I agree with Jane. But it makes me wonder why all the fundraising for Alan Grayson? He has never joined the Progressive Block in its refusal to vote for a health care bill that does not contain a robust public option. Last week, when asked point blank by David Shuster if he would vote for a health care bill without a public option, he ducked the question. So despite the liberal protestations that the GOP is the Party of Bluster, it seems clear that Democrats like their shiny objects too.
Grayson has been great on banking, finance and transparency issues, and it was terrific that he stopped the GOP attack machine in its tracks when he dressed them down over their hissy fit on the floor of the House. So we supported that. Grayson is in a risky seat and he has strategic value to progressives for the work he does on the Financial Services Committee, particularly with regard to the Fed.
But Big Tent is right — Grayson hasn’t been good on health care. Despite being a member of the Progressive Caucus, he hasn’t committed to vote against any bill that doesn’t have a public option. Since we felt like that burden should be shouldered by people who are from strong Democratic districts we focused on those who were in D+10 or better, and Grayson’s district is an R+2. It didn’t have anything to do with particular affection for Grayson.
But Grayson was one of the freshmen that PhRMA supported with district ads, which we covered. And he also signed the letter asking Henry Waxan to swap out the language contained in the White House/PhRMA deal for Waxman’s own language which was much stronger. We covered that too. When his involvement in health care was worthy of mentioning, we did.
And if it comes down to a vote and Grayson sides with the drug makers at the expense of consumers, it’s certainly something he’s going to have problems with.