Posts Tagged ‘Alan Grayson (D-FL)’


Here is another reason I will miss Alan Grayson (D-FL).

This is some of what Rep. Grayson had to say about the Bush tax cuts yesterday on the House floor:

Mr. Grayson asserted that Republicans wanted to preserve the lower Bush-era income tax rates in part to benefit talk-show celebrities, including Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, who generally support the Republican Party. Mr. Grayson showed posters of each man, with their estimated annual income and the amount of tax savings that they supposedly get from the lower rates.

But Mr. Grayson also had another target: Former President George W. Bush, who Mr. Grayson said, continues to benefit personally from his namesake tax cuts and would also benefit from their continuation.

“George W. Bush makes a cool $4.2 million a year, according to Newsweek,” Mr. Grayson said in his speech. “That means that extending the Bush tax cuts for George Bush means an extra $187,000 in his pocket every single year.”

“I have a better idea,” Mr. Grayson proclaimed. “Instead of placating these people and letting them spew out onto the airwaves their lies about the Bush tax cuts without ever revealing the fact that they stand to gain millions, millions of dollars each year from their selfish desire to take advantage of the rest of America, let’s do this: let’s take that money and create jobs.”

He added, “I think that’s a better idea than stuffing even more money into the pockets of the rich. Because the problem in America today is not that the poor have too much money. That’s not the problem at all. It’s that they need jobs.”

Thank you Rep, Grayson.

You will be missed.


Read Full Post »

Here again is Alan Grayson, doing one of the things he does best. Pointing out Republican hypocrisy.

This time he illustrates a few things that the country’s wealthiest top 1% can spend their money on if the Republicans get their wish and the Bush tax cuts are extended, which will cost taxpayers $100 billion a year. As Grayson shows here, that comes out to about $83,347 in tax cuts for the rich, per year.

You can spare that, right? Or as the Republicans like to say, just “man up” and make a few sacrifices!

He follows that up by showing how that money could be better spent on things the country REALLY needs.

Like jobs.

Unemployment in Grayson’s district is at 13%. Unfortunately voters there elected Republican Daniel Webster instead of Alan Grayson.

Read Full Post »

I thought things were bad last week when Republicans not only won back control of the House, but also took control of my state as well. All election analysis aside, people seem to agree that a lot of voters stayed home rather than vote because this Administration hasn’t moved quickly enough to clean up the mess that eight years of the Bush/Cheney Administration left us with. This made me angry at those voters for being unrealistic in their expectations. I was one of the people who have defended the Obama Administration since day one in spite of compromises with Republicans who don’t deserve them in the least.

I bit my nails and nearly made myself ill watching every minute of the struggle to get a watered down health care reform law passed and cheered for the result we ended up with. I defended Obama when other liberals and progressives complained that it wasn’t good enough. And the health care bill was just one example.

Today what headline did I wake up to?

This one:


I see that President Obama wasn’t kidding when he said he was willing to make compromises with Republicans after his “shellacking” in the election last week.

Now, granted, I’m just an unemployed blogger, but I have to say this to the President and his Administration who seem a bit confused over the results of the election last week:

A large part of the reason you were “shellacked” in the election last week is because you’ve compromised too much in the name of “bipartisanship” already. Much of your base didn’t stay home because they like the Republicans better. If they did they would have voted for them.

So now it sounds as if you are compromising once again.

You’re going to continue to try “bipartisanship” once again.

That’s a shame because the Republicans have no interest in “bipartisanship” or “compromise.” They won’t stop until you completely give in to all their demands. And then they’ll kick you for it in return. Then demand something else.

For the next. Two. Years.

Here in Florida Democrats lost in this election big time. For starters, Alan Grayson who was a rare breed of congressmen who really stood up for working families and tried to do the right thing, lost. He’s the one who said the Republicans health care plan was “Don’t get sick, but if you do, die quickly.” and was chastised for doing so. Well, he was right. The Republicans are proving him right in that they threaten to repeal and replace the health care laws you fought for, and then watered down.

Today David Axelrod says that while you will veto such a repeal, you will “work with people” who “have constructive ideas about how to strengthen” it. Really? And who might that be? It certainly won’t be the Republicans. It won’t be the voters. We have no say in the matter and the closest we get to having any “input” beyond our vote is a request from the Democratic Party for contributions which you won’t use to defend congressmen who will actually make a difference, like Alan Grayson.

Grayson’s opponent Daniel Webster and Marco Rubio, courtesy of SCOTUS and Citizens United via truckloads of undisclosed donations that drowned out the opposition both won. They’re Republicans who want to defeat you and your policies.

Rick Scott, our newly elected Governor spent $73 million dollars of his own money and won, in spite of the fact that the former company he owned and ran was fined $1.7 billion for Medicare fraud.

Yes. Medicare fraud. He’s now the Governor of Florida. He’s a Republican. He also wants to get rid of the health care reform law, but you know that since he was the one who led the fight against it in the first place when he formed Conservatives For Patients’ Rights. He hasn’t changed his position.

He’ll have lots of help with our newly elected Republican Attorney General Pam Bondi, who vows to continue to move forward in the lawsuit that was filed along with other states against the health care reform law. She also won courtesy of SCOTUS and Citizens United via truckloads of undisclosed donations and Karl Rove.

They all want the same thing, and it’s NOT compromise or bipartisanship. They want to cut everything, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Education, and on and on. They also want a permanent Republican government and all the perks and money that come with it at our citizens expense.

Most of them are also millionaires. And now you’re going to sweeten the deal for them. You’re going to give them tax cuts that they don’t need when you could merely sit back and let them expire. This on top of the news yesterday that your “bipartisan” commission recommends drastic cuts to just about every conceivable thing they could come up with that didn’t interfere with incomes over $250,000 and the corporations who are pouring cash into funds used to elect the very people who want to defeat you and cut even more of these so called “entitlements” in order to further devastate what’s left of the middle class and sink this country into an oblivion of debt.

I’ll tell you what entitlements are: Tax cuts for the rich.

Mr. Axelrod says this is the only way the middle class can keep their tax cuts. Wrong. It’s not the only way. It’s the Republican’s way.

Mr. Axelrod says “We have to deal with the world as we find it,” and “The world of what it takes to get this done.” Wrong again. In 2008 I voted for “Change.” I didn’t vote for more of the “world as we find it.” If I wanted that I would have voted for the Republicans.

I voted for the candidate I thought would finally fight for the rights of the American people, and not the incompetent, foolish bullies who are dragging this country into a black hole and taking everyone in it with them.

If you plan to give in and not fight for us this time,  you’ve lost me for good. I won’t be fighting for you any longer.

“The world as we find it” isn’t good enough when there’s a better way. Not again.

Not this time.

Read Full Post »

The “Closing Ad” for Alan Grayson by MoveOn.org

Read Full Post »

The League of Women Voters and PBS had to call off both gubernatorial and Senate televised debates today because Marco Rubio, Charlie Crist and Rick Scott all declined to participate.

The sponsors said they’d lined up Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff of PBS’s The NewsHour to moderate the debates Thursday in Orlando.

They couldn’t, though, get commitments from either Republican, Senate candidate Marco Rubio and gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott, nor from Gov. Charlie Crist, who left the GOP to run for the Senate as an independent.

The two Democrats, Senate candidate Kendrick Meek and gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink, accepted, but the League and public TV system don’t allow empty chair debates.

Ducking debates seems to be going around this year, particularly among Republicans and “Tea Bagger” candidates. Alan Grayson recently was the only participant in his debate when his opponent Daniel “Taliban Dan” Webster was a no show.

How can one expect a candidate to be any kind of leader when they’re afraid to debate or answer a few questions from the media?

What are they afraid of? That voters will see for themselves that they don’t know what they’re doing or that they are woefully unqualified?

If you can’t show up, you certainly don’t deserve our votes.

Read Full Post »

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been in the news a lot lately and for good reason. They are one of the larger contributors to political campaigns for Republicans in particular. They also have a great deal of foreign membership and get a lot of foreign money. One of the reasons they’ve been in the news so much recently is the concern over how much foreign money may be influencing United States elections.

Think Progress has done a great deal of research on the Chamber money trail and have a couple of recent posts worth reading if you’re not familiar with the issue. One shows a graphic illustrating how the Chamber gets its foreign money.

One thing that caught my attention was how much money the Chamber is spending on political campaign attack ads:

Earlier this week, a ThinkProgress investigation found that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been raising funds from foreign-based corporations to solicit funding for their general 501(c)(6) entity, and that entity runs approximately $75 million worth of partisan attack ads. This week alone, the Chamber ran nearly $10.5 million in attack ads in many of the most competitive elections in America. Republican candidates in the nine Senate and 22 House districts are benefiting from the Chamber’s support.

According to Campaign Money Watch, some of that $10.5 million is going to Florida candidates. One of the top three candidates benefiting from the largest sums is none other than Marco Rubio. Rubio has received $1,000,000. That amount is topped by only two other candidates on the list, Carly Fiorina in California and Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire. Rubio is not the only Florida candidate getting those funds.

Expenditures for Republican candidates in Florida filed by the Chamber on Oct. 5 were the following:

Marco Rubio    $1,000,000, for attack ads against Charlie Crist (I-FL)

Sandy Adams   $250,000, for attack ads against Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL)

Dan Webster    $250,000, for attack ads against Alan Grayson (D-FL)

Also from the Campaign Money Watch site:

Campaign Money Watch today called on 31 federal candidates to join its effort to demand the U.S. Chamber of Commerce answer questions about the use of its foreign corporate dues in political advertising.

The letter sent to those candidates reads in part:

Recent news coverage surfaced significant and serious questions about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce use of foreign corporate funding for electoral activities. We are also troubled that evidence suggests that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in raising money overseas, has promised to represent the business interests of foreign corporations in Washington, D.C.

Since the Chamber has spent money in your election, we urge you to join us in demanding that the Chamber answer these important questions about their foreign funding and their representation of those overseas corporations. If they cannot or will not provide evidence to back up their claims, we urge you to join us in demanding that the Chamber remove all advertising or other electoral activities from your race…..

….This recent revelation goes beyond simple disclosure of campaign spending. The Chamber’s acceptance of foreign corporate money into the same account from which it is funding attack ads crosses the line of democratic decency. But the Chamber’s response to this question of mingling foreign and domestic dues has been inadequate. A spokeswoman told a Washington Post reporter, “We don’t feel obligated to answer that question.”

This is a dangerous precedent to let stand. Unfortunately, the Chamber’s response so far has been to attempt to dismiss the allegations as if no principles were involved, and to loudly criticize those posing questions as political partisans. The Chamber diminishes the criticism by claiming that very little money has been received from overseas affiliates and dues-paying corporations. But it is not partisan politics that is at stake; rather, serious democratic principles and laws are potentially being violated. The law does not distinguish between small and large amounts of foreign corporate money influencing American elections. All foreign corporate money is prohibited.

Moreover, by accepting the dues of foreign corporations, the Chamber is operating as the political outpost for those interests in Washington by pledging to mold public opinion to benefit their members. The method the Chamber is employing today to shape public opinion is electoral advertising in your race and others around the country….

….We are not asking you to criticize the Chamber. We are simply asking you to join with us to “trust, but verify.” It is the very least that you, as a candidate for high office seeking the public’s trust, can do.

A copy of the entire letter to candidates can be read here.

It will be interesting to see if any of those Republican candidates will do what the letter asks. But for the party that never appears in public without a flag pin on their lapel, claims they are the party who most “support the troops” and the party that “keeps America safe” and are quick to call anyone who doesn’t agree with them “un-American,” I would like to see them put that money where their talking points are and honor this request.

As for Marco Rubio, his standard stump speech spouts that America is the greatest country in the world, that America is “exceptional” and that he “wants to take the country back.” I think he should explain to those who would vote for him and all the American people just where he wants to take the country back to? So far Rubio’s campaign has been funded not only by the Chamber, but by Dick Armey and FreedomWorks, Karl Rove and American Crossroads, which some have called for an investigation of, and several others, and those are just the ones we know of.

Call me crazy, but I think we deserve to know where the money is coming from.

The citizens of this country are the ones these candidates are elected to represent. Not the foreign countries who fund their campaigns.

Read Full Post »

Back in September Marco Rubio attended a rally with 200 evangelicals near Orlando, and he picked up the endorsement of one in particular, Texas evangelist David Barton. Barton is a slavery advocate and the man orchestrating the push to change textbooks in Texas. He’s also a favorite of Glenn Beck’s and has endorsed several Tea Party candidates recently, including Daniel Webster, or “Taliban Dan” as he’s often referred to, who is running against Alan Grayson.

A couple of days ago, Barton was doing a radio program when he called for the government regulation of homosexuality.

Barton said this (from Right Wing Watch):

So if I got to the Centers for Disease Control and I’m concerned about health, I find some interesting stats there and this should tell me something about health.

Homosexual/bi-sexual individuals are seven times more likely to contemplate or commit suicide. Oooh, that doesn’t sound very healthy.

Homosexuals die decades earlier than heterosexuals. That doesn’t sound healthy.

Nearly one-half of practicing homosexuals admit to five hundred or more sex partners and nearly one-third admit to a thousand or more sex partners in a lifetime.

That doesn’t sound very healthy.

Homosexuals have an HIV prevalence sixty times higher than the general population.

Homosexuals have Hepatitis B virus five to six times more often and Hepatitis C virus infections about two times more often than the regular population.

Homosexuals are less than three percent of the population but they account for sixty-four percent of the syphilis cases.

I mean, you go through all this stuff, sounds to me like that’s not very healthy. Why don’t we regulate homosexuality?

Since Rubio has been endorsed by Barton, rallies with him, and may have even received contributions from him, I think voters might want to know if he shares the same radical views that Barton does.

Does Marco Rubio think that homosexuality should be regulated?


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: