Alan Grayson Today

I'm not a huge Bill Maher fan, although I liked Religulous a lot. I wasn't a huge Anthony Weiner fan, although I liked his partisan fighting spirit, even if I distrusted the underlying ideological commitment. And I'm not a big fan of money bombs. I'm glad that Alan Grayson's money bomb this past weekend was hugely successful, even surpassing his goal. He surpassed his goal because... well, Bill Maher got it right in the video above. "He's got big ones. It's what we need someone to yank the debate back to what the center should be. And that is Mr. Alan Grayson." Maher hit it out of the park on that one. And I very much do trust Grayson's underlying ideological commitment. I don't like money bombs because I don't like manufactured deadlines. I don't even like birthdays or Christmases or Valentine's Days. I LOVE giving presents to people, but not on predetermined days. I give them presents when I'm moved to do so.

Blue America operates because people contribute when they're moved to contribute, rather than because of a phony DCCC deadline or a slightly less phony FEC deadline or because of a fun money bomb deadline. Watching Maher's comments about Grayson's ability to yank the debate back towards the center, reminded me again how important it is to elect Alan and other strong progressives to the House and Senate, not just because the Republicans have hijacked the center and moved it over the right field fence... and into the dump beyond, but because President Obama is so conflicted and so ill-advised (Rouse is way better than Daley, but a random dog off the street would be way better than Daley, a contemptible 1%-er and Rahm's perfect successor) that he could be the worst political negotiator in American political history.

Maher may be dreaming that Grayson runs for the White House some day. I'm less ambitious. Power inside Congress is all I'm asking. (How ironic it would be for a bold and aggressive progressive like Grayson to be the first Jewish Speaker, something Rahm always coveted, as does the female version, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, each of whom would be just another garden variety tool of the 1% holding down the legitimate aspirations of working families. In other words, the opposite of what Alan Grayson is all about.

Yeah, so his money bomb is over-- but his campaign for Congress has another 364 days to go. Please help if you can. Yesterday there were reports of progressive life on Capitol Hill, exactl;y the kind of thing we need Grayson driving. I'll believe this when I see it all the way through but...

Democratic leaders are signaling to worried colleagues and their party’s base that they are now in charge of deficit-reduction talks and will be tougher negotiators than President Obama.
 
Senate Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) made it clear that congressional Democrats would not accept what they consider a “bad deal” from the supercommittee.

...Many Democrats, especially liberals, have a dismal view of Obama’s negotiating skills after he cut a deal in December to extend virtually all of the Bush-era tax cuts and another in August to slash spending by $900 billion and set up the deficit-reduction supercommittee.
 
Democratic leaders are telling GOP leaders that they’re not going to win this time by digging in their heels.
 
“This is all about political will. Everyone knows where cuts and revenues can come from. You’re never going to convince the Republicans to summon the political will to buck Grover Norquist unless you stare them in the eyes and say you’re not going to blink first,” said a Democratic leadership aide, referring to conservative activist Grover Norquist, president of American’s for Tax Reform.
 
Nearly every Republican in Congress has signed Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which requires them to oppose all legislation that raises taxes.
 
“They’ll rethink their position that they can just wait us out. We make no apologies on insisting on a balanced deal,” said the Democratic congressional aide. 
 
Obama appeared poised to stare down Republican leaders during talks in late July to raise the debt limit. He dressed down House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) at one meeting and warned him bluntly: “Don’t call my bluff.”
 
In the end, however, the president agreed to a deal that many Democrats saw as a big giveaway.
 
Obama agreed to nearly $1 trillion in cuts and set up a joint select committee to find another $1.2 worth of savings in exchange for raising the debt limit-- a routine action in previous Congresses. Former President George W. Bush raised the limit seven times with little pushback from Congress.
 
House Republicans were left chortling in victory.
 
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he got “98 percent of what I wanted.”
 
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Republicans called Obama’s bluff and won.
 
“President Obama reportedly warned Republican leaders not to call his bluff by sending him a bill without tax increases. Republicans in Congress ignored this threat and passed a bill that cuts more than a dollar in spending for every dollar it increases the debt limit, without raising taxes,” Ryan wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Aug. 3. “Yesterday, Mr. Obama signed this bill into law. He was, as he said, bluffing.”

Robert Borosage, co-director of Campaign for America’s Future, said the debt limit deal “was an unbelievable set of concessions” from Democrats.

“It had $900 billion in cuts, no revenues and no growth. It set up a committee to do more. All at a time when we thought you should be arguing about jobs,” Borosage said, reflecting the view of many liberal activists.

Obama has stayed away from the supercommittee’s deliberations and Democratic congressional leaders are now hewing more closely to what members of their party want.

Leaders have demanded that Republicans on the supercommittee agree to substantial tax increases and are refusing to back down.
 
At the same time, they are pounding Republicans on the issue of jobs. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has forced Republicans to vote several times on jobs legislation-- including funding for teachers, first responders and infrastructure-- paid for by slightly increasing the tax rate on income over $1 million.

Granted, liberal activists and labor leaders were not happy with the compromise offer from Democrats on the supercommittee, but that was a trial balloon floated to show that Republicans were staunchly opposed to raising taxes in exchange for entitlement reform.

Mike Lux, a Democratic strategists who works with liberal and labor groups, said Democrats are now more unified than they were during negotiations to raise the debt limit or extend the expiring Bush tax cuts.

“I think Democrats are now united in playing tougher and being tougher negotiators with the Republicans. There was difference of opinion about how things were done in the past,” said Lux. “I think it’s great that Democrats have come together and said we’re going to be tough negotiators.”

I think Bill Maher and I (not to mention Lux) could find common ground on this-- if Grayson were part of these negotiations, he'd stiffen a lot of spines on the side of working families-- and that's something Democrats in Washington desperately need.