Is Grayson a long-awaited “Progressive Prophet,” boldly speaking the truth with litte concern for his own political viability? Or is he just a “Wingnut from the Left,” a liberal version of Beck or Limbaugh who says outrageous things in a vain attempt to gain the spotlight?

neither

Agreed. He reminds me of Howard Dean. He’s not anyone who really deserves our support, though.

I’ll go with neither as well, though I think he’s a really good politician, and though I don’t know him personally, probably a good person as well.

And I do think he deserves support.

I guess I’ll join the consensus that he is neither a prophet nor a nut, though I think there are much better clips to use to illustrate reasons why he might be deserving of condemnation or the withholding of support from progressives. Maybe it’s because of the fact that he was reading about my home district and my neighbors dying because we lack what every other developed country has, or maybe it’s because I’ve become somewhat desensitized to the antics of members of Congress, but reading those numbers wasn’t offensive to me in the least (beyond the moral outrage of the cause of those deaths, of course).

The “holocaust” and “die quickly” stuff was way over-the-top and calling a professional woman, even a sleazy lobbyist, a “whore” is inexcusable. I think calling Republicans out for the deaths that their opposition to health care reform causes in a calm, rational manner, though, is long overdue.

Also, the Congressman himself explains why he was cut off: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/5/801105/-How-to-Get-the-Republicans-to-Back-Down

I think maybe I should qualify that. He deserves support insofar as his actual positions deserve it. However, the idea that this is a person we want leading us as compared to people like Anthony Weiner or Dennis Kucinich–that’s a bad idea.

Shouting is all well and good, but not a substitute for substantive positions.

Wait? Why is name calling inexcusable? The problem with Left is it wants be civilized all the time. No, this is an immature country with children that only look like adults.

You have to break things down in simple to understand terms. You also have to say some over the top stuff just to get any air time on the “liberal media”.

I don’t think the question should be if Grayson is effective or not, we have plenty of fire breathing Liberals that have saying basically the same thing for years.

The question is, what are we going to do about it? This health care debate is largely a Democratic thing now, the Republicans have officially said they won’t vote for it, so how come the current bills being considered aren’t so far left (Single Payer, British Style) and be passed down party lines?

Because both parties are corrupt

We don’t have enough Sanders, Graysons, etc to push any seriously progressive though.

as moderator, it is my duty to inform you that name calling is not permitted at FDL nor any of its sister blogs. if you wish to engage in that type of discourse, i would suggest that start your own blog where you can make your own discussion rules.

Huh?

whoops my bad. i thought it was a reference to name calling here — not in congress. sorry for the misunderstanding.

using best gilda voice — nevermind.

Alan Grayson is very smart, with impressive academic credentials. I would rather have a guy who is over the top than one hiding in the trenches, and Grayson takes the fight to the other side of the aisle instead of waiting for it to find him.

The MSM is going to do to you whatever they are going to do to you, and it will not be based on whether or not you make verbal gaffes, because they overlook them when they need to. George W. Bush said plenty that was over the top or moronic, but he got away with it because the MSM let him.

Grayson is the only congressman other than my own (Woolsey) who is worthy of a contribution from me.

Not a problem, Suzanne!

By the way, Grayson has a DKos diary explaining how and why he did what he did.

Egotistical? Yeah, he has to be to get elected. Effective way to draw attention to the need for HCR? You betcha! Here’s why:

Grayson knows that a plain old HCR speech would just be ignored by the Traditional Media. So he guarantees it won’t be ignored by doing something that a) draws attention to the cost (human and financial) of keeping things as they are, and b) is really not at all offensive — in fact, it was quite moving — but is certain to elicit a massive, and attention-drawing, overreaction on the part of the GOP.

And that’s exactly what happened.

If Grayson had been allowed to make his speech uninterrupted, it would have likely made the progblog rounds on YouTube for a few hours before being forgotten by this time tonight; nobody in the TradMed would have bothered mentioning it. But the Republicans couldn’t help themselves — they had to stop him, or at least try. But they couldn’t, and all their efforts did was make them look like crybabies.

Indeed. I don’t like everything about his style, but boy howdy he has the GOP’s number. He scares them because he won’t back down in the face of silly-ass hissy fits.

We need to engage emotionally with voters if Obama won’t give us change then outrage over whats happening will work. Funny by trying to restrict change the change gets stronger and as Dems see its working for Grayson expect copycats.

Obama can lead with ideas big ones End Don’t ask Don’t tell. End the wars, a New FDR sized Job Stimulus, real bank reform, Real Healthcare I want what France or Japan have.
End the Wars, Job Stimulus, Real Healthcare just deliver on those three things and the Left will calm down and FDL will become more of a Social Network.
Right now we are becoming a separate political party working to challenge the Blue Dogs.

I like Grayson on the issues and I like Grayson in the debate.

It would be different if his tactics were debasing the debate but they dont for two reasons, the debate has already been debased by the opposition and he is simply putting it back in their faces while representing the opposite point of view.

His points are hyperbolic and so is his opponent.

He also gives cover to other Dems who are perpetually under attack from the right like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank. Let them hate Grayson for a while. They don’t have the confidence to debate him using their rhetoric aginast his: what does that tell you?

Grayson is a great showman, something we occasionally need; unlike right wing entertainers, he is fearless because he’s in control of facts not because he will spew whatever it takes to maintain his ground. It takes real deep command of the subject to blow off the opposition. More of this, please. Kucinich does this, too, but lacks the powerful presence.

i very much like grayson’s fighting spirit, but with regards to the current health care reform debate, if he only calls out the republicans (who should not be a factor in this debate, it’s all up to the dems) while at the same time supporting the D party leadership position with lies, i can find better politicians to support. also his healthcare reform policies suck. if he wants to advocate for universal coverage, i’m all for that, but he’s got to have a policy prescription to match.

see letsgetitdone’s diary, Grayson Is Disingenuous Again

here’s part of a comment i made in that thread (bolded for emphasis):

my objection is not what he supports or doesn’t support, it’s the bullshit reasons he gives for why:

”. . . We’re close to the end of this long, long, road to universal, affordable, comprehensive health care in America.”

it’s not universal, it’s not comprehensive and while i don’t know, i’m pretty sure it’s not going to be affordable for a lot of people.

i really really hate this kind of dishonesty (*). especially about political matters of life and death. i don’t think it’s possible to describe how much damage i think it does. it undermines the public’s efforts to be informed citizens and it undermines trust in our leaders, our institutions and eventually each other. it is profoundly destructive.

* note: honest mistakes of course are something else entirely.

hey, it’s a good thing that he’s a nut now if we can get another one we’d have both of them

When we call a person a Nut or Crazy we are being Nice instead of saying the word Liar so has Grayson lied?

it’s not universal, it’s not comprehensive and while i don’t know, i’m pretty sure it’s not going to be affordable for a lot of people.

Okay Grayson is lying he’s not Left enough.

I would say he is neither prophet or nut. Yes, he’s straight forward with what he says, that’s a change in itself with a politician. I don’t agree with him calling a women a whore, I would have agreed if he’d called Lobbyists as a whole, whores.

I’ve yet to see or hear from his opponents/detractors that what he’s saying is untrue. Is there anything he’s said that is false?

I’ve yet to see or hear from his opponents/detractors that what he’s saying is untrue. Is there anything he’s said that is false?

please see my comment @18

people disagree about stuff all the time. so what if he’s not as left as me? that’s not my complaint (although i will happily argue my position *g*). it’s the dishonestly i have zero tolerance for. we rightly call out our political enemies when they say something untrue and we should do the same for our political allies. if it was an honest mistake, they will appreciate the correction and refrain from similar in the future. but if it wasn’t an honest mistake, then they are not my political ally. misundertandings, mistakes. etc happen all the time and are not a big deal. dishonest attempts to mislead are poison to political discourse.”

I’d agree, we need a bit more name calling in this party.

my vote is for prophet and I delight in his extremely serious antics.

I agree he can be a bit over the top at times, but then again, when you compare him to the tea-baggers and to the death panel remarks that were bandied about Congress a month or so ago, he is pretty harmless and is basically just giving a strong voice to what others think.

That’s basically how I feel, too, militarymom.

Why does he have to be either a prophet or a nut? I am awed by Alan Grayson! He is one of the only Democrats around who has a spine, and that is enough for me. I only wish Obama had a spine, and I am hoping that Grayson will run in a Democratic Primary in the 2012 election against Obama. I for one would vote for Grayson. Obama is such a big disappointment that I have lost any hope I once had for him, and believe me, I had a lot of hope at one time. We need a lot more Democrats with the spine that Grayson demonstates, and he doesn’t need to be called names by us. We need hundreds more like him, before we can really compete with the aggressive and sociopathic Republicans.