse conservative voters and hurt Adler's Republican challenger this fall, Democratic operatives say.

"The goal was to take 5 percent of (Republican Jon) Runyan's vote,'' said a Democrat with direct knowledge of the Adler campaign and CCDC operations.

"Steve Ayscue designed the plan with Geoff Mackler following his lead.''

Ayscue is a high-profile Democratic consultant who runs the CCDC. Mackler is Adler's campaign manager.

Several South Jersey Democratic operatives with direct knowledge of the Adler campaign and CCDC operations spoke to the Courier-Post on condition of anonymity because of what they described as ethical qualms with Adler's campaign.

"From the beginning, orders have flowed from Cherry Hill,'' said one Democratic operative, referring to CCDC headquarters at Garden State Pavilions shopping center off Route 70.

Adler, who is in a knife-fight with Runyan in the conservative-leaning 3rd district, is aware of the DeStefano plan, Democrats said.

Regional Tea Party groups had never heard of DeStefano until the Adler campaign released partial results of an internal poll last summer that indicated he might be a viable third-party spoiler.

Up until and immediately after a July 19 Courier-Post story on DeStefano's candidacy, the Adler campaign was largely unresponsive to media queries. In early August, at a grand opening of his Democrats said Adler's recent allegiance with conservatives on a number of issues was calculated to help him hang on to his seat, held for 25 years by Republican Jim Saxton. Which is why the DeStefano plan, announced before three dozen young party volunteers at CCDC headquarters last May, struck some as foolish.

"Everybody thought this would be a very scrutinized race,'' said a person who attended Ayscue and Mackler's May 26 presentation.

"A lot of people said, 'This is not how you win.'''

 

[CrackRabbit]

One of the truisms in politics is that the wash is hung out to dry with an "October Surprise" before elections. Some big fat embarrassment waits to be unveiled, usually against a challenger, as they may not have yet been fully vetted, but sometimes against an incumbent.

This week we see Jerry Brown, Attorney General of the State of California, and candidate for Governor, being recorded in a conversation with a staffer who advises him to characterize Meg Whitman, his opponent, as a whore. Brown, of course, agrees.

Jerry Brown and friends, keeping it classy!

Well you can't call Jerry Brown's associate wrong on that one.
Classless, maybe. Wrong, no.