Lawrence O'Donnell absolutely DESTROYED Rep. Alan Grayson last night!!

[BluegrassDem]

I actually felt sorry for Alan. If you go on Lawrence's show, you better come with the right stuff. Alan Grayson was left speechless! It was really something to behold.

[napi21]

1. For the firs time I've seen Alan not knowing the facts.

He's usually very informed and right on his arguments, but tonight he failed on several Iissues. I love Alan, but he screwed up tonight, and it wasn't only Lawrence there were tow other guests who pointed out that Alan was just wrong.

[CakeGrrl]

2. Sounds like he touched some sore spots

Based on a couple of other threads from people who viewed it quite differently, the criticism was for O'Donnell being "rude" and "disrespectful". He also earned some "I won't watch him again" and "What does he know?" reactions. Nerves must have been struck the way the President did for those who found him "arrogant" and "condescending".

There's a level of hypersensitivity here that makes a true discourse impossible.

It doesn't help that he challenged a well-regarded hero of DU. Not saying that Grayson isn't a good guy, but he doesn't have all the answers, and it's just not realistic to hold someone up as a sacred cow impervious to criticism or incapable of being wrong from time to time (hello Olbermann and Maddow).

[Union Scribe]

3. "it's just not realistic to hold someone up as a sacred cow impervious to criticism"

RIP Irony
1502-2010

[CakeGrrl]

8. No, I do not count adjectives such as

"small", "pathetic", "weak", "wimp", or proclamations such as "I hope Obama goes to hell" or "fuck Obama" as valid criticism of the President. And in a couple of cases, those are flat-out rule violations.

This has gone on for a long time. People either do not grasp the difference between criticism and insult, or they willfully ignore it to get their words into the fray.

Go ahead and say that tax cuts for the rich suck. They DO. And the President thinks so too, by the way.

But the focus needs to be on POLICY, not individuals.

[Skittles]

14. the policy stinks, and the "leadership" is non-existent

how's that?

[CakeGrrl]

15. A little more elaborative than "Obama sucks", I'll give you that. n/t

[Skittles]

39. it all adds up to the same result

:thumbsdown:

[golfguru]

50. K&R

[farmboxer]

4. O'Donnell has been siding with Obama's Republican beliefs

lately. Nothing he can do to make me not respect Grayson, a true American hero.

[Egnever]

5. You think that was his intent?

To make you disrespect grayson?

[phleshdef]

7. He has been siding with reason and reality.

He has been siding with preventing the poor from getting a 50% tax increase. I guess those are Republican beliefs now.

[tblue]

9. +1

[CakeGrrl]

11. What does being wrong or underinformed have to do with being disrespected?

They shouldn't be synonymous.

But Grayson is as human as anyone else. Not perfect, not 100% right. NO ONE is.

And having O'Donnell come out with the stronger argument shouldn't cause people to dump on him or flee his show because he dared to challenge a DU hero, but such is the level of discourse on DU these days.

[GutterDandy]

28. I'm dumping on LOD

Because there was no reason outside of personal animosity toward Grayson to flip out on him like that.

Appalling behavior from O'Donnell.

[stray cat]

17. Did you watch any of it? odonnell was stating that the poor faced the largest increase

In percentage tax with the bill. Defending the poor is now a republican value in your book?

[otohara]

32. NYTimes Says....Poor Will Pay More

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20025087-503544.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/us/politics/08impact.html?_r=2

[golfguru]

51. Low earners go from 10% to 15% tax rate....a 50% increase!

LOD was dead on.

[phleshdef]

6. Lawrence wasn't even THAT hard on him. He yelled at him for less than a minute...

...but he gave Grayson plenty of time to speak after that.

You are dead on about the hypersensitivity though. Its the same people that feel like they can make every nasty accusation in the book regarding the President but then nearly go into convulsions if he dare say anything critical back.

[GutterDandy]

24. O' Donnell was out of line whether you agree with him or not

O'Donnell was over the top and over the line.

He really appeared like he had it in for Grayson and was just waiting to lay into him.

Grayson was very composed and handled it better than I would have.

Really, does Lawrence want to take it outside? Sure seems like it.

Bad night for O'Donnell.

[phleshdef]

33. It was his show, he gets to decide where the line is. You don't get to.

[renate]

35. I think you're right

He was WAY over the top. That was no way for him to treat a good person like Alan Grayson.

Welcome to DU!

[gateley]

13. "There's a level of hypersensitivity here that makes a true discourse impossible. "

Boy, spot on, and I'm just as guilty of it as others. Note to self: Knock it off!

:hi:

[AndrewP]

19. I'm guilty as well.

:toast:

[karynnj]

38. It was not so much as "rude", as succincly demanding answers to carefully worded questions

It had the tone of something like an excellent prosecutor - asking a strong question and then pursuing it - correcting factual errors.

I think it is more a sign of the times that this was considered rude. Too many times, partisan talking heads on both sides, soft ball "favorite people on their side. Here, O'Donnell did have an agenda. He wanted to get people to think of the actual alternatives - not the ones that we want, but the ones that we have. But, as you suggest, Maddow and Olberman have an agenda too. I suspect that, for all of us who have tried to follow this closely, it comes down to which might match our own opinion better.

Here, I felt more comfortable with O'Donnell and others who see that there is NO chance of getting 60 votes for what ALL of us would likely prefer. It comes down to deciding which is better for the country -

1) Having nothing pass - leaving people with no unemployment payments and raising taxes on everyone. The latter bothers me far less than the former - so the question is could they pass UI without passing the tax cuts - caving on using stimulus money? Possibly, but then consider the overall impact - the rise of taxes on the working class and middle class would destimulate the economy and we lose the stimutation parts of the compromise.

In addition, how does this play out in 2011? Here's my best guess. In the House, the minority has little ability to define the bill voted on - so, there would be repeated attempts to retroactively pass the full repeal - and it would pass - even if NO Democrats voted for it. In the Senate, do you seriously think that we could find 40 Democrats to repeatedly filibuster it - as the economy declines and as public opinion turns against the people keeping their taxes higher? So, my best guess is that we end up with the Congress passing the entire rollback - possibly permanently (through remember that nothing is really permanent)- and Obama signing it. (Even if you could start with the Senate, could the 53 Democrats do what the 58 failed to do - pass a middle class tax cut only?)

So, I see no way that this plays out better than taking the Obama brokered compromise and trying to improve it - as several Senators are trying to do by adding the renewal of infrastructure bonds - that will stimulate the economy to some degree.

2) Having the compromise - enhanced as much as possible. Here, you are slightly better off than you are today - the rich get about $130 billion (it's 2 years not 10) bonus that they don't need, but unemployment is extended, middle class and working people don't pay more taxes, and the economy gets a few new stimulation programs.

The point is we lose if we take the deficit more seriously than the republicans do. The truly ironic thing is that the republicans have consistently gotten the credit for caring about the deficit - but it is always the Democrats who sacrifice things they want to be "fiscally responsible". This really is NOT a good time to primarily be concerned with the deficit - we have an economy that is not functioning even close to the level it should be at - and you don't cut spending and expect the economy to grow.

But, unfortunately, the debt is becoming so overwhelming that it must be addressed. That will be the time where we will need the Senate to filibuster plans that try to balance the books on the backs of the poor and middle class. The proposals speak of completely changing the tax code. That is a one reason that the current fight is less important than the future one. The restructure will make the Bush tax cuts moot.

I think the choices are awful and that the Democrats badly misplayed this, but I think the President's plan is likely better for the economy, for many of the poor, and for the middle class.

The President had a choice of which promise to break - Not raising the taxes of the middle class Or not rolling back the tax cuts of the rich. Neither choice makes him - or me happy, but I know which makes me less unhappy.

[Cali_Democrat]

42. Uh Oh....now you've done it!

:spank:

[quakerboy]

68. Grayson appeared to be incorect, based on consensus of the guests,

But O'Donnell was definitely rude about it. In a way I have as yet to see a single person on any network bring against a RW'r who was low on facts. Let alone the ones who are flat out lying.

It was the first time I had ever seen his show. Don't have any great drive to ever watch it again, if that is his version of discourse.

[Hello_Kitty]

10. Wonder if Lawrence will address this tomorrow

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/deal-raises-taxes-poorest-earners/

[Syrinx]

12. no, he didn't

He was very rude to Grayson, and they quibbled about semantics. They disagreed on whether taxes on capital gains or dividends (I don't remember which it was) count as "income." And I side with Grayson on that.

[ArcticFox]

48. Are you the only one I agree with?

To me, O'Donnell was taking a very conservative, right-wing view, by comparing only taxes on income generated by labor. Grayson was absolutely right to bring the issue of taxes on capital gains and dividends into the discussion.

O'Donnell's perspective is that of the "landed" or "entitled" class who need to do nothing more than shift their money around the markets or wait for their dividend checks to arrive. These people have always sought to treat their income differently than the income generated by labor.

I believe Grayson was trying to say that taxes on investment income should be the same as taxes on labor income. It's all income for Pete's sake! (Myself, I think labor income, at least the first bit that allows for subsistence, should be taxed at a much lower rate or not taxed at all).

I was pretty much disgusted by that O'Donnell show last night, so much so that I didn't stick around to hear whether he gave Grayson an opportunity to respond. O'Donnell clearly had his questions carefully scripted to try to make Grayson look like a fool and I'm afraid he succeeded, in large part because people don't really understand the issue.

[lamp_shade]

16. Grayson takes way too many risks and too often winds up with egg on his face.

You'd think he'd have learned his lesson by now.

[GutterDandy]

25. Egg on whose face?

The only one with egg on his face after this debacle is O'Donnell.

No reason to carry on like a madman. He was cringeworthy.

[flpoljunkie]

18. O'Donnell was definitely overheated, but he made a great point. It is real people who will suffer.

[GutterDandy]

26. "Real" people

Are still going to suffer if this bill passes.

O'Donnell raving like a lunatic at Grayson was just pathetic.

[NorthCarolina]

44. +1

[flpoljunkie]

47. 'Real' people are going to suffer if the bill does not pass.

[ArcticFox]

49. What is wrong with all the people on this site?

Everybody is perfectly happy that rich people get away with paying only 15% tax on the millions of dollars they earn while barely lifting a finger, while the rest of us have to pretty much slave our lives away and, if we're lucky, pay 25-35% of our income (for which we work excessively hard) in taxes?

What is wrong with all the people posting here?

And talking about pain to "real people," does everybody really think unemployment benefits will be extended again in 13 months without the "real people" having to give up something else and suffer more pain? Does anyone really believe the "temporary" two-year extension of tax cuts in the higher tax brackets won't be revisited again by a more Republican Congress and easily extended another two, four, six, eight, or ten years?

Has everybody lost their mind?

It's like a group of terrorists have been shooting down airliners with their stash of Stinger missiles and we're like "hey, we'll trade you a few nuclear bombs for your Stinger missiles."

Is everyone crazy???

[Bluenorthwest]

20. I saw a host lose control of himself and his airtime

as he ran hell bent to defend his own damn tax breaks. Larry often looks like the non pro he is.

[nashville_brook]

22. Larry is unable to control his temper and it's painful to watch.

[GutterDandy]

23. O'Donnell was embarrassing and out of line

Even if you think O'Donnell was correct, and I don't, there was no reason to go off on Grayson like that.

LOD made it look personal, and that deflated the argument he was making: he just looked like he hated
Grayson more than anything.

I think he owes Grayson an apology for his unprofessional behavior: bet that clip ends up on Jon Stewart's show.

[indimuse]

30. agree! 100%!! nt

[spooky3]

65. I had the same reaction - he just opened the show by apologizing to Grayson

[indimuse]

29. I agree 100% with you..

what the hell was with O'donnell? hm..

[burning rain]

37. Lawrence O'Donnell has been more of a shouter than usual lately.

It doesn't make for good viewing. Seems to me, one Ed Show is enough.

[spooky3]

66. It is one more incident that is convincing me Jon Stewart is correct about this.

[burning rain]

69. What did Stewart have to say about O'Donnell?

I missed that.

[spooky3]

71. nothing about him specifically - just his general (controversial) point

since he appeared on the Begala-Carlson show, that shouting at each other doesn't help Americans sort out the facts.

[burning rain]

75. Thanks for the reply.

Generally I agree with what Stewart said there, though some pyrotechnics do seem necessary to bring in the audience. But, the Begala-Carlson incarnation of Crossfire was really dismal. The earlier Kinsley or Press vs. Buchanan or Novak seasons were pretty informative, while packing enough pyrotechnics to deliver the ratings. CNN have screwed their ratings by becoming all tepid and uncontroversial.

[totodeinhere]

46. It's called passion. It's a cheap shot to say that O'Donnell has taken this position for his own

personal gain. He is better than that.

[ArcticFox]

54. +1

[Clio the Leo]

21. I think he did better with the crew the night before but Lawrence is SPEWING facts...

.... and no one's really refuting him.

[GutterDandy]

27. well..

The fact that he won't let anyone talk when he's in maniac mode probably has something to do with that.

[Ikonoklast]

34. Attack the messenger, ignore the facts.

Welcome, One And All To The New DU.

[vaberella]

31. Is there a video of this anywhere? n/t

[Gator_Matt]

36. Here is a video. O'Donnell did NOT destroy Grayson.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lawrence-odonnell-chides-alan-grayson-over-tax-cuts-be-an-adult-about-this/

O'Donnell came across as a corporate shill and a coward. He was trying to blame Grayson for the behavior of the Republicans, because he didn't have the guts to go after the Republicans themselves. O'Donnell has a loser mindset, just like Obama, and he knows it.

[Ramulux]

52. Exactly

What dont people here understand? Alan Grayson is not the fucking problem, he was arguing in support of poor people and how they would get fucked over in this deal. O'Donnell's main misunderstanding is that apparently this deal is the only choice we ever had and that we should be grateful that we got ANYTHING in return for extending the Bush tax cuts. Its an absurd argument to make, and one that I dont understand how any supposed "liberal" could make.

Put simply Lawrence's argument is "How dare you attempt to hold out for a better deal, dont you realize getting anything for extending the Bush tax cuts is a huge victory? Its a fucking absurd argument to make and one that perfectly shows why democrats constantly get treated like like little kids when it comes to the negotiation process. Republicans know that if the dems get ANYTHING good out of this deal, people like Lawrence will be there to attack people like Grayson who actually want to fight this.

[dave29]

55. O'Donnell is Socialist

nice try.

[molly77]

78. Gator-Matt

Thanks for the clip. I vote O'Donnell destroyed himself. He let his personal feelings take over the dialog and lost his corner on professionalism. Reminds me of John Stewart's Kramer interview.Waay out of line. They both allowed personal feelings to take over. I would never watch O'Donnell after viewing this clip. Had stopped watching Stewart before I let TV go .

[polichick]

40. Unfortunately Lawrence destroyed his own credibility...

He came off as rabid, screaming and accusing and going on and on without letting his guest respond.

Maybe he was worried about his own tax cut.

[indimuse]

43. I think your'e on to something..

;)

[dave29]

56. he's a socialist.

fyi

[martymar64]

70. sure he is, kitten

[ArcticFox]

57. What's unfortunate about that?

The points he was espousing were straight from the landed class, and very anti-worker. I would say it was quite fortunate that he simultaneously portrayed himself as an a-hole.

[polichick]

61. Yeah, maybe you're right. I know it made me think I didn't need to...

...watch him anymore - 'course I've seen him go off before, so it was a cumulative response.

[TwilightGardener]

41. Well, nobody is perfect, or always 100% on their game. Not Alan Grayson, not

Russ Feingold, not Howard Dean, not Nancy Pelosi, and not Barack Obama.

[totodeinhere]

45. I saw that. O'Donnell really tore Grayson a new a**hole.

It's good to see at least one of the commentators at MSNBC supporting our president on this. (Actually, I think that Tweety is also on board.)

[bluedigger]

53. I saw it.

O'Donnell may have been factually correct, but Grayson came out the better man.

[discopants]

58. Grayson was proven wrong on the facts regarding corporate investment deductions

He claimed Obama gave away the store ... Klein and the the other economist told him how he was completely wrong on what was in the deal.

O'Donnell asked Grayson if he voted 'no', then what would he say to the FL people who face a 50% tax increase ... Grayson wouldn't answer because he didn't even know that the low end of taxpayers get hit the hardest. I like Grayson, but he was bullshitting and LO'D called him out.

[bluedigger]

63. Why are you telling me what I watched?

I saw it, and my opinion is what it is. LOD was a dick, even if he was right. You don't have to "call out" someone to make a point. You do it for ratings.

[polichick]

60. Definitely! Not sure I'll waste any more time on O'Donnell - he goes off...

...like that every once in a while.

[Mr. Sparkle]

59. O'Donnell was a total c*** last night. He was clearly spoilling for a fight with Grayson.

Factually, Lawrence was correct, but Grayson was asked a question he would have expected on Foxnews a.k.a a gotcha question.

I was very disappointed with Lawrence !

[Creative]

62. It is was made abundantly clear why Grayson will not be around for the next term.

[ncteechur]

64. Lawrence knows his shit. He knows more about how Congress and deal making work than

80 percent of all the legislators in Washington of either party. Period.

[Dinger]

67. O'Donnell Said Tonight That He Called Grayson And Apologized

Just so you know...

[ProudDad]

72. Proving that O'Donnell is still a creature of

the inside the beltway mentality...

And is now part of the corporate propaganda machine...

No news there...

He's always been an apologist for those in power -- one of the WORST guests that Al Franken ever booked...

[ProudDad]

73. This thread's too lame to get any recs but I'll post this information here anyway...

"You know the administration is desperate when it creates a web page citing economists who support its capitulation on taxes.

"The web page cites the support of five economists. Peter Cardillo, the Bank of America, Greg Mankiw, and Wells Fargo (are the second through fifth economists on Obama's list). Who are these supporters and why is the administration proud of their support? Cardillo is an economist for an investment firm, Avalon Partners. Avalon's web site states that it specializes in "wealth management" for "affluent investors...to meet the unique needs of high net worth individuals...." Yes, the wealthiest one-hundredth of one percent of Americans -- the truly, uniquely needy."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-effort-to-claim-that-_b_794862.html


There's a reason they call "economics" the dismal 'science'... It is dismal but it's NOT science...

[lunatica]

74. Lawrence apologized to Grayson and invited him back

And he didn't destroy Grayson. He made a fool out of himself with his stupid faux indignation and anger and he admitted it later.

[joeprogressive]

76. Grayson made two very important points

1. You can't give someone a hypothetical and then beat them up over something that may or may not occur. Grayson believes the fight can be won in which tax cuts expire and the Democratic plan for tax cuts for the middle class and poor pass.

2. Grayson made an excellent point about negotiating the terms of the surrender. The Democrats aren't compromising. They have surrendered the battle before it started and now they are asking for humane treatment in POW camps instead of being put to death. Grayson simply wants to fight the battle.

Even Lawrence must have recognized they were valid points and apologized and invited him back the next night. If you shred someone in a debate and you are right, there is no need for an apology.

[Honeycombe8]

77. I disagree. Larry didn't let Grayson respond; he came off as a bully...

the one with the bigger microphone. It's true that Grayson didn't have all his facts at the ready, but I hate it when Larry gets all crazy and overbearing and pulls a bully-punch. I've seen him do that before. It makes me uncomfortable. I changed the channel.

[TK421]

79. I just watched it...he kept interrupting and talking over Grayson

personally, I fucking hate it when people try to talk over you..I wanted to slap him

[Enthusiast]

80. Tweety does the same thing.

Tweety will even ask a question then over talk the guest before they get a word in. Both O'Donnell and Tweety can move on to Fox as far as I'm concerned.

[TK421]

81. Yup, I noticed that myself...when he does that I just change the channel

Lots of people do this; I was taught it was rude to do that to someone else..when it is your turn to talk, I should let you finish and vice-versa

irritating, but again lots of people do this every day