Alan Grayson: GOP made up of corporate shills, religious fanatics, and freedom fiends (video)

Democratic Congressman, and liberal firebrand, Alan Grayson of Florida appeared on the Bill Maher show the other day, and had a few choice words for  Republicans.


Alan Grayson: I think there’s really 3 Republican parties: there are the corporate shills; there are the religious fanatics; and then there are the freedom fiends, the ones who want to make sure you have the right to sleep under a bridge.

Bill Maher: So Jesus freaks, gun nuts, generic obese suburbanites — and let me add the super rich. That’s the Republican party, isn’t it?

Alan Grayson: Yeah, and right now at this particular moment the corporate shills are in the minority, they can’t force their will on the others anymore. Because when you get down to it, they have the money but the other two have the votes…. [The Republicans] think that the biggest problem in America today is that billionaires don’t have enough money.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

52 Responses to “Alan Grayson: GOP made up of corporate shills, religious fanatics, and freedom fiends (video)”

  1. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    Oh, so still no reply as to how Elizabeth Warren’s accomplishments make her eligible for the 2016 Dem presidential ticket? Just more disparagement? Yes, do leave please…you are unable to answer the question and too cowardly clodpate to admit it. You are clearly unable (not unwilling) to articulate your position, so your only defense is pointing the finger. Gosh, it must really suck being cole3244. :(

    As for my “anger” in response to you: understand that my degree of snarky sarcasm depends entirely on your degree of dumbass stupidity.

    Good Day. :)

  2. cole3244 says:

    i will leave you to your own devices as your dislike for the left is too ingrained in your politics for me to change your attitude.
    do try and get a hold on your anger so it does not keep you up at night and interfere with your ability to make good decisions.
    you can have the last word & i will not respond so you can focus on your anger management issues, good luck.

  3. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    Hmmm…how do you get that I hate her? How on earth would a rational person arrive at that silly conclusion based on what I wrote. It’s all here. I don’t hate her, I don’t even know her personally. As I wrote….when you said she should be on the Dem Presidential ticket for 2016, I made the point she has been in politics for 9 months and has not accomplished anything and it was too premature, imo, to consider her. So, please share your rebuttal (6th request). You tell me I am wrong, well, tell me WHY. Unless you’d rather throw labels at me. I’d like for you to finally articulate your well-reasoned, rational, argument. Unless…of course…you don’t have one! Lol..

    PS: You need to repeat every grade you’ve attended thus far, then be stripped of your computer pending investigation into your IQ.

  4. cole3244 says:

    calm down, you’re off message, this is about you hating warren remember.
    take an aspirin, get some rest, count tea bags and you will be more like yourself in the morning, then you can tell me about being a progressive liberal lol lol lol, i’m sorry i just can’t stop laughing about that one.

  5. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    “republican” “wolf is sheep’s clothing” Undercover conservative” “tea party hack”–is that it? Is that all you got, witless one? Blah blah blah blah blah blah, blaaaaah…..

  6. cole3244 says:

    tell me again how you are a progressive liberal i haven’t had a good laugh today, rw give away my phony friend.

  7. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    Paranoia I see. So is it a big cover-up? A conspiracy? Lol.. Your inability to express an original thought as well as your obvious ignorance about anything to do with Senator Warren cannot be “covered”.

    Your weird, tourettes-like mantra of accusing me of being a republican (meant to deflect your ignorance of the American political system, no doubt ) notwithstanding, there was nothing dramatic, or original, about your harangue. In fact, your scold could have been delivered far more concisely. May I?
    “I, cole3244, am bitter about having missed out on the opportunity of an education, blah, blah; rationalizations with regard to my ignorance surrounding my own country’s elected officials , blah blah blah. Done.”

  8. cole3244 says:

    another protest from a rw wacko pretending to care.

    nice try but your agenda can’t be covered up by lies and deception, be gone tea party hack & have a nice trip.

  9. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    So tell me, Cole3244, 5th time I asked, please– how is the senator from Massachusetts qualified to be President? Based on her accomplishments thus far and her voting record in the senate. Remember…you became irate when I disagreed that she lacked qualification and has not accomplished enough (or anything, for that matter) since taking her first political office in January of this year. Stop with the allegations about me and simply rebut my statement with your reasoned opinion (and feel free to make it fact-based please). Here’s your chance! My disagreement with you prompted your vitriolic resposne. So please, allow me to retract my statement by informing us, finally, how you feel she is ready to run for President in 2016. Prove that you are not as ill-informed a charlatan as you appear. :)

  10. cole3244 says:

    we’re waiting, typical con you can’t stand alone you need help.
    your claim to be a pro lib was a dead give away that you must be a tea party member looking for trouble, sad very sad.
    when you use senator warren’s name please bow your empty head to a higher intellect.
    ps – get help before your lack of control gets you in trouble, or try anger management, i feel your pain i really do.

  11. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    You are an ignorant, uninformed dolt EVERYWHERE you post. You are lying and making incorrect assumptions about me because your compartmentalised way of thinking cannot fathom anything other your own, self-centered world view. I do not pretend to be something I am not. You are a pathetic poser who knows jack shit about Elizabeth Warren or any other senator/politician in elected office. Try picking up a newspaper. Educate yourself!

    I am not angry…I have a low tolerance for the uneducated dimwits who try so hard to engage in blog commentary and have really nothing substantive to add–other than attacking others views.

    So…tell us: How is Elizabeth Warren, based on her accomplishments as U.S. Senator, qualified to be President of the US? You’ve had nearly a week to think about it and craft your response. We’re waiting.

    Make it good!!

  12. cole3244 says:

    on this site you are a pro lib on others sites you are something else but we both know you are a fraud its so obvious.
    try and control your anger you will feel better i promise.

  13. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    No. I am a progressive liberal. You are so shallow and uninformed that you can’t fathom this ! The difference between you and me is that I have a brain and am able to discern. You have proven you know shite about American politics with your inability to answer a simple question, asked three times. Lol !

  14. cole3244 says:

    boy the anger comes out fast from the right when their talking points are not adhered to immediately.
    fox and friends is your home why not lay where you belong.

  15. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    You are a back-peddling idiot. I told you why, imo, she is not yet qualified to be President, and yet, you are unable to articulate Elizabeth’s Warren’s accomplishments which you feel make her worthy to be leader of the free world. Admit you know little to nothing about her and you simply pulled her name out of the proverbial hat as the politician de rigueur. Again…you have the same “you are either for us or against us” mentality that the ReTHUGlicans regurgitate. You are no better than them. And clearly just as daft and uninformed.

  16. cole3244 says:

    you have already labeled her as a failure so you are either a wolf in sheeps clothing or just plain ignorant, you tell me which.

  17. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    yawn. please reply by stating her accomplishments. Thanks.I said she has none. You disagree. Tell me what they are please. What makes her qualified to run n the 2016 ticket, in your opinion. :)

  18. Whitewitch says:

    I will no longer participate in the lesser of two evils. Had to hold my nose to vote this time and will never do it again. I can not vote for Hillary – she is more conservative and more of a war supporter then even President Obama.

  19. mike31c says:

    To be fair, there is also a fair number of idiots and morons in the gop.

  20. cole3244 says:

    you’re a little quick on the draw to be criticizing her after so short a time and that seems to be an agenda that is more concerned with dragging her down then legitimate criticism.

    if the shoe fits then you must wear it and your fast critique on warren seems more than unfair it seems partisan, just sayin.

  21. karmanot says:

    ppppfffffftttt that’s my opinion.

  22. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    Never said she had to “singlehandedly” fix Wall Street. Nobody said she was a complete failure as a politician. Your brain synapses seem to be discharging without coordination. Or you are just too hyper-sensitive and eager to pounce.

  23. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    I agree that she needs time to prove herself–TIME. But I’m not “throwing out the baby with the bathwater”. People here are talking about her running for President when she has only served 9 months in the senate and held no prior elected political office. My point was that she has not accomplished anything–yet–so give her time to prove herself before propping her up on the 2016 ticket. Sigh. I am not saying she had to fix Wall Street in 9 months–but her spoken promise was to begin as soon as she was elected. She has not. I guess some of you don’t feel Wall St doesn’t need fixing. Thought that was just the Repubs.

    “Classic anti-liberal talking points”…that’s just rubbish. Because I say, IMO, she hasn’t accomplished enough to be considered for the presidency? With all due respect, feel free to list her accomplishments thus far since she took office January 3, 2013 that you feel qualify her for consideration on the 2016 ticket, and I’ll gladly retract. This is the problem with this country’s two party system. “Either you’re with us or you’re against us” seems accepted practise on both sides.

    And I have no “agenda”…it was a stated opinion which dissented from yours. That’s life.

  24. worfington says:

    A down rating for a link to a study? WTF ever.

  25. worfington says:

    Sorry the junior senator from Massachusetts has not single handedly fixed Wall Street in her first nine months in office. Obviously, she is a complete failure as a politician and a human being. Mea culpa.

  26. cole3244 says:

    only in our dreams!

  27. cole3244 says:

    i think we need to give her time since she is getting push back from both sides of the aisle, so far she’s the only one trying to hold the bankers feet to the fire.
    throwing the baby out with the bath water is counter productive, i will give warren all the time she needs but you have the classic anti liberal talking points down pat if that’s your agenda.

  28. dula says:

    Because the voters who consider themselves “liberal” enough to take care of hungry, out of work Americans are stuck in a belief system that affirms the neoliberal/corporatist lesser of two evils shtick is all that is possible. Hillary 2016!

  29. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    Sorry about the repeat post. Didn’t seem to show up the first time.

  30. Whitewitch says:

    Grayson rocks, but Maher asked the question I have – if we are in such financial hardship why don’t we end the war and take care of Americans…hungry, out of work Americans….

  31. Whitewitch says:

    Ohhh I think I am liking you MIchaelG – I agree 100%!!!

  32. Whitewitch says:

    100% agreed. She speaks a great line – however what result – other than shaming the Bankers (and they could care less) has she really gotten thus far. Not ruling her out – just saying we do not need another President like President Obama. Where it is mostly talk and little effective progress.

  33. Whitewitch says:

    Grayson/Sanders 2016 – (p.s. No Clinton, please – that will only feed the Republicans and make them crazier then they are now).

  34. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    You’re an idiot and you are the troll. I don’t feel the need to automatically love and support every elected politician simply because they belong to the same party as me. I’m still waiting for Warren to take on Wall Street and Big Banks–this promise got her elected. She was to address it in her first month in office. Still waiting…

  35. Whitewitch says:

    There are racists in every party – sadly – they do not confine themselves to the Republicans. More sadly they are quite about it so it is hard to pick them out.

  36. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    I’m not trolling. I don’t love every elected public official simply because they happen to belong to the same party, you moron. I’m still waiting for her to fight Wall Street as she promised. This is how she got elected. A promise to begin action within her first month. Still waiting…

    You’re the troll here. Suck it.

  37. worfington says:

    “It seems… Her constituents are unhappy with her”. “She has done little”. “I’m sick of supporting new progressives…”.
    Yeah, I’m the one trolling…
    Classic concern trolling.

  38. Naja pallida says:

    I think the word cloud at the top of the document says everything you need to know about the Republican party. They’re scared, and don’t really have a coherent reason to be scared so it makes them confused and angry. That confusion and anger leads them to lash out randomly, and blame everybody but themselves for their problems.

  39. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    Trolling? I believe you are, sir. Lighten up wanker.

  40. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    She will need the independents. And after 8 years of a Dem in the White House, the Independents may be looking for a new party. I sense she will choose a moderate (with no liberal leanings) white male. I think that is guaranteed. Sadly.

  41. worfington says:

    Wow, that’s some mighty classic concern trolling there. Fuck off.

  42. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    Seems in Massachusetts her constituents are unhappy with her due to her not being accessible or available. She got in…now she has to prove herself. But, it should have worked the other way around. Whilst I agree with her (spoken) political stance, she has done little else…but talk. I’m sick of supporting new progressives based on speaking skills, ability to turn-a-phrase and iron-clad assurances that never materialise.

  43. worfington says:

    This study of republican focus groups shows the accuracy of Mr. Grayson’s observation.

  44. cole3244 says:

    true but warren is a fast rising star with the masses and a straight shooter, she just needs more name recognition, i believe her time will come.

  45. cole3244 says:

    you’re correct grayson probably will never get elected pres or vp, warren i think its possible someday.

    hillary might choose a liberal to balance her con positions but i doubt if she will so we will have more of the same dem left of the right but right of center politics.

  46. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    I think she’ll go for a moderate, of course. I’d prefer her running with a progressive iiberal on the ticket…but that will never happen.

  47. MichaelG (MikhailXO) says:

    Love Grayson…but Warren hasn’t done anything yet! Clinton/Grayson 2016 is more like it. :)

  48. emjayay says:

    Sounds good to me, but in reality Grayson is too much of an iconoclast to be a realistic candidate. But an interesting question I hadn’t thought of myself, and of course it’s premature, is who Hillary would choose if she does run. I’m thinking she would go for someone with a lot of experience. Any liberal former governors in Congress? And a man.

  49. emjayay says:

    Good point, but definitely not a mutually exclusive group. Come to think of it, his categories aren’t mutually exclusive either. It’s just a matter of emphasis.

    I was going to explain but then I realized it’s obvious if you think about it for a second.

  50. BarbaraGordon says:

    He left out the racists.

  51. cole3244 says:

    warren/grayson 2016 or beyond, i could then go to heaven or hell it if they really existed.

  52. chrislib says:

    Grayson/Weiner in 2016. Shame about Weiner, though.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS