Alan Grayson Frightens Off The Republicans' Last Hope For An Opponent For Their "#1 Target For 2010"

Florida crime buster Alan Grayson has been a DWT hero ever since we first met him in 2007 as the "longshot" candidate to unseat entrenched GOP incumbent Ric Keller. Even as Grayson was rolling up a victory in the primary over a worthless "good ole boy hack," Establishment Democrats were endorsing the opponent. If Grayson was good back then, he's 10 times better now-- one of the most effective members of Congress, not just from Florida, but from anywhere.

On the House Financial Services Committee, he's been driving Republicans and their bankster paymasters insane with his hard-hitting and uncomfortably direct questions for witnesses who expect to be handled with kid gloves. Grayson didn't bring any kid gloves with him to Congress. Lately he and Republican free spirit Ron Paul have been a thorn in the side of a Federal Reserve, demanding, on behalf of taxpayers that we get to know who the Fed loaned out $2 TRILLION of our money to in the last two years before Ben Bernanke is confirmed by the Senate.

The GOP has been on overdrive trying to draft a challenger to Grayson, who they claim is their #1 target. But every single Republican they've tried to recruit has looked at the landscape-- including Grayson' large and growing popularity with his constituents-- and declined. Yesterday the last hope the Florida Republican Party had for a credible candidate, Dan Webster, said he'd decided to join the rest of the right-wingers too scared to face Grayson. Instead, Republicans will pick between two extremist kooks, teabaggers Patricia Sullivan and Dan Fanelli, both so radical and insane that mainstream Orlando Republicans are likely to sit this one out.

Webster, a Christian conservative who served nearly three decades in the Florida legislature and served as House Speaker, said in a statement that despite encouragement from supporters he was prompted to “follow a principle that has always served me well: ‘When in doubt, don’t.’”

“I do firmly believe that in every public office there needs to be a resurgence of the basic principles on which this Republic was founded, and a return to our original standards of integrity and character,” he said.

Aside from being the scourge of Republicans and their bankster and war profiteering buddies, Grayson is one of the 32 Democrats taking issue with the Obama Administration's plans to expand the war in, and maintain the occupation of, Afghanistan. He's also a cosponsor of Barbara Lee's bill, HR 3699 to deny funds for escalation. Take a look at the list of the 32 Democrats at the No Means No page and notice the way netroots enthusiasm for Grayson has manifested itself. I bet this has a lot to do with why the Republicans can't find a legitimate candidate to take him on! Yesterday evening Ken urged President Obama and his aides to look at Grayson as an example of what happens when a Democrat stands up for his principles and for his constituents and refuse sto back down for the obstructionists, the special interests or the media Big Lie machine. I want to second that. It's a far better model than the Rahm Emanuel strategy of marginalizing progressives on behalf of corporate donors adamant about maintaining the status quo. Meanwhile, Politifail has an interesting take on the disconnect between the GOP/corporate media spin on Grayson's political ife expectancy and the hard reality; worth reading!

And there's still... Getting Grayson's Back.


AND A FOLLOW-UP FROM KEN ON MY POST

Our friend Balakirev added this excellent comment to my post:

To be fair about Grayson, he's not simply eloquent and knowledgeable; he's also rich. If he were poor but outspoken, he'd probably find Republicans lining up to run against him--or more likely, Rahm lining up a Republican to run against him in a primary as a Democrat.

But if he keeps going the way he currently is, I agree it's unlikely Grayson's going to get a reasonable opponent. A wingnut? Sure! But someone who's electable from among the Republicans? Hard to see that happening. And I'm frankly very glad of it, too.

You're right, B, there are other factors playing in Grayson's favor, starting with his ability to self-finance his campaign. FL-08 has also been trending increasingly Democratic in voter registration. Those and several other factors are important, and I don't mean to discount them. I've heard laments from friends in southern Virginia, for example, that Tom Perriello has been as steadfast in maintaining his outstanding principles in the large number of town halls he has held to explain his positions and listen to this constituents', and that many of those constituents respect him for it but nevertheless leave thinking that his views are "too Democrat." For sure, this matters.

But that's why I started my notes on the Grayson situation yesterday by pulling out that blog comment confidently predicting that Dan Webster would defeat Grayson by more than 10 points in 2010. I want us to remember until how recently the Conventional Wisdom was that Grayson's House career was over, just waiting for the circling R's to decide on a candidate. The counting of the votes would be a mere formality.

And that continued to be the Conventional Wisdom when Grayson took his stand on the Republicans' nonexistent health plan. For the first day or two, the R's were absolutely sure he had just driven the final nail in his own coffin, and a lot of non-R's wondered too. But by standing his ground so forcefully and sensibly, he actually overturned the Conventional Wisdom -- and to the extent that he solidified his position among the home voters, I don't think they're thinking about his ability to self-finance.

So no, it's not the whole story, and that matters. But it's a part of the story that Rahm Emanuel will never understand. Remember that in 2006, when the Conventional Wisdom attributed the Dems' startling House electoral triumph to opposition to the Iraq war, the fact was that Rahm Emanuel had strictly forbidden candidates seeking backing from the DCCC to even mention the war, because he considered it a losing issue.

Again, though, with Master Rahm we have to consider that it may not be just a matter of strategy. Looking back, it seems clear that he never opposed the Iraq war, any more than he supports all the progressive initiatives we're told by Dem leadership have to be deferred "until we have the votes." I suspect that on such issues for Rahm there wouldn't ever be such a thing as "enough" votes.

As for the applicability to the national Democratic Party, including the current Democratic president and overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, an online colleague made a pithy observation I should have cited yesterday. If, as appears to be the case, the Obama administration considers itself to be operating from a position of cliff-teetering weakness, making it necessary for "Actual Obama" to maintain a healthy distance from "the Image of Obama," to reprise Tom Tomorrow's exquisite terms, what do you suppose those people would consider a position of strength?

#