Friday Talking Points [96] -- The Impressiveness of Alan Grayson

First, let's get rid of the distractions this week. Chicago will not be getting the Olympics in 2016, even after President Obama went over to Copenhagen on a personal charm offensive. While I think Rio is a good choice, personally (come on -- it's not just Rio's first Olympics, or Brazil's first Olympics, it is South America's first Olympics -- this is supposed to be a worldwide event, and yet Africa and South America have never hosted), I also think the cheap shots will be flying from Republicans soon -- and that they're going to shoot themselves in the foot by doing so. Glorifying an Obama defeat is fine for the GOP when we're talking domestic affairs, but Obama was promoting an American city on the world's stage. Republicans will pay a price for gleefully rooting for America to fail in such a fashion. Polls showed overwhelming (84 percent) support of the American public for a Chicago Olympics. And Republicans are looking more and more like they just want Obama to fail -- no matter what he is attempting. This is not exactly the best way to rebuild the party's appeal among suburban moderate voters.

And just think what those same Republicans would be saying if Democrats had cheered for a Republican president to fail in such an effort. My guess is the word "anti-American" would be used (if you'll forgive the irony) liberally.

In the entertainment world, two sex scandals are raging. I never thought I'd see the day when a child rapist was actively defended by anyone, but here we are. And as for the television show host, isn't that pretty much the classic definition of "sexual harassment in the workplace"? Not the extortion bit, mind you, but the affair itself. Strangely, the man was applauded by a live audience for admitting essentially what was once the textbook definition of sexual harassment -- the Big Boss preying on a lowly assistant. Back then, the point was all about the power, not the sex. But the audience sat there and applauded him; so again, I have to say -- here we are.

Sooner or later, the conservatives are going to dust off an old chestnut of theirs called "moral relativism." In these particular two cases, they're actually going to be right. Defending such behavior is moral relativism. "But he's such a talented guy" is simply not a defense, folks.

In the financial world, it was announced that two banks have now qualified to buy all those "troubled assets" we hear about on Wall Street. Note that this crisis happened a year ago and we had to create seven hundred billion dollars out of thin air to fix the problem (it's right there in the title -- "Troubled Asset Relief Program"), after which we didn't actually use the money to buy the troubled assets... um... because... I have to admit I still don't understand this mind-boggling reversal by the geniuses who run the Treasury and the Fed. Now, one year later, two banks are finally cleared to buy some troubled assets. Maybe next time Congress should check the fine print when these guys demand a mountain of money by the close of business tomorrow. I'm just saying....

But the real news, to get back to the sex scandal theme here (admit it, TARP is just boring, no matter who you are), is that our fearless "executive pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg is actually admitting in public that he's getting screwed by Wall Street. At least that's how it sounded to me. This is the guy whose job it is to be a watchdog and tell Wall Street not to hand out billions in "bonuses" for driving the American economy over a cliff.

Here is Feinberg talking to a bunch of lawyers, on the subject of limiting executive pay at companies that the American taxpayers now essentially own (read the whole article, and decide for yourself): "I'm hoping I won't be required to simply make a determination over company objections... It's been a very consensual process and I hope it will continue to be consensual."

Now, maybe he used the word "consensual" because that's how lawyers talk. But in the vernacular, consensual is used pretty much for only one reason -- when it is followed by the word "sex." Must be because it's got the word "sensual" right there in it -- how titillating! [OK, I'm sorry, I'll stop this unseemly innuendizing.] For example, see any discussion of the two sex scandals mentioned above. The word "consensual" will appear at some point in the discussion, either in the negative ("not consensual") or the positive ("c'mon, it was consensual").

So it seemed to me to be a very odd word choice indeed. Metaphor-wise, this is a real stinker. Because what it is essentially saying is that even though Feinberg's in bed with Wall Street and all the hanky-panky is consensual, it's really OK because nobody's actually getting raped when CEOs pocket millions for destroying their companies and the economy.

Except, perhaps, the taxpayers.

But Democrats weren't the only ones twisting metaphors this week. In a stunning example of doublethink of the first order, Republicans are simultaneously arguing that (a) government bureaucrats should never get between you and your doctor, and (b) any healthcare reform must have a government ban on health insurers providing abortion services in their plans. Um, OK. The only time the government is supposed to get between you and your doctor is when the doctor says something which our party doesn't agree with. Is that it? Shades of Terry Schiavo, methinks.

Our final distraction before we get to the awards is to note the passing of William Safire. Now, Safire was a pretty odious guy, which was outlined in some depth by David Bromwich at Huffington Post this week, so if you don't know why this guy deserves political scorn, you can brush up. His most notorious line of all time was in a speech he wrote for then-Vice President (before he resigned in disgrace, of course) Sprio Agnew, when he called political opponents "nattering nabobs of negativism." From his start in the Nixon White House (before Nixon resigned in disgrace, of course), Safire went on to become a conservative columnist.

But I have to admit a guilty pleasure. When living abroad, the International Herald Tribune would print a weekly column from Safire which looked through the microscope at language itself, and how it was currently being used in politics and journalism. And the column was informative and interesting, on that level alone. So, in a burst of bipartisanship, I'd like to say that even though I disagreed with Safire on just about everything, I did enjoy the purist look his column took at the changing political linguistic landscape. I'm just a language wonk at heart, I guess.

 

Harry Reid has come oh-so-close to winning a coveted Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award two weeks in a row now. Whew! Give 'em Hell, Harry!

Kidding aside, we do indeed have to hand Majority Leader Reid an Honorable Mention award, for two impressive acts this week. The first was virtually ignored by the media, but Harry Reid astonishingly cancelled a week of vacation for the Senate, in order to actually do some work, and the job Americans pay them to do. Rather than let everyone go home for Columbus Week (it used to be a Day, until Congress started handing out vacations to themselves), senators will instead stay in Washington and work on healthcare reform. This is in response to Republican obstructionism and foot-dragging, and is entirely deserved. Well done, Harry!

The second thing Reid is to be commended for this week was the statement he made to the Nevada press: "We are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president's desk." Pretty strong words! Then, of course, one of his staffers had to walk it back a bit, but it's certainly stronger than anything Harry's said before, so we'll take it at face value for now. If he actually delivers on this promise, he can look forward to a real MIDOTW award for doing so.

Instead, we have two MIDOTW awards to hand out. The first goes to Washington, D.C. city Councilman David Catania. You may not have heard his name before (I certainly hadn't), but Catania could be pivotal in the gay rights movement. Because national Democrats have apparently decided that "now is not the time" to push repealing "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" (DADT) or the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) in Congress (or from the White House, I should add). Now is not the time, and next year (an election year) certainly won't be "the time" either. Democrats are content to sweep the issue under the rug for a while, for political expediency's sake.

Catania is going to force their hand. Because he is introducing a measure to allow gay marriage in the District. The city council has 13 members. There are 10 co-sponsors of the measure. Meaning it is going to pass.

But while normally a big city (or even a small state) would make news for legalizing gay marriage, it wouldn't be a huge national political story (at least, not these days). But D.C. is run by the federal government. Even though they have a city council and a mayor, they can be overridden at any time by Congress. On anything. Which means that Republicans are going to fight this in Congress. Which may force Democrats to actually take a stand on it. Now, while the gay marriage fight has been raging for a while, Congress hasn't weighed in on any of it for a relatively long time. Democrats have been comfortable to shy away from the issue, because they see it as a potential political minefield for them. So Councilman Catania has earned his MIDOTW award for refusing to play the "wait and see" game on the issue. And his actions may soon cause us all to see how House members and senators actually vote on it.

But we here at Friday Talking Points have to admit to a little pride in our foresightedness, because only one week ago we gave an award to a relatively-obscure Democrat in the House, for pointing out the fact that by trying to punish ACORN, Congress may have accidentally de-funded the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops! In any case, for his bold and amusing stand, we awarded him his first-ever MIDOTW award. And, we are happy to report, in an unprecedented streak, Representative Alan Grayson has won his second Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week in a row.

Maybe I haven't been paying attention (yeah, right), but I have not heard a better talking point on healthcare, Democrats, and Republicans yet. Grayson is being widely quoted for his two-part exposé of the Republican health care plan: (1.) Don't get sick. (2.) If you do get sick, die quickly. Now, you'd think that was a pretty succinct soundbite for the media, but you would be wrong. Their attention span is closer to three seconds, as they proved once again by cutting this even further to merely "die quickly."

The Republican response was as amusing as it was predictable. They howled. Like most bullies, they can dish it out, but they sure can't take the same medicine leveled at them. They called for all sorts of condemnations of Grayson, until it was pointed out to them that (a) no rules were broken by Grayson, and (b) the Republicans have been saying worse things for the past four months. So they'd have to condemn all of the "death panel" comments they've been making as well.

I looked for a transcript of Grayson's whole speech, but found only excerpts. So I am providing the full transcript in the Talking Points part of the program, as a public service.

For -- finally! -- showing that Democrats can occasionally play offense instead of always weakly defending, Alan Grayson wins his second consecutive Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. The most astonishing thing (for Democrat-watchers) was that Grayson, in the face of criticism from Republicans, actually refused to back down (although comparing 45,000 people dying each year because they don't have insurance to the Holocaust may have gone a wee bit too far, even I have to admit). He did get up in the House to apologize the next day -- to the people who died because they had no health insurance. And now, he is thanking "Republican hypocrites" for helping his fundraising efforts.

[Congratulate D.C. Councilman David Catania at [e-mail], and Representative Alan Grayson at [phone] (his House contact page seems to be for constituents only), to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

There were a few disappointments this week as well. A (Dis-)Honorable Mention goes out to all the Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee who voted down two flavors of the public option, but that was entirely expected and one of the votes was closer than predicted, so I guess that's something.

But our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award goes out this week to two Democratic senators. The first is a little personal, since Chuck Schumer seems to think that bloggers don't deserve to be called journalists, and is inserting language in a federal shield law specifically to exclude anyone who doesn't draw a full-fledged paycheck for writing. The blogosphere has been universally condemning Schumer's action, and for once, I am going along with the pack. How very disappointing, Chuck.

And our second MDDOTW award goes to Senator Ben Nelson, for publicly stating that he won't vote with his own party on a cloture vote on healthcare reform -- meaning a Republican filibuster attempt may succeed. This isn't the first time Nelson's threatened to cross the aisle on a filibuster -- the last time he did so was on Obama's first Supreme Court nomination.

With Democrats like these... sigh.

[Contact Senator Charles Schumer on his Senate contact page, and Senator Ben Nelson on his Senate contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Volume 96 (10/2/09)

We only have three talking points this week, because the third one is so long. The third one is really the meat and potatoes, anyway. The first two are just appetizers.

I went looking for a video of Representative Grayson's remarks to transcribe this, and (amusingly enough) the random one I clicked on is Eric Cantor's YouTube page. The Republican Minority Whip obviously posted it up to generate some outrage, but the comments on YouTube seem to be taking a direction Cantor didn't expect (feel free to browse on over and add your own, of course).

 

   We got your eighty percent right here...

This first one is just a mathematical coincidence I noticed and had to point out.

"President Obama has stated over and over again that people in Congress seem to agree on about 80 percent of what needs to be done on healthcare reform. As it turns out, he is correct. Four out of five of the committee bills on healthcare reform agree on one thing -- the need for a strong public option. Four out of five of these bills are in complete agreement. Put another way, 80 percent of the bills contain a strong public option. So the committees have spoken, and we can move on to solving the remaining 20 percent."

 

   Calling paranoid delusions by name

The second item is a true appetizer, because it was also said by Congressman Grayson. While looking for his recent floor speech, I came across an earlier speech transcript (his web site has a PDF version only). While some of the details have changed, I found it to be remarkably effective language -- clear, succinct points made in very forceful terms. Since this is exactly what this column regularly attempts to convince Democrats to do, I thought I should highlight at least part of this previous Grayson speech. Here is how Democrats should have been talking all along:

Here are some things that the bill won't do: It won't give coverage to illegal aliens. It won't ration health care. It won't establish "death panels" to deny anyone care. It won't herd people into the public option. It won't cap doctors' salaries. It won't let the Government audit every business in America, or seize your computer or your bank records, or kill you. These are paranoid delusions, promoted by fear-mongers. They simply aren't true.

 

   Don't get sick. If you do get sick, die quickly.

Full transcript of Alan Grayson's recent address to the House of Representatives:

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

You may recall that a few weeks ago, President Obama came to this chamber, and he addressed the chamber on health care before a joint session of the House and the Senate. During that session I was privileged to be here, and I saw my colleagues on the far side of the aisle, the Republicans, waving pieces of paper during his speech, and I was wondering what they were. I couldn't imagine -- it almost seemed like they wanted President Obama's autograph. I just didn't get it.

I heard from one of my colleagues that this is what they called the Republican health care plan. I went over, after the speech was over, I picked up a copy that was lying down on the Republican side, and it turns out that the Republicans' health care plan was a blank piece of paper. I inquired further, trying to find out exactly what the Republicans' health care plan is. And it's my duty and pride tonight to be able to announce exactly what the Republicans plan to do for health care in America.

It's this. Very simply -- it's a very simple plan. Here it is. The Republicans' health care plan for America: "Don't get sick." That's right -- don't get sick. If you have insurance, don't get sick; if you don't have insurance, don't get sick; if you're sick, don't get sick -- just don't get sick!

That's what the Republicans have in mind for you, America. That's the Republicans' health care plan. But I think that the Republicans understand that that plan isn't always going to work -- it's not a foolproof plan. So the Republicans have a backup plan, in case you do get sick. If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want you to do. If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: "Die quickly." That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.

Now, the Democrats have a different plan. The Democrats say that: "If you have health insurance, we're going to make it better. If you don't have health insurance, we going to provide it to you. If you can't afford health insurance, then we'll help you afford health insurance." So America gets to decide. Do you want the Democratic plan, or do you want the Republican plan? Remember, the Republican plan: "Don't get sick. And if you do get sick, die quickly."

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

 

 

 

Comments

[TommyMcCarthy]

Just for the record: "Holocaust" is o.k. with me...
Mainly because it has more "snap" (and is easier to type) than the possibly more accurate:

"Casualties and collateral damage in the ongoing unmitigated WAR on the poor perpetrated by the forces of greed, selfishness, racism, and generalized right-wing zealotry in the phony name of fiscal consevatism and libertarian principle"

See? "Holocaust"...much quicker,...eh?
Regards
tm

[TommyMcCarthy]

I too have enjoyed Safie's "On Language" in the int'l Trib. Also, how often does one get to use "odious" these days?

Similarly, my ears "pricked up" at Ken Fienberg's use of the word "consensual" to describe the nature of the....er.­...interco­urse?....b­etween TARP and the banks over executive comp. Leave it to CW to spot that.
I doubt it was deliberate....I just think Fineberg's Fruedian slip was showing.

Letterman? Agreed...texbook definition of sexual harassment­...(consen­sual too)
Polanski? (Ugh) Cokie Roberts had quite a startling suggestion­...eh?....­.. Being an opponent of capital punishment I can't really agree....but I did enjoy hearing her SAY it.

BTW...re: Olympics:
The yay-hoos openly even NAKEDLY (see: Fineberg above).......root for not just the Prez..but AMERICA to fail....again.
....

Completely concur on both MDDOTW and Chris' bifurcated (nice, huh?)... MIDOTW.

I've LONG said...when Chuck Schumer is the face of progressive reform,...you KNOW the fix is in.

Grayson's stirring speech was well reported and like all my lefty brothers and sisters I applaud it.

D.C. Councilman Catania's extrordinarily savvy introduction of the marriage statute was masterful...and while I SHOULD much more often...I did something I rarely do, and registered my approval at the website per Chris' suggestion above.

I did so largely as a kudo to CW,...as I would NEVER HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT but for FTP...which is why I keep coming back.

Great piece, Chris
hoping you are well
tm

[TomDegan]

I believe that Eric Cantor will seek the GOP nomination in 2012. Of course the religious bigots who now control that party will never give it to him because of his religion. Pigs will fly, the earth will fry and David Duke will become head of the NAACP before THAT ever happens. It begs the musical question: Why on earth is this knucklehead a Republican anyway?

If you think about it for a moment or two, Eric Cantor would be the ideal Republican nominee in '12. The Semitic Ronald Reagan! He's good looking, he has a really nice speaking voice, perfect manners, a lovely wife, three well-behaved children - and all the substance of a hot air balloon. The guy is made to order, are you kidding me? And just think of the marketing possibilities for the GOP spin doctors:

WE MADE HISTORY FOUR YEARS AGO BY ELECTING A BLACK GUY AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. LET'S DO IT AGAIN BY ELECTING A JEWISH GUY!

I can see it now.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[rmickle]

Chris:

You may find it interesting that David Catania was a REPUBLICAN until 2004 when he left the party to become an Independent.

I lived in DC when he was first elected to the Council and thought it was strange that he chose to identify as a Republican given that he is an openly gay man. I speculate that this had more to do with his fiscal conservatism than social conservatism although his is originally from the mid-west (Kansas).

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

rmickle -

I do indeed find that interesting. Usually, when handing out awards to politicians I've never heard of before, I check out whether they are indeed a Democrat or not. This time I didn't, because I figured "he got elected in DC, and he's introducing a gay marriage law," so I just naturally assumed he had a "D" next to his name!

:-)

-CW

[SeriousBlack]

Great column Chris - I just have to quibble with one thing that a lot of people (including you) have gotten wrong, though.

Grayson did not compare the 44+ thousand people dying each year due to lack of health insurance to THE holocaust. He said it was A holocaust.

Come on people, use your brains. I'm getting so tired of the dumbification in the media of so many issues that have nuances.

It is possible for someone to use the word holocaust in the way it is defined in a generic sense in the dictionary. Reference: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/holocaust definition one.

The term first appeared in Middle English in the 14th century. So, it obviously wasn't referring to World War II's event called THE Holocaust from the 14th century to the 1930's, correct?

For anyone to think that Grayson, a Jew himself, was consciously and purposely comparing the 44+ thousand people dying each year due to lack of health insurance to THE holocaust, is disingenuous and only serves as desperate attempt to deflect, in ANY pathetic way, attention from the debacle that is the current American health care system and the fact that the Republicans have NO answers NOR desire to help the American people.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

SeriousBlack -

That's an interesting point. I didn't know Grayson was Jewish, which certainly inoculates him against criticism for using the word. And while you're technically correct about the difference between little-h "a holocaust" versus big-H "The Holocaust," I was thinking more about the legions of rightwingers who are attacking Grayson currently (who might not split such a hair in their frenzy). I felt it gave them an opening, which he really didn't need to provide. But again, if he is Jewish then that does tend to inoculate him against such charges.

-CW

[One more Thing]

That 45,000 of our fellow U.S. citizens die each year for lack of proper healthcare is a holocaust. The Honorable Rep. Alan Mark Grayson needs to be commended for his proper choice of words in describing it.

[Merlin7]

The health care debacle is just a symptom. The real problem is the campaign contributions that rob us of our democracy every day. Instead of wallowing in the minutae of this congressional move or that one, why don't Democrats launch a new effort to prohibit Congress members from taking ANY private money or compensation whatsoever? Election campaigns could be held via public broadcasting only, plus any time donated by the private networks, with very modest government stipends to help pay other expenses.

Until the U.S. government adopts such a law, our Congress will be a cruel joke dominated by wealthy special interests who sneer at efforts to move the nation forward. Put up or shut up, Democrats.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Merlin7 -

It's a nice sentiment, but I see it as somewhat tilting at windmills. Sure the system needs serious reform. But until it happens, we've got to wallow in something here three times a week!

:-)

-CW

[SparkyDash]

Ha! True words...well spoken, my friend, well spoken indeed. ;-)

[unitron]

I think the applause for Letterman was not for what he did, but for coming right out and admitting it, admitting to being in the wrong, in plain language, no weasel words.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

unitron -

I don't really blame the audience. They were there to see some yuks, and Dave played the entire story as a semi-joke. It worked brilliantly in the short term. But I thought that laughter was awfully "nervous" laughter, personally.

I don't even watch Dave that much, but I do remember this woman ("Vicki" as he called her), and he used to have her do some awfully demeaning things on national television (check out any of the times Dave's out in the audience and she is his gofer, for example).

It's the power aspect that seriously annoys me, not the consenting sex part.

-CW

[unitron]

I think he wasn't playing it as a joke, but, because he didn't lead with the gory details, the audience thought it was until he dropped the bombshell.

[ladycubsfan]

As a woman, I just don't see it that way. She had a choice...always, she had a choice. In today's economy, there might be a case to be made for someone feeling like they have to take crap from an employer, but from what I have gathered, this was not one of those cases. This woman had (and took advantage of) other options at another program, where her boyfriend was a producer. No one can demean you unless you let them.