Tweet
Alan Grayson been making waves lately. His characterizing the Republican health care plan as: “if you get sick, die quickly, and then calling out members of the Republican Party as “foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging neanderthals,” were both good for a laugh. And then, when they howled and demanded an apology, he refused to apologize to them, but instead said that he would only apologize to the 44,000 annual dead and their families for Congress’s inaction failing to fix the health insurance mess.
On Friday’s installment of Countdown, Lawrence O’Donnell, substituting for Keith, played a clip of Grayson’s recent speech on the floor of the House (above), and then also had him on the program for a softball interview (below). In both performances Grayson exuded confidence, comfort, and humor. In the interview he was just “basking,” a really “happy warrior” in the tradition of Al Smith, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman.
Based on these and his other recent performances we can certainly wonder whether Alan Grayson can’t be “the tip of the spear” the Democratic Party has been looking for to speak to the public in the emotional common sense language needed to push Democratic ideas. The President is not that leader. He’s trying to be the leader of all the people, and he avoids partisan messaging, opening the way for the Republicans to attack the Democrats, their outlook and their programmatic ideas, while Obama defends his own agenda, but not the Party’s or the progressives’. Also, our leadership in both Houses of Congress has little mass appeal to say the least. Nancy Pelosi has many good qualities, when it comes to effectively herding the cats in the Party, but she certainly doesn’t project purpose, strength, or commitment to Democratic Party ideals on the national stage. Harry Reid has all the emotional appeal of the proverbial “wet noodle,” and only insiders are aware of his redeeming qualities.
In short, we have few Democratic or progressive spokespersons with “charisma” in the Congress, who can both communicate and command media attention. If Alan Grayson can play that role, without resorting to language whose factual claims go off the deep end, he can be that tip of the Democratic spear the Party needs to once again convincingly carry its historic message: that it is, truly, the Party of the People.
(Also posted at the Alllifeisproblemsolving blog where there may be more comments)
41 Comments
Yes indeed.. he’s great and we need all of this kind of help we can possibly find. Thank Dog for FDL and Blue America.. who introduced me to his campaign.
Grayson is good – here he is speaking to the FDP Convention
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/10/231748/10
Lets be honest bluedog democrats are republicans that ran as democrats to win. Irony.
Grayson 2012.
I hope he’s the tip of the spear, because if He’s not it must be hid up one of the others butt.
I have been supporting Alan Grayson since the speech he gave calling out the Republicans. When I received an email from his office asking Americans to sign a petition, I put it up in a diary post: Grayson: Senator Reid, It’s time to get on with it.
But since then someone commenting at FDL pointed out that Grayson is pushing the Democratic leadership to pass… well, what?
The more I thought about it, the more it does seem like he’s more interested in passing a bill quickly than he is in passing the strongest bill possible that includes, at a minimum, a public option that will be available to all Americans.
In fact, I looked at his website and have listened to his speeches carefully and don’t really hear him calling out the Democratic leadership for potentially watering down health care reform.
He attacks the Republicans more than the Blue Dogs or the Senate’s Democratic Party leadership.
Are we supposed to join him in shifting the focus back on the Republicans, while ignoring the weakness of or, frankly, the immorality of Democrats who want to compromise, who want to pass an Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act?
If I’m wrong, if there is good evidence that Grayson is really working to advance a good health care reform bill that must include a public option, and not just to get anything out of the Senate so long as it’s out fast, then please show it to me.
grayson has been terrific, i’ve loved listening to him lately, especially on the subject of republicans and apologies. but his name doesn’t show up in the list of hr676 cosponsors, so i’m not sure what policy he’d ultimately get for us.
Hi Knoxville, I can’t. That’s why I posed my title as a question. Before he can be the tip of that spear, we need to know where he really stands.
Right, hipparchia, My sentiments exactly.
Obama is trying to be the leader for corporations, the wealthy, and the status quo. The rest of us are out of luck.
I did notice the question mark, but I’m not sure I read this particular concern within the post itself. You seemed to focus more in the text of your post on whether or not his powerful style can mark a new kind of leadership in the Democratic Party than on whether or not he in fact stands for real, core Democratic principles and values.
Honestly, if the latter concern is what you meant by the title, you might consider adding a paragraph within the text that makes this concern clearer or post another diary entry that highlights this concern.
Do you remember the post For Grayson Fans? That post seemed to me to express a concern that was more about Grayson’s in-your-face style. I’ve got no problem with his in-your-face style! I do have serious questions about his substance…
Please think about emphasizing the questions about his substance more.
I’ve heard of campaigning to your left and moving to the center when governing, but this is ridiculous!
Hi Hugh, Your characterization is better than mine.
Thanks Knoxville, I will. But I think your comment does a good job of introducing that concern, and, in addition, I have hopes that Grayson may turn out to be the kind of progressive leader we’re looking for.
er, but it is not the Party of the People, and has not been for what, 30 years?
the messaging is failing because the reality is inescapable – the Democrats as a whole are as thoroughly in cahoots with the corporate kleptocracy as the Republicans.
a few outliers like Grayson, Kuchinich, Feingold, a couple others, are the barest vestiges of the old, idealized Democratic Party that so many like to pretend still exists.
Grayson is a scorcher, no doubt, and a welcome voice. But the problem isn’t the messaging, its the reality.
i think there’s a reasonably good chance that grayson will turn out to be one of those politicians who believe that it’s in their best interest to do what their constituents want.
meanwhile, i think we should play up anthony weiner and eric massa more.
There’s a lot to what you say Spork. But we’ll take our Party back from the Plutocrats yet.
hipparchia, Maybe so. They’re among my favorites too.
Grayson this morning chiding MSNBC not-Dylan talking head: comparing me to Joe Wilson is like comparing a Bob Dylan protest song to a belch.
Grayson rules.
The smarmy Limbaugh also featured from Jamie Gangel interview. Not exactly a Barbara Waltersesque tree interview, but close. Next: Ted Bundy, interviewed on mussin’ women’s hair.
Limbaugh can buy himself a rehabilitation tour, but the youtubes will still be out there.
Hi Prairie, Thanks for the reference, I haven’t seen that yet.
If he doesn’t stay in Congress, he’s sure to have a great future as a talk show host.
I seldom post, being new to blogging as I am, But I do read FDL every day. I have noted a change in tone indicating increasing frustration with the way things are going. Grayson’s words are fabulous. His passion and “hutzpah”
to be commended. But I am gun shy. Obama is proof that great words do not a great president make. We have only 2 thing to use. Our vote and our money. Would there be any power in the idea of those who are registered as Democrats switching their voter registration to Independent. Then each who have done so, writing a letter to the DNC explaining they have done so and that if they want us back the leadership of this party will need to begin aggressively working for the changes we put them in power to bring about. This, of course, would require a large number of people doing the same thing. But does this idea have merit? Could the internet be used as a medium for getting enough people to do this?
And as for our money… What if enough people closed their accounts that are currently in any of the big banks ie: CiteCorp,BofA etc, placed their money in a credit union or smaller bank and wrote letters to these banks that they are doing this because they are using their money to buy our elected officials through lobbying efforts. Does this idea have any merit? Again such action would require a large number of people doing this.
Grayson’s words are fabulous, and he seems to have the back bone so lacking elsewhere within this party. But I am skeptical. I apparently was hoodwinked by the DNC’s convention last year and by the candidate who said all the right things. Silly me. I believed the Dems had finally found their voice and their message. And through out these past months I find my self saying “OMG!!!,” and “WTF” again and again and again. I have even wondered if perhaps the time has come for a “Partisan Abolitionist Movement”….have no clue what THAT would look like.
I think this is a very good comment. We need to look not only at what people say, but also at how they vote.
I also think your ideas about registering as independents and taking money out of the big banks are good, and that web-based campaigns might facilitate this. However, registering independent may not be as effective as working to take over the Democratic Party and to primary faithless Democrats.
Jane Hamsher has been preaching watch what they do, not what they say for eons
we gave Grayson our grocery money – that’s how impressed we were with him during the campaigns. and fully expect to see him continue down his current path
that said, I am starting to feel rather strongly that we can no longer afford to sit back with arms folded and tell critters ok, dazzle me or merely be a reactive chorus.
If co chairs Grijalva and Woolsey have done what I think they’ve done, it is time for us to find our way to work with them (whether they are charismatic or not). I think this epic HCR battle has provided our factions an opening for this. it could really be a new day, a new paradigm for alliances
and yes, in light of how things have shaken out in the recent past, I know I sound naive – but we are soon to find out
I’d agree lets, he can be the tip of the spear, rhetorically anyway.
I agree with your ideas. Publicly drop out and take money out of banks.
Lets, I’ve tried working within the party. I did the County Chair thing. I was a delegate to Boston in 2004. I worked in Iowa in two primaries. I got a Senator elected with only a 3000 vote majority. But behind the scenes only works so far. Then they ask you to put your principles on the shelf and “work for the good of the party.” The party cannot be redeemed. It started in the late 1970s to embrace business and it will not let that cash cow go.
Better to make a huge show of leaving the party. Hey you can always change your mind. We get the gay community to leave. We get the Latino/Latina community who took to the streets in the millions to register independent. We get rank and file labor to do it. Then somebody smart and charismatic will jump to the front of that campaign and “lead it”.
The movement must be formed first and somebody will want to lead such a large and powerful group.
OBAMA! Will you LEAD US now?
Hi cbl2, I couldn’t agree more. I’m nor suggesting we not work with non-charismatic, but hard-working, faithful, and effective progressives. In fact, they’re often much more trustworthy than the flashy ones. What I was suggesting is that we need a tip for the spear, someone whose rhetoric can lead the way, and bring people to our cause. Grayson may be that man, the public face of the Party of the People in Congress, or at least in the House.
Hi mm, I know that you know that its awfully hard to get new parties on the ballot. It seems to me we can make a huge show of organizing a bloc of progressive Democrats in each state within the Party, run progressive candidates and try to take over each Party State-by-State. That may be easier than getting by the third-party barrier, and it has the advantage that a nationwide progressive bloc organized State-by-State represents a continuing threat of splitting from the Democratic Party, which is likely to pull it to the left.
Don’t think so. He seems to be intent on creating the third term of Bill Clinton. If I’d thought he might do this, I’d have voted for the real thing.
Margot Kidder and I are having this discussion right now. She wants to continue in party politics and work to sign people up for Progressive Democrats of America. But I think the Democratic brand is permanently damaged. It is thoroughly corrupt. And progressives are sooooo white and middle class and pointy headed. Without the oomph and muscle of labor, we don’t scare anybody….unless…..unless…you are right…..Grayson leads us and does his Werewolf thing and bites chickens’ heads off before his speeches. We need scary dudes and dames not well meaning bunny huggers. Dr. Paul can help too. He can come in all bloody and righteous.
mm, the history of the Democratic Party suggests that it has many periods where it didn’t scare anybody and then many periods of renewal where it did.
Remember, Jefferson was very leftish in the context of his time, but then the Democratic-Republicans became increasingly conservative, as people left the Federalist Party to join them. Then Andy Jackson founded the Modern Democratic Party in a period of leftist renewal, but inside of 12 years the dynamism was gone again, and didn’t re-appear until the days of populism in the 1890s, and progressivism a bit later on.
Then the 1920s saw a relatively conservative Democratic Party again, until the depression called it back to its historic mission and drove it to the left. It remained leftish until the days of Jimmy Carter, and has gotten further and further from the position of the Party of the People since that time.
Nevertheless, if the behavior lies dormant, the ideology is still there, waiting to be adapted to present-day conditions and to renew the Party. We can use that Ideology, and call the Democratic Party back to its historic mission. The people need us now, they need the social and economic justice and the greater equality and community we can bring. We can start another party, sure. Or we can keep trying to take back our own. We are the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, Bryan, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, LBJ, and Teddy Kennedy, I don’t think we ought to let that go. We need to make it the Party of the People once again.
I knew that about you :D, just took the opportunity of your diary to think aloud ’bout something been rolling around in my head for a few weeks now.
and I luvvvv that Dylan quote
Thanks, I’m really curious to know what’s rolling around inside your head. Looking forward to a diary on it.
I sent a FAX to the White House and asked that. Didn’t get an answer.
your previous dedication to the Party gives your ‘splitter’ advocacy great credibility.
a show of splitting must be made, but individuals can always quietly vote (D) in the booth based on their own situations, politically, psychologically, whatever.
Progressivism, or devotion to principles like peace, the environment, and social justice, does not equal an arranged marriage to the Democratic Party.
The ‘primary them all’ tendency is like a snipe hunt – it’s purpose is not to find a real snipe, but to get the kids exhausted and keep them out of real mischief until dinnertime, when its “oh well, nice try, the incumbent won (as we knew they would) now lets Unite again, better luck next time, don’t forget to always vote (D), no matter what!”
at some level in the Party they surely know this, and advocate this tendency as a pressure valve strategy, known to be harmless.
Then there are some overeager older kids who actually believe they will get a real Snipe, and get busy organizing the younger kids with phrases like “more and better Snipes!!!” and fantasize about how they will be lauded as heros when they come back, snipe in hand, and how great everything will be.
and most kids will simply take direction, and go with the flow of their milieu, and beat around the bush and get sweaty and have a big dinner and sleep well, fine.
my position is that of a troublesome, miniature cynic who is saying to the counselors “you only want us to go in the woods on a snipe hunt so you can make out with the hot female counselor, there is no such thing as a snipe, and if there was we couldn’t catch it with lassos and butterfly nets anyway.”
a most unwelcome camper, from the position of those in authority, and from those who simply go along with the herd.
but the political situation in this country is serious enough that its most caring, empathic, aware, politically involved citizens should not be wasting their time with the snipe hunt of trying to reform the terminally corrupt Democratic machine from within!
recognize when you are being sent on a diverting, pointless, and harmless mission, and that real work needs to be done elsewhere.
(hint – the whole health
careinsurance reform debacle is an illustrative example. the powers that be successfully diverted many ‘progressives’ away from Single Payer and into the quicksand of ‘public option’ advocacy, where they can flounder away without making any progress towards real reform.)[pebkac. silly stupid duplicate comment deleted.]
If co chairs Grijalva and Woolsey have done what I think they’ve done, it is time for us to find our way to work with them (whether they are charismatic or not).
any politician who will do what it takes to enact the will of the [preferably lefty!] voters is charismatic in my eyes. what is it that you think they may have done? do tell!
spork, You may be right that the Democratic Party is beyond reform and so a snipe hunt is useless. But you also may be wrong. In any case, I think some will split and some stay aboard, and that’s alright, we don’t all have to do the same thing. What is important is that we don’t pre-compromise and sell out what we’re working for. For those who stay with the Democratic Party, a strong third party progressive movement can only help us.
absolutely! cheers to that, lets. many respond rather more emotionally to such notions, and its great that you can see the pluses and minuses.
an authentic political formation on the left flank of the (D) party would give those inside terrific leverage to say “work with us, give us a bone, do the right thing, give us something to use against those who say there’s barely a dimes worth of difference, etc”
there’s a possibility of a virtuous cycle being formed, where a loud, authentic Left voice proclaims what is needed, and doesn’t compromise, but works with those in the (D) party and helps them hold firm, but can settle for a middle ground when needed.
it is one path to a revitalization of the (D) Party, but ironically a real break has to be made by many, first.
the whole dynamic of the Left ‘having nowhere else to go” has led us to some dire straits, and that dynamic is not going to change all by itself.
spork, the populist and progressive movements outide the Democratic Party helped to revitalize it in the period before the New Deal. Later, the Liberal Party in New York State politics also pulled the Democratic Party to the left, since Liberals would occasionally support Republicans like Jack Javits or John Lindsay against machine Democrats. Also, many Democrats there, ran with dual endorsements from both the Democrats and the Liberals, when they also supported Liberal Party policies.
agreed. but try telling that to Pheonix Woman someday.
The New Deal is always cited as a heyday for the (D)’s but their accomplishments then were made possible in part by the serious dissatisfaction that was finding other means of expression.
the dual endorsement thing is also great.
spork, there are different kinds of politics.
A lot of folks here are real good at understanding inside politics and even how to move what’s going on inside, by building some activism outside. But when it comes to understanding mass movements and their interactions with parties in times of trouble, I wonder if they really do understand that?