I know this will be an unpopular question, but...

[Meldread]

...I am going to ask it anyway.

Question: Am I the only individual who thinks Alan Grayson attempts to pander way too much?

I know he's popular here, and don't get me wrong. I like a little pandering now and then, but I don't get the feeling that he has actual conviction behind his words. The impression I get from listening to and watching Alan Grayson speak is that he wants an audience. He wants to be "popular" and therefore is saying what he thinks we want to hear.

It's not his words that bother me, if judged purely on that I'd have little problem with him. It's one of attitude, personality, and intentions. Today he was interviewed by Tweety, and although Chris did his usual shout-over-you type of interview, he did manage to expose Grayson (in my view) for what I saw him as. The issue of reconciliation came up. Tweety has a background on Capital Hill, having been a staff member of several Democratic Congressmen, including a top aide to former Speaker Tip O'Neill. Having also done my own research on reconciliation, I knew that Tweety was speaking the truth when he was explaining to Grayson what it could and could not do. Grayson, on the other hand, was obviously clueless and ultimately just mumbled out some comment about not being part of the Senate. Tweety then hit him with a low blow (that was uncalled for) telling him something like, "Yeah, and that's why you're not a Senator."

Anyway, Chris also brought up another point that was telling in the Grayson interview. He kept asking if he had spoken to any Senators about getting a bill passed, especially through reconciliation. Grayson never said he spoke to any Senators and kept trying to dodge the question, making it pretty clear that he hadn't spoken to anyone in the other house of congress.

Yet, in the end Grayson also "predicted" that we'd see a healthcare bill in the next 30 days. :wtf:

I'm not a huge fan of Chris Matthews, especially recently. So this isn't any props for him, but I do think it was an Emperor has no clothes moment for Grayson. The interview is about to be reaired on MSNBC. If anyone else gets a chance to watch it let me know what you think.

I know Grayson is like the equivalent of Sarah Palin for some on DU... so I'm going to go put on my flame resistant suit. :P

[notadmblnd]

1. you can always check his voting record

from there you should be able to decide if he is a man of conviction or just pandering. No?

[Meldread]

8. I understand that, I don't doubt he's a liberal. Don't get me wrong.

It's the... passion. The attempt to be / look like a populist.

It's more of a gut feeling. I'm not slamming him because I think he's a fraud, per-say. I believe that he's a good liberal, and if I were in his district I'd vote for him. It just feels like he's trying to act a certain way, in hopes of gaining support.

To give a comparison, you know how John McCain shifted the way he acted slightly when he wanted to run for President? He attempted to paint himself as some type of right wing populist. John McCain is no moderate (despite how the media would like to paint him), and he is firmly on the right - but he was never a populist.

It's kinda like how someone who is religious is forced to act overtly religious in public. They look uncomfortable. That's the vibe I'm getting from him, and as a result I feel like he's pandering to me - he's saying what he thinks I want to hear.

[timeforpeace]

17. Does he play the liberal heartstrings like Itzhak Perlman? Yes, yes he does.

[bigwillq]

2. I am not as passionate a supporter of Grayson

as some here, but I do admire a freshman Congressman from a traditionally Republican district for standing up to the status quo as much as he has his first term. Good for him. We need more like him.

[fascisthunter]

3. His Voting Records Looks Pretty Good to Me

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=68184

[cali]

4. I have the same feeling about Grayson as you do

[AndyA]

5. Agree with you on Matthews. He won't shut up and let people answer the question he asked them.

I think Grayson's deal is that he's new. And I gather he's not the kind of person who likes being told to sit down, shut up, and behave as the rest of us do. I think he chooses his own road to take, and by doing so has bristled a few other more established House members.

I don't know how often members of one house deal directly with members of the other house. I can see where that might make things confusing, if everyone is doing something different and Pelosi and Reid aren't aware of everything (or can't keep track of everything), I can see why things take so long to get done.

I just think Grayson marches to his own tune, and isn't going to allow anyone else to tell him how he must do something. And I find that refreshing. He's stood up to the establishment, and that takes guts. Guts I wish a few other Dems would find.

I don't have a problem with him, he seems to say a lot of the things I believe I would say if I were in the House and had the chance.

[Meldread]

11. I agree.

I agree with what he has to say, and I also believe that he's a liberal. I have no doubt that he's fairly well aligned with the left, and that's why if I had the opportunity I'd vote for him.

But when I watch him speak, I always get the feeling that he looks uncomfortable. Let me give a comparison. You know how there are some religious people out there who don't wear it on their sleeve? I mean, they go to church and everything, but they don't really talk about it publicly. Then they're put into a position where they have to be all fire and brimstone. They have to speak about their faith, they have to try and rile up the the Christian Soldiers and whatnot... and they totally look uncomfortable. It then comes off as if they lack conviction, that they're saying what they think the 'Christian Soldiers' want to hear.

That's kinda the vibe I'm getting from Grayson.

[AndyA]

16. I just watched the Matthews-Grayson "interview" again.

Matthews just beat up on Grayson.

He wouldn't shut up to let Grayson answer his questions, and he was very antagonistic toward Grayson. I think Grayson knows what a piece of work Matthews is, and probably didn't want to be on his show at all, other than he knows he needs to do it to get the word out.

Grayson is different on other shows. You'd see a different Grayson on Olbermann or Maddow's show.

Matthews really makes me sick. One of the all-time worst interviewers/hosts on television...EVER. Rachel Maddow could teach Matthews a lot, and I'm pretty sure he thinks he knows more than she does. (Rachel could run circles around Chris without even getting out of her chair.)

[Meldread]

19. Agreed, I'm a huge fan of Rachel Maddow .

I rarely watch Hardball or Countdown anymore, but I ALWAYS tune in to see Rachel. She's must see TV for me. :P

[panader0]

6. I watched it earlier

and Tweety didn't give Grayson time to pander or anything else. Tweety asks a question, then gives whoever no chance at all to respond. Whatever your opinion of Grayson, Tweety made him look good by being a complete asshole.

[OHdem10]

7. I find it interesting that everytime we get a Democrats with guts

and a spine, we are ready to assist the Media in destroying him.

[JuniperLea]

13. No shit...

Sad.

[Canuckistanian]

9. A fair question

But Grayson has NEVER strayed too far from the truth, unlike some other GOP leaders opposite him.

Sure, Grayson's rhetoric has sometimes put him in the same class as Kucinich, but so what?

He's getting press. And that ain't bad.

[Edweird]

10. Your concern is duly noted.

[JuniperLea]

12. So what if he is?

If he walks the same line he talks, more power to him. The day his voting record fails to match the bravado, then I'll question his motives. To do so before that time is more than a little disingenuous. He's smart to ride the wave others refuse to try. And if the progressive mind-set or agenda is "populist" all the better.

[ThomWV]

14. Hard to find a Politician who isn't pandering or condescending. Some worse than others.

Him I can live with.

[ThomWV]

15. Hard to find a Politician who isn't pandering or condescending. Some worse than others.

Him I can live with.

[Meldread]

Okay, I just watched the interview again...

...and picked up on some things I didn't notice the first time through.

If anyone has spent any amount of time studying what reconciliation can and cannot do, then they know Grayson had no idea what he was talking about. The bill the Senate passed is not going to get done through reconciliation.

What Grayson should have said, and in the future should say, is that Harry Reid needs to grow a pair of balls. He needs to point out that despite the filibuster rule in the Senate, they still only need 51 votes to pass legislation. He should commit himself to dragging the bill as far to the left as possible, that can at least get 52 or 53 votes in the Senate and pass the House. Once that's done, Harry Reid can let the Republican's and DINO's filibuster. Let them shut the government down. Let them hold the floor 24/7 for as long as it takes until one of two things happens.

1. The Republicans give up and end the filibuster.
2. Enough Democrats decide to end the filibuster and use the nuclear option.

Once the nuclear option is used, it kills the filibuster, allowing 51 Senators to pass the legislation.

This knocks out some of the most conservative Democrats like Lieberman and Nelson from the process.

That is what Grayson SHOULD HAVE said.

[seabeyond]

18. the first time he took on repugs was a thumbs up. since he has gone too far with snipes

over all i like the guy. i appreciate and value what he is doing. i would like him to be less catty though

[Meldread]

21. Agreed.

I guess my issue is that I'm naturally skeptical of ANYONE in ANY position of power or authority. Therefore, my intent to scrutinize is far higher than most people. I see it as a healthy trait to have when it comes to evaluating politicians.

[kristopher]

20. Matthews was WRONG on the FACTS

The Byrd Rule provides a litmus test for reconciliation; health care as 15% of the economy and an integral part of the federal budget, seems to pass this test.

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

1. if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
2. if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3. if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4. if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
5. if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
6. if it recommends changes in Social Security.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29

[EmeraldCityGrl]

22. He's a bit of a smartass

but that's one of the things I like about him. Also he'll be able to get away with things a more

"distinguished" politician can't.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. No, the problem is that he is so unusual in the party.

Anyone who panders to the poor is okay with me.

[slampoet]

24. Funny how defending the rights of people who aren't his constituents is called pandering.

Looking glass? We passed through that miles ago.

[gimama]

25. I agree..Tweety is obnoxious..

& many times Grayson 'rubs me the wrong way'..
Reminds me of how I often felt about John Edwards..
I'd LOVE what he had to say, ORIGINAL ideas, pro-poor & working people..
but somehow, it just seemd insincere, sometimes.."trying TOO hard".
I feel that way watching Grayson, although I usually really like his position on most things, his opinions(the dick) and activism(petitions, etc).

I also agree that at this point in time,
it is HEALTHY to trust Your Instincts,when it comes to 'elected employees'..
In fact, it's a matter of survival.
Thanks for raising the question & sharing Your insights.

[kudzu22]

26. Well, he IS a politician after all

You might as well blame water for being wet. His voting record is what matters.

[spanone]

27. pander to whom? i think he speaks his mind.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Damned if they pander, damned if they don't.

So what's new with you apart from the usual?

[Grand Taurean]

29. Grayson is fighting the status quo and you don't like that?

I also take offense to this Palin comparison.
Grayson has a strong intellectual capacity, Sarah does not. :thumbsdown:

[Usrename]

30. I am pretty sure that he is the real deal.

He is passionate about the issues, that much is clear, and he has a palpable dislike for the Republican assholes that are fucking it up for everyone.

[applegrove]

31. He's like Jon Stewart in that he actually says what is on many people's mind.

I don't know him well but he seems to hit the nail on the head quite often. Can't see anything wrong with that.

[Fumesucker]

32. Who is Grayson pandering to in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lomfyIE60I8

[Raineyb]

33. You've got a problem with Grayson? What he's not milquetoast enough for you?

Too much spine? In case you hadn't noticed we don't have enough people speaking up for Democratic ideas. And you don't like him because he what talks about poverty and other things that most politicians make noises about but don't actually try to do a damn thing about.

What foolishness this OP is.

:thumbsdown:

[ddeclue]

34. I am a personal friend of this man. He's been to my house. I've been to his.

I even drove him around to some of his campaign events in 2008.

He is NOT pandering.

He doesn't have to do anything in politics.

His life would be so much easier and simpler if he could sit back and live the rest of his life comfortably without ever working again.

OR

He could continue to practice law to keep himself entertained.

He certainly didn't have to spend 2.5 MILLION dollars of his personal fortune and put up with all the personal attacks and abuse he's had to take since deciding to run for Congress.

He certainly is making a big sacrifice (but won't say it publicly) having to leave his wife and five kids and travel to Washington 4, 5, or more days a week when he doesn't have to. Those are days he can never get back but he does it because he feels he has a duty to try to stop the people who have been hijacking our democracy.

He did it because he was pissed off at the useless do nothing Republican who held the job before him and at the Republicans in general for how they've been screwing average people over and he genuinely believes that he had the responsibility to do something about it and he had the means to do it.

In short, he's not pandering - he just isn't afraid to speak the truth - he's his own man, he isn't owned (or rented) like so many of our Congress-critters and isn't planning on a post Congressional career as a lobbyist because he simply doesn't need the money. At 31 million dollars, he's the 12th richest man in Congress.

If only we had a lot more guys like Alan who weren't afraid to take on the corporatocracy and stand up for what was right - especially in the Senate, we could actually get something done. Right now I think there are really only a few: Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich, Al Franken, Anthony Weiner and Barney Franks that I really put into that "fearless" category.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[donheld]

35. Tell him many of us really appreciate all he does.