I must really be drunk with disgust right now, because that seems like a reasonable post to me. And good for Alan Grayson, though he's going to have trouble keeping his seat in that Florida district he's in. Then again, maybe he thinks a good offense is the best defense. He should and I assume will ignore the Republicans who want him censored. I hope Nancy Pelosi doesn't get weak on him. Fingers crossed.

The strange thing about the Republican party right now is that even most Republicans think there should be a public option, when they are in thinking mode, but they have become a cult, and thinking isn't what they do.

The strange thing about this post is that it feels hyperbolic, but it actually isn't. The health insurers certainly want to maximize their profits, because that is the fiduciary duty their officers have to the corporation, which means the accusation of this uncivil post is actually legally correct and accords with traditional economic theory to boot. Ouch, the truth hurts. But most Republicans certainly aren't thinking about that or anything else beyond the basic ideology of government = bad. They, the cult members, only want what is best for everyone, which is what the cult leaders tell them is best for everyone. And cult followers do not question cult leaders.

The Democratic Party "leaders" must be green with envy.

I loved to see Olbermann and Maddow take a tall piss on this guy just to prove their "seriousness". And over the most pathetic thing too -- his choice of one word, "holocaust" to describe the deaths of 45,000 people a year. Both of the "liberals" seemed to think the word ought to have a copyright symbol after it. Maddow went as far as to ask him about his vocabulary three times as if she was wrestling down someone on a vital issue of the day.

I suppose she was. The issue being the importance of protecting an apartheid state from words not even directed at it. Much more important than saving 45,000 lives a year and bringing America into the 20th century.

You stay classy, Rachel!

Good point, JC.

Following up on DavidByron's comment, maybe one way to get subversive facts past the media filter is to append the word "holocaust" to them. Just imagine, on your TV news: "Representative Alan Grayson sparked a controversy when he used the word 'holocaust' in reference to the deaths of an estimated 45,000 Americans due to lack of health insurance." Then, all over the country, sleepy news viewers sit upright in their chairs and say, "Hey, wait a minute - 45,000 Americans die every year due to lack of health insurance?"

Why, it's brilliant in its simplicity.

SteveB: Good observation, but I don't know about a fact leading to a thought.

Hasn't everybody noticed that the only people in the country not in favor of a public option are media pundits, members of Congress, and lobbyists, shareholders, officers, and executives of health care denial corporations (I sort of like Caruso's name there), along of course with the batshit crazy portion of the GOP that chants in unison to whatever tune is playing. Literally almost everybody else already knows the real deal on this, even most of the GOP.

I'm sick of 'oh no he compared it to the holocaust' histrionics too.

every dead peasant a little miracle.

I got into a small argument with two siblings who agree with single-payer health care, but took objection to his using the word 'holocaust' saying that this choice of a word hurt his cause.

I said hockey pucks to that idea - it is a holocaust (or a slow nakba) and that is what we should call it. And Grayson's two little speeches did more to inform the American people and advance the cause of health care reform than anything since SICKO came out.

After wasting some time with the siblings, I recommended that they take some ACTION around this issue instead of worrying about what WORD was used.