Matthews Accuses Alan Grayson Of Pandering To The Netroots

Chris Matthews attacks Alan Grayson and accuses him of pandering to the netroots because he believes the reconciliation process can be used to get a

Chris Matthews attacks Alan Grayson and accuses him of pandering to the netroots because he believes the reconciliation process can be used to get a health care bill passed.

(Nicole:) Hmm....I think someone has gotten under Tweety's craw. First of all, Matthews is simply factually wrong, for all his puffed up self-importance of "years of experience" on Capitol Hill, about no programs created in the reconciliation process.

As Congress began using the process more regularly, lawmakers also began to find ways to get policy past its seemingly impenetrable revenue-related framework.

The 1997 Balanced Budget Act, for instance, was passed through reconciliation and created both the State Children’s Health Care Program, known as SCHIP, and the Medicare Advantage program for the elderly.

You were saying, Chris? Whether the will (and gonadic fortitude) is there with the congressional leadership to get the bill passed via reconciliation is a separate issue, but on this one, Tweety, Grayson has you dead to rights. I would suggest that next time you want to challenge a politician, you don't choose someone like Grayson, who is clearly up for pushback. C'mon, this is the same guy who is taking on Iraq War profiteers.

And the "pandering to the netroots" dig is just sad, Tweety. I know you don't like us--mostly because we're not so forgiving of your devotion without principle to politicos. But Chris, we've been right on this health care discussion--and pretty much all political discussions-- more than you or any of your Beltway Bubble Buddies ever have. Grayson may actually be smart enough to realize that we in the netroots might know what we're talking about.

Out of curiosity, Tweety, do you think that E.J. Dionne, one of your Very Serious People inside the Beltway, is equally pandering to the netroots when he writes the exact same thing in today's WaPo?

So here’s an idea, I have been told reliably, that leaders of both Houses are considering: The House would pass a version of the reconciliation bill containing the various amendments and send it to the Senate. The Senate would change it slightly (in ways that the House agreed to), which would require the House to vote on it again. Only after it got the revised reconciliation bill would the House take up the Senate bill. The House could then pass both bills and send both to the president. Problem solved, health-care passes, and we move on.

Blue Gal remarked in an email that Matthews appears to be exhibiting classic Freudian "narcissism of minor differences."

...we reserve our most virulent emotions – aggression, hatred, envy – towards those who resemble us the most. We feel threatened not by the Other with whom we have little in common – but by the "nearly-we", who mirror and reflect us.

As Blue Gal puts it, Tweety knows deep down that if it had not been for a couple lucky breaks he'd be a blogger nobody reads.

About Heather

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.