One of the ways people who could never get elected, for good reason, do so is when voting against someone gets so extreme the alternative isn't looked at, just voted for.
Put Alan Grayson out of the picture for a moment. Just look at his opponent.
This is an example of a monster, who is all too common, who has a radical right agenda. He's sneering at Miranda rights, sneering at our legal system, and demagoguing against the minority group of Muslims, saying basically to largely ignore any rights they might have and take shortcuts on equality. The many who are wrongly harmed by this, he's in favor of.
Why? It seems clear he does this as extreme pandering to the 'mob mentality', the guy who shows up and demands 'get rid of that Sheriff who says no and tried to protect the prisoner against you good people's desires, and put ME in charge and you will get your lynching and justice!'
Why would he pander and throw away the rights of people like that? Because it's politically effective to give the mob what they want, and not to stand up for right to them.
And why does he want that power?
Now that's the real question you won't people who like his ad asking.
In my experience, panderers like this are almost always trying to get power for some unstated other agenda, often that's AGAINST the interests of the very people they're asking for votes from (if it were a good agenda, they'd be talking about it instead of the pandering issue), and that's dangerous. Trillions of dollars in spending, civil rights, who is helped by the government and much more are at stake with this guy, and all he wants to do is to try to get votes with disgusting pandering.
This guy needs a no vote, badly. Even if you don't like Alan Grayson, ask yourself if he isn't far less bad than this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umTITWQuXwY&feature=player_embedded
Put Alan Grayson out of the picture for a moment. Just look at his opponent.
This is an example of a monster, who is all too common, who has a radical right agenda. He's sneering at Miranda rights, sneering at our legal system, and demagoguing against the minority group of Muslims, saying basically to largely ignore any rights they might have and take shortcuts on equality. The many who are wrongly harmed by this, he's in favor of.
Why? It seems clear he does this as extreme pandering to the 'mob mentality', the guy who shows up and demands 'get rid of that Sheriff who says no and tried to protect the prisoner against you good people's desires, and put ME in charge and you will get your lynching and justice!'
Why would he pander and throw away the rights of people like that? Because it's politically effective to give the mob what they want, and not to stand up for right to them.
And why does he want that power?
Now that's the real question you won't people who like his ad asking.
In my experience, panderers like this are almost always trying to get power for some unstated other agenda, often that's AGAINST the interests of the very people they're asking for votes from (if it were a good agenda, they'd be talking about it instead of the pandering issue), and that's dangerous. Trillions of dollars in spending, civil rights, who is helped by the government and much more are at stake with this guy, and all he wants to do is to try to get votes with disgusting pandering.
This guy needs a no vote, badly. Even if you don't like Alan Grayson, ask yourself if he isn't far less bad than this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umTITWQuXwY&feature=player_embedded
Facebook
Twitter