Remember Alan Grayson's first term, when he spent every day being a liberal firebrand?

[True Blue Door]

We loved him. We just didn't do what was necessary to keep him in his seat - he lost.

He came back, but now he's...how should I put this...quieter.

We don't support the people who support us - at least not in the proportion they support us.

We don't reward fearless liberalism to the extent the other side punishes it.

Change that, and we change everything.

[brooklynite]

1. Or, maybe he realized that making fiery speeches doesn't accomplish much...

...it plays well to the base, but it doesn't change any votes in the House.

[True Blue Door]

2. Exactly. And that shouldn't be the case.

We are responsible for how well it pays to be a loud liberal.

[brooklynite]

3. Question...why do you WANT fiery speeches that accomplish nothing?

Just to feel good?

[True Blue Door]

4. It doesn't accomplish nothing if it's rewarded.

It flies a flag that others see, and want to get in on.

[Ken Burch]

35. Being quiet and obeying the party leadership doesn't change anything.

Polite legislators who say nothing to start with never get anything done, ever. Saying nothing and waiting your turn just means giving up.

[Ken Burch]

36. The alternative is to give up.

Real change is never made politely or in quiet meetings over decaf.

Look at HRC...six years in the Senate doing what she was told and no one even remembers she was there.

Decorum is surrender.

[MADem]

51. Eight years - not six, and she left to be SECSTATE.

She was on the SASC and the HELP committees. I think she made quite the impact in her time there.

[Sanity Claws]

79. She voted for the Iraq resolution

Was that the impact you were referring to?

[MADem]

81. Yeah--all by herself, too!!!

The Queen decrees!

Maybe you might want to check again and see what STATE she was representing in the Senate...?

[Ken Burch]

86. She was great for the banksters...for people who vote Democratic..not so much...

If you couldn't hand her a big check, you really didn't matter to her.

Then again, none of the people Bobby Kennedy cared about do, from all I've seen and heard.

I'll back her if she's nominated, but all she'll be is slightly less nasty than whoever THEY put up. That's it. No gains will happen for the people and the 1% will never be defied by her. That's what being a "pro-business Democrat" means.

[MADem]

87. Yeah, that's why Warren signed that letter. 'Cause "she was great for the BANKSTERS!!"

I'll wait and see who she puts up for Treasury and Fed Chair. I think HRC will be a People's POTUS.

[Cal33]

69. If there were more like-minded congressmen who would not only cheer Grayson on, but also take

active part in being Liberals, then success will be in the offing for Liberals.

[sabrina 1]

40. The ONLY reason why the best Democrats, like Grayson and Kucinich and

Conyers and the few others who make those speeches, all of what they say, true, can't 'change' anything is because there aren't enough of them We REALIZE that now.

Congress is full of Corporate Tools, millionaires who work for the wealthy.

They will not allow good Democrats like Grayson, 'change anything' because it's going just fine for their Corporate bosses.

So now we have to make sure to get rid of those who do not fight for the people and elect more Graysons and Kuciniches and fill Congress with people who work for the people who elected them, not the people who pay for them.

Thanks for helping to identify the problem many people are realizing.

The OP is right, we have not been supporting these good Democrats the way we should, but that is changing.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

83. By contrast, keeping it on the down low has made these Democrats extremely effective.

And these Democrats are who exactly?

[Quantess]

5. Oh my... I remember your recent OP with about 350 posts.

I had some good laughs! Comedy fuckin' gold, as I recall.

[True Blue Door]

6. Here's some more comedy gold. Full ignore! Buh-bye, troll!

[Quantess]

65. No way will I put you on ignore.

You're too funny!

[merrily]

55. Never saw a jury say a reply of "stick this where the sun don't shine," "fuck you" and "fuck you"

should stand because it was less much offensive than the OP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5936569

Is that the thread you mean, or another crapfest of a torture thread he started a day or so later?

[Nevernose]

7. Now THIS is a post from you I can respect

Instead of arguing on other people's threads defending Democrats, you've out your money where your mouth is and are calling on us to change the Democratic Party from within.

I appreciate it.

There used to be a smiley for clapping, but I forgot what it is. So just picture a little smiley face here applauding your efforts.

[MFrohike]

8. How soon they forget

Who led last year's charge to force a vote on a Syrian war? Oh yeah, it was Alan Grayson.

He's been out of the news this year in large part because of his divorce. Get the facts right before making ridiculous claims.

[True Blue Door]

9. The Syrian intervention that Republicans opposed because Obama's in the White House?

Yeah, that was difficult.

[MFrohike]

10. Heh

No, I mean the one the majority of the American public opposed because they thought it was pointless.

[True Blue Door]

11. You noticed no difference between his first and second terms?

No downshifting of ambition?

[MFrohike]

12. No

He's not in the news this year, except for reports relating to his divorce. He was constantly speaking out last year, so I figure he's laying low because he's busy with other things. It's the explanation that actually fits the facts.

[True Blue Door]

13. He's been relatively quiet in his second term.

I don't believe it's a coincidence. They targeted him specifically because of how loudly he spoke, and we weren't as committed to supporting him as they were to attacking him. He learned that awful "lesson" loud and clear.

[MFrohike]

14. Yeesh

Did you pay any attention at all last year? I'm guessing you didn't because you keep claiming he's been quiet throughout his entire second term without being aware, at all, that was he was in the news on a regular basis until the divorce drama started. At some point, you should really either start paying attention and making appropriate comments or stop making comments altogether. This repeated wishful thinking without reference to facts is just stupid.

[RobertEarl]

46. TBD is a master at making stuff up

And pulling things out of thin air and making his bs sound as if it has some import.

Look at the knowledge being given him about Grayson on this thread and yet he CONtinues to blame everyone because Grayson is not some sort of grand hero in TBD's eyes. As if TBD has been a grand supporter himself and the rest of us are failures!

Yeesh, is dead on.

[Recursion]

20. They "targeted" him because redistricting made him vulnerable. And he's talked about his shift

in strategy.

In 2010 the GOP ran a very high-name-recognition state pol who beat Grayson by 20 points, after Grayson called him a "draft-dodger" and "Taliban Dan".

In this term, Grayson has said in an interview that his goal this term was to write amendments that appeal to GOP libertarians.

[True Blue Door]

23. That's how they targeted him. I'm not sure that's why.

He was talking pretty loud.

[Recursion]

26. They don't care. Seriously. Same reason we didn't bother trying to beat Bachmann

They literally do not care what he says except to the extent that it alienates his voters, and Grayson didn't seem to do that until his attack ads against Webster misfired. If anything, the national parties love the Graysons and Bachmanns of the other side because fundraising goes up every time they open their mouths.

Webster was identified as one of the "young guns", which were the Republicans poised to beat Democrats in purple districts. In that sense it was about a mismatch between Grayson and his district, but we only amplified that.

According to Grayson himself, he's decided his confrontational style from the first term just isn't the direction he wants to go. Not sure you need to look much further than that.

[True Blue Door]

28. But that consideration is entirely because of shit the GOP did.

The GOP gerrymandered his district; the GOP propagandized his firebrand rhetoric against him, and we didn't respond effectively; the GOP most certainly made defeating him a priority because of his public stature. He chose to change tactics only because being a liberal firebrand didn't work. We need to make it work.

[Recursion]

30. You're vastly, *VASTLY* overestimating his "public stature"

His name recognition nationally peaked at about 6%. He fired up a few Democratic activists and pissed off a few Republican activists, and mostly just wasn't a good fit for his new district.

and we didn't respond effectively

This is the step I'm missing. What else should "we" have done, in your argument?

[True Blue Door]

33. It's not a question of 'else' so much as priorities.

We didn't really have any in 2010. Everything just reverted to the pre-Dean status quo. Grayson was nobody in the Party hierarchy, so he got little structural support despite his popularity with the base. But make no mistake, his rhetoric pissed off the GOP. They know that as meaningless as words are while they're spoken, they can lead to real actions. They made a priority of crushing firebrand liberals. Shutting mouths is something they take perverse pleasure in.

[aspirant]

50. Missed that interview could you please provide a link.

"amendments that appeal to GOP libertarians" Is this a strategy to split/divide the repub majority?

[Recursion]

52. Sorry, it was a quote in a profile piece, not an interview, but here it is

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/07/florida_democrat_alan_grayson_is_the_most_effective_member_of_the_house.html

[aspirant]

53. Thanks

[sabrina 1]

41. He voted against the bill to provide aid to the Syrian 'Rebels', or terrorists

as many of them are.

He is rated 100% on Civil Liberties, on Immigration and on most Liberal issues he is highly rated.

[True Blue Door]

42. He is a principled voter. But he doesn't make noise like before.

And that's our fault.

[sabrina 1]

43. Yes, I agree, it is our fault and we have to change that.

[aspirant]

49. Remember, he was willing to be

the lone dem on the repub Benghazi farce until Steny Hoyer stuck his nose in.

[merrily]

56. LOL! Opposed because he didn't go to Congress, as required by a certain quaint piece of parchment.

A letter about that requirement was signed by 116 Democratic and Republican members of the House.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/87-house-members-sign-syria-letter-to-obama/

see also

http://www.businessinsider.com/syria-boehner-obama-letter-conflict-chemical-weapons-2013-8

and

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/10-us-lawmakers-sue-obama-over-libya-strikes/

[Recursion]

15. Maybe the loss of his seat for a term in the interim had something to do with it?

As in, "he figured out there are better ways to keep a seat than tweaking the netroots"?

[True Blue Door]

17. I kind of said that in the OP.

We didn't have his back, so he learned that it doesn't work to be too concerned about what we think.

[Recursion]

18. No, I'm saying we did have his back, just like we had Dean's in 2004, and we aren't much help

Grayson actually raised a good deal of money nationally.

[True Blue Door]

19. Hmm. I had thought the ratio was pretty low. Am I remembering wrong?

[Recursion]

21. For most House candidates it's $0

Getting any money raised nationally is very unusual in the House.

[True Blue Door]

22. True, but his bird-dogging the GOP also brought in a lot of money against him.

Big money, like Wall Street money. It was my understanding that it flooded his own receipts in biblical fashion.

[Recursion]

24. Money doesn't buy anybody a 20 point victory

He got gerrymandered and the GOP ran a very strong candidate, and Grayson alienated his district with tone-deaf attack ads against him.

Meanwhile, as I pointed out above, Grayson himself has said his goal this term is to write amendments that appeal to libertarian Republicans, which means he kind of has to have a less confrontational tone.

[True Blue Door]

25. "Less confrontational tone"...this is basically my point.

He was loud, and brought down the wrath of hell on his head. Our support was languid by comparison.

[Recursion]

27. None (or very few) of us live in his district

We don't really have "support" to offer other than money, which we did raise for him.

It's not like if we had "tried harder" he could have kept his seat in 2010. Even without the poorly-thought-out ads he was probably sunk.

[True Blue Door]

32. Normally I'd agree. Normally I'd say it's a candidate's responsibility to appeal to voters.

But he did appeal to voters - the voters that elected him. But Republicans just pulled the rug out from under him and changed the voters. They specifically targeted him.

[merrily]

57. And then Grayson defeated his Republican opponent. Grayson 2 Republicans 1 in a purple state.

[True Blue Door]

88. It should have been Grayson 3.

[brooklynite]

31. Let's not create false "facts"

Gerrymandering occurred AFTER his 2010 loss (it took effect with the 2012 election, and in fact put him in a SOLID DEMOCRATIC district, which is why he won the seat back.

[merrily]

58. So, Republicans did Grayson a favor in a purple state? That sounds like as false a fact as any.

[brooklynite]

64. No, they did themselves a favor by moving as many Republicans as possible into adjacent districts.

[merrily]

70. Sorry, something is still not ringing true.

[brooklynite]

71. Take a look at the Cook, Rothenberg, Sabato or DKos rating for his district...SOLID DEM

The ideas is that you MAXIMIZE the number of Republican districts by removing as many Democrats as possible; those Democrats have to go somewhere, so they strengthen the smaller number of Democratic districts.

[merrily]

73. I believe his district is blue. That is not what I am questioning.

[brooklynite]

74. Not just blue...absolutely safe.

He can say or do what he wants, with no risk to his re-election.

[merrily]

75. Careful, you're blowing the OP's reasoning

such as it was

[joshcryer]

89. brooklynite rebuffed the OP in post #1.

She noted that perhaps the change of tone was so he could get things done in the House, not so he could get reelected.

[sabrina 1]

44. He hasn't been quiet. He's been speaking out as he always has on issues

that are important. And losing once didn't affect him in the slightest, he came back and won again and continued to speak out.

And who cares about the Netroots btw? You seem to, but who even heard of them outside of DK?

But the OP is right, ever since Bush left, a whole lot of former cheerleaders for people like Grayson, have suddenly gone quiet, and if they dare to continue to speak out on things like Torture eg, or Bailing out Wall St Crooks, some of the same people who cheered them on back in the Bush days, are likely to attack them now.

But most Democrats appreciate people like Grayson and Kucinich, both smeared by the Third Way, and realize we hundreds more like them.

[merrily]

59. +1 I have to fess up here.

I did not fully appreciate Grayson. I thought he was all self-serving grandstander, no action and no results. I did appreciate that certain things were being said, but was not sold.

Then, I got that, while he did speak out about many things, he'd also been quietly slipping good amendments into bills--and getting them passed; and I repented.

[sabrina 1]

82. Yes, he is a very smart man. Extremely intelligent. He does enjoy calling out

Republicans and catching them in their lies, no one does it better. See his work on the floor of congress with some of the worst of the Republicans, he makes them look like two year olds.

But you are right, he works quietly on things he believes in.

[jwirr]

16. I see him as a man who speaks out and shows that he cares about what he is talking about.

[arcane1]

29. He's not more quiet, fewer are choosing to listen n/t

[True Blue Door]

34. I listen. What I hear is quieter.

That's not an attack on him. It's a criticism of us for not making the alternative worthwhile for him.

[arcane1]

45. That is a very good point.

[SamKnause]

37. Alan Grayson is now

the most effective member of the House !!!

If you do not believe me do the research.

The Congressman who's passed more amendments than any of his 434 piers.

I like his forceful personality.

I like how he gets attention by telling the truth.

We do not have enough politicians like him in our camp.

More money was spent to defeat Mr. Grayson in 2010 then on any other candidate.

The Tea Party, The Americans for Prosperity, U.S. Chamber of Congress, and the Koch brothers took him down.

The people with their small donations put him back in.

[True Blue Door]

38. Yes, this is entirely my point. We were deprived of him through our own lack of attention.

We only regained him when we realized what we'd lost - and even then, we didn't quite get back what we'd lost.

It's a lesson for us.

[merrily]

60. +1

[DonCoquixote]

39. lets not forget

one of the main people to publicly kick him about was none other than out beloved Debbie Wasserman Schulz.

Of course, HER job is secure.

[merrily]

61. +1

[Skittles]

47. maybe he is fine-tuning his righteous anger

yes INDEED

[RobertEarl]

48. Interesting

Here you make an unsubstantiated claim: "We don't support the people who support us" as it relates to Grayson.

Then, on another thread you claim: ""I am responsible for my country, exactly to the extent I can change it and no further. If you demand any more than that, you are just trying to deflect responsibility from your own countries."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025958043#post1

You are all over the place with your grand pronouncements and actually saying two different things about the idea of what one can do and is responsible for.

On this thread you blame all of us for Grayson not being whatever it is in your mind you think he ought to be, and on the other you say no one is responsible except for what they can do in their own place. Here you blame DU for a Florida congressman not meeting your desires, and on the other claim that one can't be blamed for something that they are not directly responsible for.

And on another thread you made this interesting comment to me:

"Republicans have made a science of this mind-fuckery."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025956912#post6

I think you have been studying up on that mind-fuckery? Welcome to DU. I think I got your number = 0

[KG]

67. really. who is this 'we' he's referring to?

[merrily]

54. He's said plenty in the last couple of years. He also gets good amendments into bills.

Under the theory of the Third Wayers, he could never have been elected ONCE in a purple state and certainly could never have been elected AGAIN after showing his true colors during his first term.

[quaker bill]

62. He won a different seat

Grayson lost the old seat. He ran a poor campaign for a seat that leans pretty heavy republican in an off year.

Two years later he won a new seat. Due to republican gerrymandering, they took the new seat and slammed every democrat they could find into it. Why? Because doing so drained all the surrounding districts of dem voters. They mapped Grayson into the District

A ham sandwich with a (D) after its name could win that seat, by design. I live here and was mapped out of Grayson's district because many of my neighbors vote (r). The republicans will let any T-party wackaloon run against Grayson, they will not back him/her but for a token amount, because there is no chance an (r) will ever win there.

The one to take on is John Mica. He was not happy with his lines. The right candidate with backing could take that seat.

[Zorra]

72. ^^This^^. nt

[merrily]

78. They could have eliminated the district. That's what they did to Kucinich.

[quaker bill]

84. Florida is growing

so we got more total seats in 2010. Eliminating the seat, or more accurately putting the new one somewhere else, would have put as many as three (R) seats in play.

Team Obama managed to register about 70,000 new (D) voters here in 2008. Orange County went from purple to deep blue. Most of this growth in registered D voters happened down the SR 436 corridor and east. This is now the heart of Grayson's district.

This is not speculation on my part, the republican controlled gerrymandering was so extreme that it is still being litigated. There are regular stories about it in the news.

[merrily]

85. I know the gerrymandering was extreme. I hope like anything they don't have the house in 2020.

[RiverLover]

63. Yes!! Love it!! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

66. Alan is a Rep in a district about as far from my own as it gets. I have and do support him

with bits of coin and even my direct input. Yes. I do this from a district that has elected Peter DeFazio, a founder of the Progressive Caucus, since 1987. Grayson is one of 69 members of that caucus, the largest Democratic caucus in the House. DeFazio just won with a major margin, as did our Senator Merkley, back to join Ron Wyden for another 6 years. Our election turnout was about 70%.
Grayson got elected. That's the only reward the electorate has to give. Not sure what 'support' you think he's been lacking. I think there are other reasons he has not been as active in the media as he is at other times. It's not for lack of 'reward' or 'support'.
And what of the other 67 House Progressives? What of Bernie Sanders, the only Senate member of the caucus? Are they all being seen less often? No, they are not.

[PassingFair]

68. I still send money now and then...I'm not in his district.

But I feel that THIS is worth every penny I send:



Even if it was the only statement (which is certainly ISN'T) he made.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

76. In term 1, Al Franken said somewhere (I can't find a link) that he planned to...

...put his head down (as in concentrating) and do his work. To be sure, Al wasn't silent, but his first term wasn't what one might expect from a comedian-turned talkhost-turned author who was trying to pick up where Paul Wellstone left off.

Note that Franken won re-election easily in the midst of a GOP wave.

I think Grayson is reading Al's playbook. Alan is still with us.

[Zorra]

77. Alan ran in a different district in 2012, a liberal Democratic district, and won,

by a large margin.

In the previous election, he ran in a much more conservative district, and lost, by a large margin.

Given these circumstances, the premise of your OP becomes a logical fallacy.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

80. Sigh, sometime some of you should just sit back and do nothing but read, post after post,

thread after thread, of Democrats arguing with each other.

I dont know how this party can possibly accomplish anything this way.

We pride ourselves in NOT following the party line like all cons do, we pride ourselves in arguing, but there is a time when we need to pull together.

I just listened to Thom Hartmann scold someone for daring to imply that Obama or Hillary isnt WAY WAY better than the alternative, even Thom knows...

Some of us dont have the luxury of waiting for the perfect candidate. Some people face bigotry and racism and institutional interference on a daily basis and dont have the luxury of waiting.