Outgoing Rep. Grayson: We were not progressive enough

The whack-job used the word ‘appeasement” concerning Democrat’s willing to buckle to the pressure of the almighty Republicans in Congress. That’s just friggin’ hilarious since the Executive Branch and Congress was willing to bypass normal rules to mandate what they could during the past two years.

As a reminder to looser Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), the Democrats in Washington had virtually complete control of both the House and Senate up until the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and they could have passed anything they wanted. The issue was they could not get their own party to work in lock-step with the extreme vision of cap and tax, health care ‘reform’, and open borders.

Just a few of the tricks include reconciliation, not coming up with a budget prior to the election, health care waivers with unchecked power held by the secretary of Health and Human Services, FCC power grabs and DEP mandates with no backing legislation.

Steve Gilbert at Sweetness & Light sums up the Politico article with Grayson’s whining quite well so go read that piece.

In Grayson’s eyes, he really thinks if the government just socialized the health care industry completely, passed cap and tax, and opened the borders while granting complete amnesty to the illegal aliens already here, the Democrats would have kept control of the House.

Of course, I can’t prove him wrong since you can’t prove a negative, but I’ll just let the man wallow in his own stupidity.

9 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    It is like the fake explanations Øbama is having for getting "shellacked": "we didn't explain things enough or persuade people".

     

    Well how in heck do you explain yourself or persuade people when you ram through legislation that even the legislators haven't read?  Or debated.  Or written, for that matter.

     

    Talk about your 10 pound of manure in a 5 pound sack….

  2. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    Elitist Marxist Graydon Carter, the Editor of Vanity Fair tells the story from his perspective and it is as predictable as it is enlightening: First he identifies the rage against Obama as racist, then worries that these "angry right-wing extremists" disproportionally carry guns. Next is really interesting:

    "A distinguished colleague of mine likens the wiggy mood of the nation to that of a hormonal teenager. What do you call an electorate that seems prone to acting out irrationally, is full of inchoate rage, and is constantly throwing fits and tantrums? You call it teenaged. Is voting for a deranged Tea Party candidate such as Christine O'Donnell … so different from shouting 'whatever' and slamming the bedroom door? Is moaning that Obama doesn't emote enough or get sufficiently angry so different from screaming 'you don't understand!!!'. 

    This has generally all been said before, and is a tried and true method to denigrate those that don't drink the Kool-Aid. There is no better example of a group of people so indoctrinated that they cannot even see the ground they float over in their god-like way. My idea is to lock them all in conveniently rural basements and throw them a raw steak from time to time. Even better, ignore them completely.      

  3. TomL
    TomL says:

    Good Bye, So Long, Farewell and don't let the door hit you in the a** on the way out. We ought to be hearing some real wits of wisdom from this looser over the next 2 months.

  4. JollyRoger
    JollyRoger says:

    "Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It's clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It's the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week….Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words: the nation can't be run by an angry two-year-old."

    — ABC World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings in his daily ABC Radio commentary, November 14, 1994

Comments are closed.