Alan Grayson: We lost because we tried to appease Republicans or something

Good stuff. Say, I wonder where his new show will end up in the MSNBC schedule. Primetime is locked up, so I’m thinking they’ll either dump Schultz and plug Teacups in at 6 p.m. or else get rid of the 7 p.m. re-run of “Hardball” and give him an hour there. Imagine it: Schultz, Grayson, and Olby, back to back to back. Imagine it.

In other news, MSNBC actually re-runs “Hardball.”

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said Democratic leaders should have been more aggressive and shut Republicans out of the negotiating process, arguing it would have helped them in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

“I think that the Democrats are saddened and demoralized by this policy of appeasement,” he said on MSNBC, noting that Democrats suffered from low turnout…

Grayson explained Thursday that Republicans’ strategy of opposing the Democrats’ big-ticket legislative items such as healthcare reform, the cap-and-trade energy bill and financial regulatory reform, helped them win back the House majority they lost in 2006.

“So they’ve got their strategy intact, our strategy for the last two years has been appeasement, look where that got us,” he said. “I think Democrats want a fighting president, a fighting leadership” who act on items such as immigration reform and union card check legislation.

If you read the last post, you already know that the bit about low turnout from a depressed base simply isn’t true. But then, that talking point is too useful to the left for them to ever give it up, even in a year when their grand decades-long ambition to pass universal health care was finally realized. Had The One and Harry Reid found a way to pass amnesty and cap-and-trade too and the GOP had ended up with 90 seats, this moron would still be on MSNBC today whining that if only they’d also passed Card Check, they’d have held the House. To pick up on a thought from the Boehner post, imagine if Obama had dropped health care after Scott Brown’s victory and decided to spend the rest of the year on economic programs. That would have depressed the liberal base, but it also would have taken some of the fire out of the conservatives who showed up on Tuesday. What that would have meant for the election, we can only speculate: Maybe it still would have been a bloodbath as lefties stayed home or maybe many more Blue Dogs would have survived since the task of nationalizing the election would have been harder for the GOP. But then, this gets us back to yesterday’s discussion about whether passing O-Care was worth it, even though it meant losing 60+ seats. Knowing that the electorate was trending conservative and that the Dems were likely to take a beating on election day anyway, why not pass it and at least get something for their trouble? Grayson could have made that case, but then he’s a liberal robot whose programming only includes an “attack” mode. Hence his moronic argument.