Grayson Openly Critical of DCCC Strategy

by

Posted by Bob Lord

If you want a refreshing change from the typical mumbo jumbo from elected pols, check out this video from Alan Grayson. 

It's a little remarkable that even Alan Grayson would speak so frankly about the subject of Democrats not being Democrats, but he does in this video. He pretty much says that progressives need to stop contributing to the Democratic Party, because the party (the DCCC) supports the wrong candidates. I wonder how Steve Israel will handle that. 

Sorry, I'm a bit technologically challenged and couldn't post the video, but here's the link. Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aSASFHnSvgQ#action=share

I wonder if Grayson hangs out much with Arizona's three freshmen. 

3 thoughts on “Grayson Openly Critical of DCCC Strategy”

  1. I think Alan Grayson is a true progressive, which we need more of in AZ, especially in the 9th CD

  2. Brian, you’re muddling two different and distinct aspects of Grayson’s persona in order to apologize for Arizona’s freshmen. Although I’m not personally offended by Grayson’s statements, you’re correct that calling Bernanke a whore tends to cost votes and very well may have cost him the 2010 election. But then you conflate that with Grayson’s courage to stand by his convictions. That’s wrong. Grayson could take exactly the same positions without the offensive remarks. So, if you yourself believed the offensive remarks played a role in Grayson’s 2010 defeat, you’ve left open the possibility that, sans remarks, he may have successfully defended his seat.

    2010 is a woefully bad example for you to use to prove your point. The Blue Dog caucus went down in flames that year. 2010 was virtually unprecedented as a wave election. Whatever happened that year does not provide the basis for the moral of any story, as you insist.

    You apparently did not watch the video. In the video, the best description for Grayson’s demeanor would be sober. What he said makes a lot of sense, if you listen to it with an open mind.

    If you listened to Grayson, you’d see that he does not, as you suggest, use his vote as a “strategy” to get re-elected. His vote is a reflection of what he stands for. Are Barber’s votes a reflection of what he stands for, or a cynical “strategy” to get re-elected. Do you really think he had to vote for a bill that would cut food stamps for poor kids, which 90% of Democrats voted against, in order to get re-elected?

    Moral of story: When a rep cravenly uses his vote as a strategy for re-election, he’s in trouble.

  3. Bob, I think some background information about Congressman Grayson is in order.

    Here is a link to the 2009 article about his comments calling Ben Bernanke a “whore”: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/03/a_lesson_on_how_not_to_win_re-election_in_floridas_8th_district_98990.html

    It also explains how he won re-election in 2008. What it doesn’t tell you, because it didn’t happen yet, is that he did lose re-election in 2010. See the Wikipedia article on Florida’s 8th congressional district for information on how that occurred.

    Grayson did win election to Congress in 2012 in a new Congressional District, FL’s 9th which according to Cook’s Partisan Voting Index (PVI)has a D+4 rating. By contrast, Ron Barber’s CD 2 has a Cook PVI rating of R+3 as does Ann Kirkpatrick’s CD 1. Sinema’s 9th CD has a Cook PVI of R+1.

    Moral of story: Being an outspoken millionaire attorney may get you elected once in a GOP District when you can ride the coattails of a charismatic candidate (Obama). But it won’t get you re-elected in that district. Instead you need to be in a district which leans Democratic. Neither Barber, nor Kirkpatrick nor Sinema are millionaires to my knowledge. Nor do they come from a Democratic leaning district. Their circumstances are different from Grayson’s. Their strategies need to be different as well.

Comments are closed.