The TV spot includes short clips of Webster saying "…wives submit yourself to your own husband…" and "she should submit to me. That's in the Bible… ." The words "submit to me" are repeated twice more.Sounds pretty outrageous, right? You can't imagine people voting for someone who would say such things today, right? Well, here is the original context.
In the full video, Webster is talking to husbands at a gathering of a religious organization about biblical passages to choose when praying for loved ones. He says:The Grayson campaign tries to excuse their perfidy by criticizing the religious group that Webster has ties to. Is that the point we're at - where politicians criticize each other for their religions ties? Then by all means, let's revisit Obama's membership in Jeremiah Wright's church. Rep. Grayson should be willing to either endorse or condemn President Obama's twenty-year membership in that church.
"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."
Ed Morrissey calls the Grayson ad, the "worst political ad ever."
Gee, I seem to recall how Democrats used to shriek hysterically about having people impugn their patriotism for opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, suddenly, quoting either Ephesians 5 or Colossians 3 makes one the equivalent of a terrorist group that is our enemy in the field? TPM avoids taking any kind of a principled stand on this smear, noting only that “reporters and partisans argue about dubbing a Congressional candidate a member of the Taliban[.]“ Do they really “argue” about it? Which reporters, or even rational partisans, think that calling a candidate “Taliban Dan” is somehow both instructive and reasonable? The only one making that argument even on a general basis is Markos Moulitsas in his book American Taliban — an argument that even many on the Left rejected as extreme. (See original for links.)This is in light of a previous Grayson ad that called Webster a draft dodger who "doesn't love this country."when, as Factcheck.org clarifies, Webster had an academic deferment while in college, then reported for service but failed the medical exam. Meanwhile, he was in the ROTC in college.
And of course, Grayson himself never volunteered for the military though he's claiming that he would have dropped out of college and volunteered. Sure. That's easy to say now. So is calling your opponent a draft dodger. And then twisting his words to mean the exact opposite of what he was really saying. Or calling tea partiers "people who were wearing sheets over their heads 25 years ago." Or saying that the GOP health plan was “Don’t get sick,” and “If you do get sick, die quickly.”
The man is hideous and I bet that his constituents aren't going to take kindly for this sort of negative advertising. An opponent's actual record are fair game, but these sorts of ad hominem attacks are not going to go over well in any district. It will be a pleasure to see this cretin defeated in November. Then he can retreat to his well-deserved perch as a regular on Keith Olbermann's show.