This is How the Media Will Come After Alan Grayson

[ejbr]

Run time: 05:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aPNGDUxGRM   Posted on YouTube: October 03, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 04, 2009 By DU Member: ejbr Views on DU: 4341

 

[iamjoy]

1. Horrible Hypocrisy

The fact that Alan Grayson is rich did come up in the campaign. Supposedly, a lot of it was self-funded. Guess what folks, that can be a good thing. It means Congressman Grayson is not beholden to any lobby or interest group. Also, if you are going to mention how rich he is today, why not mention that he was born in the Bronx, worked his way through Harvard and made that money himself? He didn't inherit it or marry it. He was in business law and he was an entrepreneur. So I think the fact that Congressman Grayson is so wealthy is a good thing. Just because he has money now he hasn't forgotten what it's like to not have it. I think that's the problem, though. Some how it seems that a lot of Conservatives find the idea of a rich Liberal offensive. Maybe they think the rich are supposed to be conspiring to keep their money and oppress the poor, not trying to help the less fortunate. It's almost as if they consider wealthy Liberals to be traitors to their class.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

3. Agreed

and let's face it, to raise 5 kids today, you HAVE to be rich.

[notesdev]

6. or on the dole n/t

[Overseas]

8. Exact;y. He made his money by creating and selling a business.

But people will grab at straws to slam progressive Democrats.

[zbdent]

30. probably more "self-made" than a lot of these

"death tax" crybabies ... you know, the ones who inherited their daddy's business and ran it into the ground while floating around with their platinum parachutes ...

kinda like George W. Bush ... who NEVER had a business turn a profit under him ... but you never heard that from the "liberal media" ...

[Iwillnevergiveup]

2. The thing I'll always remember and appreciate

about Alan Grayson is his description of the Repub health care plan: "Don't get sick."

[Seldona]

4. They will attempt to spin anything to smear him at this point.

He called them out in a way they have no answer for, logically. I am sure there are plenty of people at work digging into every bit of his past they can get their evil little hands on. Never mind that he has relatively humble beginnings, and spent his career fighting government waste, fraud, and abuse.

It will take a massive amount of cognitive dissonance, as republicans, to dismiss him because he is wealthy. I believe they are not only up to the task, but in order to maintain their illusions, it is imperative for them to discredit him as soon as possible.

Doesn't matter what the reason is really, but the fact he is wealthy is as good as any. Judging from the clip Cenk played, that will likely be the attack.

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. Ok... but I doubt it will work.

He's quick and has a good sense of how to pick and choose his battles. ( Note: defused the "holocaust" thing by apologizing even though he knew there was nothing wrong with his use of the word but wanted to keep the argument where it belongs: on GOP misfeasance in congress over the health issue. In other words, he chose not to take the bait.)

Also... he hits *back*. People... even media drones... respect that.

[truedelphi]

15. You've got it.

And any guy in office that has cajones is such a rare thing. voters who vote for Dems will remember this.

Most politicans have replaced their balls with an ATM slot for corporate campaign doantions.

[izquierdista]

22. He may even have used that to his advantage

Insert the word "holocaust" to create a mini-brouhaha that went went a small step over the line, but that he could easily retract without damaging his original message. And in the meantime get people to ask the question "how many insurance denials does it take to turn health care into a holocaust"?

[ihavenobias]

7. K & R. Also check out Cenk's blog that got 545 recs at DailyKos...

[ScottLand]

9. Well, I'm rooting for him.

[lib_wit_it]

10. Fucking no good, lame, bought off media.,,and congress...and, and, and,,, /m

[matthewf]

11. K&R

[20score]

12. I'm sure he's right. K&R

[pleah]

13. K&R

[bobbolink]

14. ".... a traitor to his class" -- The same charge that was made against FDR.

And there was a planned military coup to bring down FDR!

[starroute]

16. There's no "his class" -- he made his money, didn't inherit it

He grew up in an apartment in the Bronx. His father was a school principal. In his early 20's, he was broke. He didn't have money until after 1990, when he started a telecommunications company that became wildly successful.

If he *did* have inherited wealth, they might not be going after him the same way, because he'd be one of them. But he isn't. He's just one more bright, geeky Jewish kid from New York -- and that makes him fair game.

[bobbolink]

23. He's still RICH, and that is the RW gripe

Please, finding a reason to argue is getting Old.

There is NOTHing to argue on this... it's the criticism the RW is using, and they don't care whether he's Old Money or New Money.

He's RICH.

[starroute]

25. Who do you think is arguing about what:?

I was simply responding to your saying the right might consider Grayson a "traitor to his class," like FDR, by pointing out since that he wasn't born into the old moneyed class that couldn't be a factor.

I don't understand what your problem is with that.

[bobbolink]

33. Go talk to the right wing about it.....then you'll get it, Until then, find someone else to nitpick

with something that doesn't even make any sense for those who are able to think things through.

If you're true to form, you'll need to have the last word. Go ahead. Show your "strength". :wtf:

[Overseas]

32. That's the same tack they encourage against Michael Moore.

He says he's a rebel but golly, his movies make money, so how can he complain about capitalism? I saw a post saying that "he has made enough money to distribute all his future movies for free" so he shouldn't be charging for the new one. Yes, perhaps if you add up the money he's made he could do that. But they don't talk about the money he has given away, the wages and benefits he pays his staff, and the money he invests in future projects.

The Right would like to make it a rule that everyone who makes money in the current system is not allowed to criticize the current system. That would be awfully convenient for the Right. Anyone rich enough and famous enough to get press attention is not allowed to criticize the current system.

Did they have serious panel discussions when Warren Buffett complained about our regressive taxation and the class war?

Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.

It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”

Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html

[Uncle Joe]

17. To answer Cenk's question, they're not stupid, they're complicit.

Matthews, his ilk and for that matter, the vast majority of the corporate media are working to represent the best interests of their corporate commercial buying clients, the best interests of the American People aka; customers or consumers to the corporate media, and the fundamental truth will virtually always be subordinated to that.

This is why the corporate media suddenly become the Princess and the Pea when a Congressman or Congresswoman exhibits courage and leadership in taking on corporations; having nothing to do with health care which leeches from that industry and directly profits from the American Peoples' illness, injury and quick deaths.

The corporate media dare not expose or analyze the deep truths of that dysfunctional system because they directly profit from it, selling ads and commercials to "health" insurance corporations, Big pharma, etc. If all the American People were covered under universal single payer Medicare for everyone; the best solution, the corporate media would have less opportunity to profit from blood money, so they have an inherent conflict of interest and thus are prone to project their own conflicted selves on to any champion of the American People.

[dotymed]

29. Thanks Uncle Joe

I agree with your assessment.

[phantom power]

18. "They didn't forget. They got bought"

:thumbsup:

[phantom power]

19. So, is the word "holocaust" now forbidden to be used except in relation to WWII?

If anybody who attempts to use the word "holocaust" is now going to be subjected to red-herring arguments about what meanies they are for comparing Subject X to the mass-murder of the Jews, then let's just change all the official definitions and be done with it.

[Divine Discontent]

21. I know, it's so stupid. Holocaust applies mostly to WWII, but it's been around as you know, for a

while - and it can be used when a ghastly event like what happened to the Jews, occurs.

He didn't say "the holocaust", so they are simply attacking him to f*ck with him - and it pisses me OFF that Rachel asked him THREE times about his use of that word.

[dotymed]

31. I think so...

and I know that "THE Holocaust" was one of the most
inhumane, sickening things that has ever happened in world
history. But, and I do not want to argue or offend, I believe
that when Grayson used that term he was accurately referring
to  the atrocities that have been committed by the insurance
companies. I don't think that he was saying one is equal to
the scale or the specifics of the other, IMO he was saying
that each act was horrific in its own way. Personally, I
believe that if we ONLY use the word in one specific
reference, then we risk a generational disconnect concerning
mans inhumanity to man. I also think that if the word is
"bandied about", we risk the sacredness of it's
meaning. I believe that Mr. Grayson used it correctly and I do
hope that, in the future, the word "Holocaust" is an
acceptable term when it is used to describe genocide. I almost
wrote this yesterday, but I realize what an emotional term (as
it should be) it is and I do not want to take away from either
Mr. Grayson's message or the history of one of the darkest
events that has ever happened. I just want this word to be
used (not ever lightly) so that future generations of all
Religions, immediately recognize the word (and it's exact
history) when they hear it.

[bobbolink]

34. "we risk a generational disconnect concerning mans inhumanity to man. "

You have said this so beautifully! Your phrasing and choice of words is perfect. Anyone who doesn't get this, isn't thinking in depth.

I posted about an Orthodox Jewish friend of mine---very religiously observant. When I told him those figures, and he hadn't heard Rep. Grayson, and has no idea who he is, that was HIS word... he said, "That's a holocaust!" I thanked him profusely, and then told him about the flak Grayson is getting for using that word, and he was dumbfounded. He said, "How can anyone argue... that's what it is."

I thought his words settled it.

However, you have added a very important dimension, and I thank you. :hi:

[Divine Discontent]

20. GOD bless Grayson! I pray he's got security detail, because I don't trust the bank$ & GOP

and Grayson actively attacks the status quo and those who make money the WRONG way! They attack saying he's rich, but he's not a dirty bastard like some - having $ is the only similarity he has to most of the wealthy!


GRAYSON ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jimlup]

24. Cenk feels about like I do. I can feel his frustration coming through...

I'm so fucking pissed right now. I know I'm not alone. I wonder how much more we will take before we hit the critical mass and start really fighting back?

[Piewhacket]

26. we need to support Grayson AND attack his opponents. Its still WAR people.

[dotymed]

27. I support what Grayson has said and done

so far. Has he made any statements about supporting
"Universal Healthcare" as in HR676? That is the only
reason that I am not 100% sold on Mr. Grayson. If he does come
out for Single Payer or especially a Constitutional amendment
that declares health care as a basic human right, then he will
have my support. I do appreciate him sticking up against the
Insurance Companies and for the citizens. It would be great
(especially since he is wealthy) if Mr. Grayson started a
"war against poverty." Since I have not heard any
updates about Van Jones, those two, working together, could
really help Americans. Another thought, he would be perfect
for introducing a bill that would make elections publicly
financed. He could say: "Hey I've got the money to
finance a campaign, but, a lot of great people with great
idea's do not. Let's give everyone a chance and publicly
finance our elections. It will save the people money, it will
shorten the election season and it will make our
representatives more interested in us than a corporate
sponsor."...spitballing...lol

[tomm2thumbs]

28. I'm glad he's rich - no one can buy his ass

I'd like to see him even richer if that makes him teflon to influences in his early years in Congress.

If power corrupts, it sure sounds like this guy went into a different line.