Isn't it interesting how nobody on DU is coming down on Alan Grayson today...

[scheming daemons]

...all we hear about is how he is the "perfect progressive".


"Grayson for President, 2012!" is the battle cry.



In general, I like the guy too. He's a tough-talker, doesn't back down from republicans, and usually has his heart in the right place.



But he's siding with the corporations over the people in a very important area: Net Neutrality.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/alan-grayson-sides-with-t_n_672313.html



He is against using government regulation to enforce Net Neutrality.

My question is... which lobbyists got to him? Verizon? AT&T? who?



We hear all the time how we need more progressives in congress like Grayson, Kucinich, and Weiner. If only we had more like them, then things would be better we're told.


Well... Grayson's selling us down the river here.



Simply being in congress corrupts, apparently.

[EFerrari]

There's something wrong with that story.

I haven't had time to look into it yet but it reads like a hit piece. Maybe people are trying to read up before they jump on the "Grayson is corrupt" bandwagon.

[Cant trust em]

4. It's from Huffington Post. Hit pieces are integral to their business plan. nt

[DJ13]

1. I read that an hour ago, and I find his reasoning to be lacking common sense

Theres nothing that says Congress couldnt make net neutrality a law after the FCC made a regulation to keep it neutral.

[napi21]

2. Have you asked him why ie holds that position f he does?

It's very rare that I support any politicians without knowing the whole story, but in this case I woll. He's a very smart guy and I just don't believe he has been bought off.

I don't live in Florida so I don't know if I could get an answer from a Fla. congressman, but maybe I'll try calling his office tomorrow. I have a cousin in fl. whose address I can se if asked.

[Luminous Animal]

3. Did you read the article?

He said he supports Net Neutrality but through statute not regulations. I don't agree with his strategy and I think it is worth pushing him to changing his mind.

Have you called or emailed his office challenging his position? I have.

[napi21]

21. If that's his reasoning I completely agree! We are just a little

over 2 years away from a possibility of a Pub being President. Do I think Obama will only serve one term? NO! But you HAVE to consider the possibility. If it's simply a regulation, a new corpratist admin. could easily change that regulation to support their large contributors from the communications indestry. A LAW is much more difficult to reverse.

[gateley]

5. I'd like to understand his reasons.

So often "they" understand things that we don't from our vantage point. That being said, sadly I don't think this is one of those instances. He's done so much and had our backs that I'm not willing to wash my hands of him just yet. We'll see how it goes.

[Dr.Phool]

13. He said that the problem with regulation is, a future FCC could reverse it.

If it's legislated, it would take an act of congress to overturn it.

The only problem is that all repukes oppose it, and about 75 Dems oppose it. The best democracy money can buy.

[metapunditedgy]

6. You believe *any and all* Democrats holding this position are "selling us" out and compromised?

Just curious.

Edit: spelling fail.

[Gold Metal Flake]

7. He wants net neutrality to be law, not a reg that can be overturned...

...once a Repuke pres installs pukes in the FCC per Olbermann. I agree.

[pa28]

8. What Grayson said.

"My own feeling is that we should not allow a matter like this to be resolved by regulation, because regulations can be changed very easily. We saw this all the time with the Bush administration. I think it is preferable to have the principle of net neutrality enshrined in statute."

So he'd rather have a law instead of trusting an emasculated FCC to the issue. You said that's "selling us down the river". Whose narrative is at work here?

[Gold Metal Flake]

9. That was the quote Olbermann read.

Thanks for bringing it into this thread.

[1badjedi]

11. Way to be there!

[Chan790]

10. Oh, it dinged my opinion of him.

Net Neutrality is a pretty god-damned big deal. You know something is pretty key when the only people who don't oppose it are the ones getting cash from the telecommunications lobbyists. Literally, I deal with people all over the political and social spectra all day long and I can't find anybody not on the take that thinks ending net-neutrality is a good idea.

I'd bet even the freep-loons support it. Alan Grayson is siding with the telecom companies.

[EFerrari]

14. Did you read the thread? He isn't siding with the teleoms

and he doesn't oppose net neutrality.

[Chan790]

19. Better, I read his quote.

And it's a lip service thing.

I got really good at it living in CT with one senator that supports banking regulation (but consistently voted against any sort of regulation of banks) and one senator that was "deeply morally-pained" by his support of abortion rights (which is why he supported instrumentalist measures which chipped away at the rights of women often but allowed him to claim to be pro-choice.), supports free-speech (but votes to curb it.) and supports peace in the middle east (but lobbies his colleagues for spending contracts for CT-manufactured war equipment to be sold to both sides. I've always wanted to point that out to certain friends of his.)

Words matter, actions matter more. If he supports Net Neutrality, he'd vote for it and angle for statutory reform in the ongoing process. If not then...well, I'm no fool.

I'm a cynic and he made his fortune in telecoms with IDT. Foxes and henhouses. it seems.

Sorry, he's all wet on this one.

[EFerrari]

20. Well, you may be right. n/t

[EC]

12. Read more than just the headline

repubs count on people only reading headlines...He supports making a law to cover it over FCC reg.

[DJ13]

15. My problem with that is it leaves time for the net companies to make deals

that would undermine net neutrality.

The FCC should write the regs to secure the net, then Congress can work on cementing it into law.

[Vinnie From Indy]

16. "interesting how nobody on DU is coming down on Alan Grayson today..."

LOL!

Does this post count? Cheers!

[laughingliberal]

17. I said he was wrong on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8887962&mesg_id=8888022


And I've stated over and over here that my focus is policy, not personalities. So far, Grayson has done pretty well standing up for policies I favor and he is able to speak up for what he believes in without equivocation which is rare in politics, these days. Basically, I support him but disagree with him on this.

Should I start to see him oppose more policies I favor or favor more policies I oppose, I'll probably not support him anymore. Nobody gets my undying support. Nobody. My support is for policies. People earn my support by standing up for policies I agree with more often than not-a LOT more often than not.

[SwampG8r]

18. he is a florida politician so

at some point he turns to crap

[joe black]

22. Smear and fail.

The big "Gman" in 2012.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. isn't it interesting that your post is misleading?

Grayson is for net neutrality, the only question is how to get it done.

Why are you smearing Grayson? He fights for working Americans.

[RedCloud]

25. Exactly. Such knee jerk reactions are for Freeperland!

I think Grayson doesn't trust a certain agency to regulate since it can get corrupted.

[spoony]

24. So who called him a "perfect progressive"? No one on DU, that's who.

Go ahead and do the search I just did. Mostly Obama apologists (he isn't a perfect progressive, etc) and strawmen like this OP.