Why Alan Grayson Went Too Far

Alan Grayson would have probably had an easy win over Republican Daniel Webster. Alan Grayson then decided to run the distasteful ad "Taliban Dan Webster."



It is one thing to hit your opponent hard. It is another to come off as a nutty Tea Partier. I can't stand Daniel Webster. I have no problem with Grayson attacking Webster's social positions. Comparing him to the Taliban is way over the top. Peter Schorsch has a post how the ad has galvanized Republicans. GOP media strategist Rick Wilson claims the Webster campaign has raised $300,000 from the right-wing push back against Grayson. Wilson makes a statement I absolutely agreee with.

As for the earned media narrative, it went from: “pugnacious, well-funded Alan Grayson” to “barking lunatic and liar Alan Grayson” in just 24 hours. The Factcheck.org takedowns of Grayson’s two spots here and here are unequivocal: Grayson’s ads are false and misleading. Poltifact feels the same way.

Grayson's own internal poll showed him with a commanding lead over Webster. Grayson could have run a positive ad talking about his family and the things he stands for. Instead, he decides to stoop to Karl Rove-level swift boating. Grayson is like a pitbull that doesn't know when not to attack. The one person that seems to think this ad was a great idea is Kenneth Quinnell. This kind of political savvy explains why Quinnell was such a success on the Meek campaign.

Update: The Buzz reports the negative reaction to the "Taliban Dan Webster" ad is benefitting Webster.

A source close to the campaign told the Buzz that Webster has already received $40,000 from people outraged by the ad. The campaign sent an e-mail to potential donors but has also benefited from media coverage -- from MSNBC to Glenn Beck -- in the past two days.