Originally posted by Melanerpes
[b]Essentially, the negative political ad blantantly takes words from video clips from Webster and twists them to mean the exact opposite of what he was discussing in the video clips.
This has been an extremely common tactic in political ads (by both parties) for as long as I can remember. And as long as this tactic works, it will continue to preva similar ads, so is it any wonder that most people trust none of the people running for office?[/b]
Usually when someone runs negative ads the accusations are not provable. For example, "W" caused the economy to collapse or he was in the back pocket of BP etc. You don't have any proof of those accuastaions but you certainly don't have any proof that you are lying either. What Grayson is doing, however, is using his opponents words clearly out of context. Therefore, his ads are not only negative, they are easily proven false. And lastly, he compares his opponent to the Taliban. To make such an accusation, you best have proof.
Face it, Alan Grayson is just plan stupid and, therefore, needs to be singled out as an example. You might say that Alan is "special".