Badger, Webster was cautioning against husbands pushing the Biblical "obey" thing, and Grayson made it seem like he embraced it, when precisely the opposite was true. No one, not even a skilled lawyer like yourself, can put any lipstick on this particular pig, and make the porcine presentation pretty, so I am not criticizing your brief, because you had really crap facts, and did the best you could, by bringing up peripheral stuff that is not really relevant to the false and misleading charge, IMO. So I strongly disagree with you - this once. 
Grayson will be gone soon, Life is good.
Torie, the issue here is simple: "Does Webster adhere to the biblical scripture that compels women be submissive to their husbands or not?"
I've watched his full unedited statement several times. He tells the audience: "Don't pick the (verses) that say 'she should submit to me'. That's in the Bible,
but pick the one's you're supposed to do." Emphasis added for obvious reasons. We are hardly unfairly parsing Webster's words to clearly mean: "(She should submit to me) is in the Bible
and therefore absolutely true, but.....".
The fact that he was saying it in the context of "but we need to be good husbands too" doesn't escape that this is sugar coating his extreme fundamentalist belief that a woman is ordained by God to submit to her husband. But this isn't about Webster's personal beliefs. As the ad shows he has a consistent career of attempting to inject those personal orthodox religious views into law directly affecting women, and will undoubtedly continue doing so in Congress.
Again, has he even stated that this ad mischaracterizes his beliefs? At all? If not, it's pretty tough to argue that an ad playing a statement he seems to assert is true is "inaccurate".
This once, I must strongly disagree with you, my friend.
Poll
