The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Orlando's picture

    Congressman Alan Grayson Risking His Seat

    By Orlando on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 11:57am | Politics

     

    Last night, Congressman Alan Grayson stood up on the floor of the House and read out the number of people who died from lack of health insurance in each Congressional district represented by a Republican. It was the latest in a steady stream of very public, sometimes over-the-top statements he’s made in an effort to shine the light on Republican obstructionism in order to help get healthcare reform passed.

    Grayson’s district in Florida is similar to my district in Indiana—about half Democrats and half Republicans. My Congressman, Joe Donnelly, is much smarter than Alan Grayson. Donnelly doesn’t make waves. He’s never out in front of an issue. He’s never on national television. Because he knows that if he advocates for anything slightly controversial, he’s risking his seat.

    Grayson, on the other hand, is all over the place, yelling and screaming and being rude to Republicans. It’s kind of dumb for a guy in his first term. Probably, Grayson should be keeping his mouth closed and his ears open. He should be making friends with influential members of Congress who can open up pathways to major Democratic campaign contributors.

    Aside from all the juicy corporate donations he’s likely losing, it’s also sort of stupid to be so out front on an issue before you’ve convinced everybody in your district that they can’t afford to lose your representation. Let’s face it, Grayson hasn’t had time to bring a lot of pork home or to rise in the committee ranks. He probably doesn’t even know the names of his entire staff yet.

    I’ve heard Donnelly repeatedly trying to persuade his liberal supporters about how he has to run to the center because that’s where the district is, but that he’ll be there when the President really needs his support. In other words, in order to keep his seat, he’s going to vote with the Republicans as much as possible but once or twice, when it’s really important, he’ll be there for us.

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that Donnelly is one of Pelosi’s 40 Democratic votes to lose on the HCR bill. Don’t worry though, because when the President really needs him, he’s going to be there.

    Alan Grayson doesn’t appear smart enough to learn the ins and outs of Congress in time to insulate himself from conservative criticism in the next election. Instead, he appears to think that standing up for what he believes is best for the people in his district, and his country, is enough. Poor guy.

     

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    There can often be a fine line between bravery and stupidity. I think the difference lies at least partly in knowing that you're taking a risk, or even knowing that you're committing political suicide, but doing what's right regardless.

    If I could design the perfect Representative, he'd be more deliberate in his choice of words than Grayson, but in the real world Grayson's about as good as we can get. Well, maybe. It's also possible that Grayson's idealism will be self-defeating, if he ends up getting replaced with someone who will undo and then some the ideals that Grayson fights for. Basically, I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure it's not a cerulean canine.


    by Nebton on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 12:44pm

    One huge flaw in this argument is the definition of "running to the center" as "vote with the Republicans as much as possible but once or twice, when it’s really important, he’ll be there for us".  Why isn't it "vote with the Democrats as much as possible but once or twice, when it’s really important, he’ll vote Republican."  Hmm?  That's as centered a definition as yours.

    I love seeing a Democrat with some spine. It's about time.  If his district truly is 50/50, he will inspire the 50% Dems to get out the vote, as well as donate lots of small amounts that will offset corporate money. Once the corporate money sees that he is still strong, they will throw plenty of money his way in an attempt to buy some influence. That's what happened with Obama.  At the beginning, and for quite a long time, the establishment/corporate money was with Hillary. Obama's team was running like a bake sale. The big guys were not interested in us. Only after he became a credible force did the big guys throw money his way. The same will happen with Grayson, and enough indies will tag along to help him win again and again.

    Dems have to start inspiring those who voted for them to show up to vote a second time by actually getting done the things they promised to do, not by cowering to Republicans. That's part of why Deeds lost here in VA. Only the most diehard Dems would volunteer because we didn't want McD, but those formerly fired up Obama newbies saw Deeds as not worth spending an evening on the phones for. It turns out, they were right.


    by Haven (not verified) on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 3:07pm

    See the comments below about "satire". Wink


    by Nebton on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 3:14pm

    Yeah, I love Grayson too. Donnelly, not so much. Perhaps you missed the snark.

    There's no flaw in my argument (or at least not the one that you're suggesting). Donnelly is a Democrat. By definition that is left of center, so when he runs to the center, he's running to the right and/or voting with Republicans. If he'd rather run to the left when he's looking for the center, then he's in the wrong party.


    by Orlando on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 3:16pm

    I'm not convinced. While he will no doubt turn off some folks, I could seem him inspiring passionate supporters, who may be more likely to go to the polls. We'll find out next year. It will also be interesting to see what happens to Bachmann at the other end of the spectrum (perhaps beyond the other end of the spectrum).


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 12:59pm

    And it's the crazy spectrum, which looks less like a number line and more like a pom-pom.


    by DF on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 8:34am

    I would trade one thousand Donnellys for one Grayson.


    by Orlando on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 1:00pm

    Your problem is you'd get 1000 John Boehners instead.  When exactly will progressives figure out that the demographics aren't always in their favor?


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 1:07pm

    As Genghis points out, though, it's not always about pleasing the majority. It's also about getting those who would vote for you out to the polls. As Deeds found out, if you're lukewarm in your support of what matters to those who would vote for you, they'll be lukewarm in getting to the polls. (I voted for Deeds, but several Dems didn't bother.)

    I'm not saying we shouldn't be wary of what you predict. I do think that it's not always so clear, though.


    by Nebton on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 1:18pm

    Oops. Did I miss the satire?


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 1:18pm

    Apparently you're not the only one. I won't be voting for Donnelly again. So, there's one example to support your theory.


    by Orlando on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 1:26pm

    Clearly you wouldn't vote for Donnelly in a primary, but in the general election if he were running against an Inhofe or a Bachman, would you really sit it out or vote 3rd party? (I'll go ahead and assume you wouldn't vote for the Republican.)


    by Nebton on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 1:30pm

    Honestly, I think I might sit it out. Donnelly is ridiculous. He votes against everything I support and I don't believe him when he says he'll be there. He hasn't proven it. He hasn't taken a stand on anything except for being against abortion, which when I was younger would have been my absolute litmus test anyway.


    by Orlando on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 1:45pm

    Getting on my soapbox, I'd recommend voting 3rd party or doing a write-in, then. There will presumably be other things to vote for as well, so it doesn't take much effort to send the clearer message that the 3rd party vote sends. Make sure that your "3rd party" choice also indicates that the candidates are too conservative for you rather than not conservative enough. (Ideally, if you're doing a write-in, which is likely would it would require, you'd coordinate with other like-minded folk to make the message more consistent.)


    by Nebton on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 2:03pm

    It was a tad on the subtle side. But I should have figured it out based on my familiarity with the positions of a blogger named Orlando.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 4:28pm

    This is precisely the kind of politician you need.  One that isn't afraid to buck the system, offend the corporate elite and call a spade a spade.  Or do you like all your politicos newtered blobs of malleable jelly?


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 1:17pm

    Donnelly voted in favor of the bill. Color me surprised.

    He's still got a long way back to convince me to vote for him again.


    by Orlando on Sat, 11/07/2009 - 11:55pm

    I can't even believe I'm wasting my time responding to a foolish blog article like the one you're written above. All you succeed in doing is discussing the best means by which a public representative can maintain his seat. What scrap of good is it to hold a seat in congress if the policy you advocate is directed first and foremost at maintaining the seat you hold? There is no substance to this article. The success of a congressman is his or her ability to achieve legislation that is meaningful to the interests of the people who have elected you, NOT to see how long one can hold office. Your article doesn't even discuss the issues- only tactics! It's funny, because despite being so absolutely repulsed by the US political system as to be dangerously apathetic, I stumbled across this article only because I was so proud of Alan Grayson that I was looking for his email address in order to send him a personal email in which I intended not only to applaud his stances on numerous issues, but also his methods in promoting them.

    Secondly, if the president doesn't need your representative's vote on the HCR bill, please describe a matter of legislation that you consider to be of greater importance. None exists. In the event of its success, the passage of meaningful healthcare reform would be the most significant and important legislation to occur in the USA in decades. But because our political system is so thoroughly corrupt that MEANINGFUL healthcare reform is now out of reach, I hope- for all of our sakes- that whatever watered-down version of healthcare reform they were eventually going to defecate into a bill will fail so that people might continue to be aware of what this government is actually doing to them. When will the president TRULY need the vote of your congressman? Maybe you will be able to come up with an example in 30 years, because as you've described- he's such a master of apathy in the office to which he's been elected that he should succeed only in maintaining office for the rest of his worthless life. You're a disgrace.


    by Please (not verified) on Thu, 11/19/2009 - 8:49pm

    Yeah, this is satire, but don't feel bad, you're not the only one. The stealth parody is indeed disgraceful. Bad Orlando!


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 1:28am

    Dear Puh-leeze (that is how it's pronounced, right?),

    Kindly have your snark-o-meter adjusted. I dislike Congressman Donnelly and the way he conducts his office and I wish the Democrats could clone one Alan Grayson for every state. In my opinion, there are very few left in Congress who carry out their duties in the spirit intended by the founders.


    by Orlando on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 8:06am