Alan Grayson supports the AIPAC position and is against the Iran deal

[karynnj]

His statement is FAR worse than anything Schumer has said. Hillary is far far better. So, I hope everyone who was angry at Schumer or wanted HRC to be even clearer than she was when she spoke in support of the plan will reconsider their support of this incredibly flawed person.

Yes, I know that "he" posts in DU -- if that is what dropping campaign fundraisers with many many blue lines that lead to his contribution page is called. I would wait until he posts again to ask why, but he has NEVER responded to anything written.

Here is the Daily Kos diary on this with his quotes. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/10/1376887/-Does-Alan-Grayson-Want-War-With-Iran

All I can say is that Grayson is NOT a progressive - not if it would anger AIPAC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. ...

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. This is what I remember about Anthony Weiner. "Progressive", but only up to a point.

This makes me sick, Mr. Grayson.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I support the president...That being said this is a teachable moment...

Folks are complicated and politicians are no exception.

I was never a Grayson supporter nor detractor so I will be interested to see how this thread develops...

[Reter]

18. Unfortunately for them, their religion comes first

They are fairly religious, and highly support Israel because of that.

[dsc]

20. Weiner represented his constituents on this matter

I don't know what Grayson's district is like but Weiner's was very pro Israel and still is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. His district is no more or less Israel than most districts...

Certainly not like Weiners...It's Central Florida, after all...

[JI7]

32. but listening to weiner i think he actually holds those pro israel views himself

[madokie]

3. It appears the man has jumped the shark for sure

I'd like to see him come back here and defend his actions but I doubt he will. Sometimes I wonder if we were only being used by him for support back when he was posting here.
I remember when I was caught up in it all and would have liked to see him run for the oval office but not so sure of that anymore

[karynnj]

9. I never was a fan, because he always went too far for me -- but he lost me completely

when he ran an ad in his election against Webster in 2010. Webster was as bad a tea partier as I can remember and he was very anti women. Grayson's team made an ad that he endorsed that spoke of his opponent speaking in a very negative way on women's basic rights -- however the audio of his opponent was edited including only part of the sentence - where the full sentence actually made Webster look reasonable.

This angered me because I hate this and I hate it no matter which side did it. I remember in 2004 where the RW took Kerry's sentence that was about what the soldiers at the winter soldier hearing testified to - starting midsentence as if Kerry was personally making the accusations. Not only that, the Senate was given the transcripts that included the ids of the men speaking and every crime he spoke of was on the tape. (In fact, Kerry had that intense eentence because he was called to speak of those hearings -- and instead used his time to demand they help the veterans and to end the war.

However, the RW has a far better echo chamber than we do - almost immediately they had the full sentence and were playing it on all the RW stations. This was a winnable seat and Grayson had lucked out getting an extreme opponent - now gerrymandered into a safer seat - and it might have been this lack of character that lost it.

[Politicalboi]

5. I pledge allegiance to AIPACS flag

So sad to hear this. Maybe this is his crazy period. He fought with his ex-wife to expose his dirty laundry, and now he sides with the GOP.

[RobertEarl]

6. He is not perfect? OMG

He's about as close to perfect as we've seen in congress. And lets not forget the old saying: "Politics makes for strange bedfellows"

[karynnj]

12. I guess we all have to have our own values and metrics - he was NEVER near perfect to me nt

[RobertEarl]

14. Because he was against invading Syria?

[karynnj]

24. No - because he had a slimeball ad and now is for a policy that is likely to lead to

war with Iran.

[1939]

7. Back in the day

Party politicians were not expected to be "pure" in everything to avoid being thrown under the bus. You might have a congressman that would fight to the death for labor rights or universal medical care, but who might be wrong on other issues. You worked with him on the areas where you agreed, but understood where he would part company with you. Whether or not he was an ally depended on the "whole man" concept and not on his opposition to one issue.

[freshwest]

23. True, but this is only a political message board where we come to learn what the media is saying.

It's a two edged sword, and it's not necessarily the sword of truth we're hearing. Grayson has been great for soundbytes, but largely marginalized.

I'm not pro or con, well - wait, a little bit more pro as at times he says what others won't. Some good posts have been made by - not him, I doubt that - but his staff, and they always seem to ask for donations. Those go to DPA and not his own campaign, AFAIK.

Although I rec'd the thread as it may give more nuance to who is against what and why. Alan is Jewish. That doesn't mean that is why he seems to be attached at the hip to AIPAC. And there is NO 'control' of the American government by Jews, I can't ever go that road as the facts don't bear that out. But it still may be a personal issue for him. I don't know what's in his heart.

Neither do I buy all the attacks directed at AIPAC at various online sites. At times I feel I am reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, just muted, or from people who don't know the history... or more than likely, have not thought what it means. One has to ask oneself, where does the emotion come from that Jews are so powerful that they must be evil. Note, I am not talking about the OP author or any other DUers.

An example of a defection from an AIPAC appeal, found past supporters of AIPAC leaving the fold for one issue at least:

The Senate is warning Palestinians against undertaking any “negative” unilateral actions re Israel at the United Nations, and look who isn’t signing on to the letter that AIPAC has endorsed: Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Folks have been pressing Warren and her staffers not to sign this letter – and she didn’t. Neither did Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Maybe the national publicity and pressure on these progressives over their Israel-Palestine positions moved them? Here are the 12 non-signers, from both parties:

Bernard Sanders (I), Bob Corker (R), Elizabeth Warren (D), Harry Reid*, Jeff Sessions (R), John D. Rockefeller IV*, Lisa Murkowski (R), Patrick J. Leahy* (D), Rand Paul (R), Tammy Baldwin (D), Tom Coburn (R), Tom Harkin* (D).

(*Majority leader/ senior committee chairs who don’t usually subscribe to these things)

Who was in support of the AIPAC appeal? Interesting list of those who sent a letter that did sound pretty reasonable in a certain way of looking at things to SoS John Kerry asking help:

Kelly A. Ayotte
Robert P. Casey, Jr.
James M. Inhofe
Richard Blumenthal
Susan M. Collins
Edward J. Markey
Mike Crapo
Joe Manchin III
Pat Roberts
Jeanne Shaheen
Jeff Flake
Tim Kaine
David Vitter
Michael F. Bennet
John Boozman
Kirsten Gillibrand
John Thune
Tim Johnson
Jerry Moran
Debbie Stabenow
Roy Blunt
Patty Murray
John McCain
Kay R. Hagan
James E. Risch
Mark Begich
Marco Rubio
Ron Wyden
Patrick J. Toomey
Barbara Boxer
Dean Heller
Benjamin L. Cardin
John Barrasso
Mark Udall
Richard Burr
Mazie K. Hirono
Lindsey O. Graham
Brian Schatz
Mitch McConnell
Amy Klobuchar
Thad Cochran
Heidi Heitkamp
Deb Fischer
Jon Tester
John Cornyn
Sherrod Brown
Rob Portman
Mark L. Pryor
Michael B. Enzi
Barbara A. Mikulski
Mark Kirk
Maria Cantwell
Lamar Alexander
Martin Heinrich
Orrin G. Hatch
Mary L. Landrieu
Tim Scott
Tom Udall
Roger F. Wicker
Tom Carper
John Hoeven
Charles E. Schumer
Mike Lee
Joe Donnelly
Chuck Grassley
Al Franken
Ted Cruz
Christopher A. Coons
Johnny Isakson
Sheldon Whitehouse
Mike Johanns
Cory Booker
Ron Johnson
Carl Levin
Saxby Chambliss
Bill Nelson
Dan Coats
Mark R. Warner
Richard Shelby
Angus S. King, Jr.
Claire McCaskill
John Walsh
Richard J. Durbin
Chris Murphy
Robert Menendez
Jack Reed
Dianne Feinstein
Jeff Merkley

That's from this website, which I am not familiar with:

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/elizabeth-sanders-bandwagon

As far as Israel getting aid, there is more than one government in the world that depends heavily on American largress. This is only natural in a nation of emigrants and many feel deeply about their ancestral roots. It's part of American tradition.

IMO, the allegations of bias for Israel are unfairly applied to Jewish groups as the problem is really the batshit contingent of Protestant Christians who are very conservative and support a military approach. They demand lock step adherence to whatever the ultraconservative Netanyahu administration in Israel wants.

AFAIK, Israelis don't believe the right wing Americans with their praise and pious declarations of allegiance for Israel. That brand of christianity (I won't honor it with capitalization) doesn't leave any room for the survival of the Jewish people in their Apocalyptic fantasies.

JMHO... I'd appreciate your opinion on mine.

[1939]

36. Sorry it took a while to respond

I do not paint all of the GOP/right into a single monolithic bloc on this matter. Their support for Israel is a mix of the following motives:

1. For the real biblical literalists, they see the return of the Jews to Israel as a necessary step to bring on the end of times.

2. For the more mainstream evangelicals, they see the Israelis as a part of a common Judeo-Christian community tradition which they do not consider the Arabs to be a part of.

3. For the jingoists, they see the Israelis as sharing an anti-Arab post 9-11 cause.

4. For the GOP technocrats, they see supporting Israel as a chance to peel off some of the reliable Democratic Jewish vote (and supporting money).

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. His refusal to take a stand agaisnt war so he can get donations from those who

oppose nogotiating with Iran is telling.

If he votes with Republicans to kill the negotiaions, he houls change party, because he will be dead to me.

[m-lekktor]

10. yes, i received an email request from the guy who makes documentaries for Brave New World

to sign a petition calling Grayson out for this. It surprised me his position on this issue.

on edit: I was wrong I just checked my email apparently it is Moveon. not sure i thought it was the other guy! lol

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/alangrayson-stand-with?mailing_id=28604&sou

[still_one]

11. grayson is going no where, and Hillary made it very clear that she supports the Iran deal. However,

I will NOT give Schumer a free pass, because he is trying to sabotage the deal

[rhett o rick]

13. In the quote from Rep Grayson it appears that he disagrees with AIPAC.

Grayson: "Well, AIPAC has issued a statement saying that they're in favor of an attack." He never said in the quote given that he favored "an attack".

Grayson: "People are against it. They're adamantly against it...So, any organization, like AIPAC or otherwise, cannot operate effectively in the environment that we're in, where the public is speaking and speaking very loudly." Still don't see where he said he supported the AIPAC position.

Help me out, I must be missing something.

[RobertEarl]

15. Oh NO! Facts!!

Facts contrary to the OP's position? Oh noes!!

Grayson was against invading Syria, too.

[Dragonfli]

16. Very disappointing - edited, the OP is full of crap, the link was down so I couldn't check it out

But Rhett set the record straight.

On Edit, it appears the OP is just plain bullshit as pointed out by Rhett. I should have known better.

Hey OP, what is your motive here?

[geek tragedy]

17. Fake antiwar blowhard. nt

[leveymg]

19. Sorry. War with Iran is not a progressive position, no matter how beholden to AIPAC one is.

It's not easy to be a Florida Democrat, sometimes.

[leveymg]

21. This OP is simply an amusement by RWers - to watch who tosses whom under the Left side of the bus.

And to give us the false impression that Hillary is just another liberal with regard to Iran.

[GoneFishin]

22. I don't see the staunch position indicated in the OP, but IF it turned out that he sided with the

Republicans and blew the Iran deal then my very positive sentiments about Alan Grayson would be replaced with a sentiment of "fuck you".

[BainsBane]

25. He represents a district in Florida

I expect he is voicing the views of his constituents.

[JI7]

27. no, it's his own view

for all the attacks on schumer and debbie wasserman shultz for their views in this area grayson can be far worse.

but because he throws out some red meat he gets a pass.

[rhett o rick]

28. Please give a quote indicating he is for war or against the Obama framework. Show us how

Grayson is far worse.

[BainsBane]

29. I don't like the guy

I don't like how he treated his wife. But he's not my rep. so I don't need to like him. However, I can tell you that Democrats from areas with large Jewish populations that tend to align with AIPAC are going to take similar positions.

[JI7]

31. i'm pretty sure his district does not

have a large jewish population .

i also think ameircan jewish support for aipac and other right wing positions which align with netanyahu are overrated. in the case of people like schumer or grayson i do believe they actually do support those views themseslves .

most of the supporters are republicans who don't represent many jewish people but large right wing christian populations and they are the ones they are following.

[BainsBane]

33. That could also be so

Certainly I know all American Jews don't support AIPAC, but my sense from having lived in S Florida is that such views are strong there.

[AgingAmerican]

30. Injecting your personal dislike for the man

...into your post is a huge TELL. It tells us you have an AGENDA.

[BainsBane]

34. Like busting your bubble

That yet another politician might be human rather than divine?

[karynnj]

35. I would assume you didn't read the link

Because do was down. It was co posted on Huffington post had you used Google to see his position.

He is FUNDRAISING using being against the deal saying it is just kicking the can down the road. This is likely another of his rambling posts with blue links to give him money.

I mentioned he posted here because there are some who would think that gives him status and every negative comment is labeled a personal attack.

I saw few defend Schumer and I saw some attack HTC even though she was positive and it is something she deserves some credit for. Amazing that criticizing this guy for anything is off limits.

To me, the position is wrong and not explained in any thoughtful way AND he is sending it out to fundraise. It is hard to find more clear cut pandering.

[rhett o rick]

37. I read the link and searched the intertubes but haven't seen anything that

indicates he supports AIPAC over the President on this issue. I don't know the truth about this but so far I've seen nothing from him indicating what you are accusing him of.

You say "His statement is FAR worse than anything Schumer has said. " What statement? Why didn't you put the statement in your OP. If this is the statement:

"From what I see, that deal is not this deal," Grayson said Friday in a phone interview. "[It's] a classic example of, let's kick the can down the road."

This means very little without context.

I don't know that Rep Grayson sides with AIPAC or not, but this article does not provide any indication, other than the author's opinion, that Rep Grayson supports AIPAC.

[rhett o rick]

38. I don't know how Rep Grayson stands with AIPAC on this issue but this

article by Robert Naiman is horrible journalism at best and a hatchet job at worse. It provides no quotes from the representative indicating he supports AIPAC on this issue. Again, I don't know the truth here, but I do know that there are powerful people that would like to neutralize this man.