When I was in Austin for the 2008 Netroots Nation conference, I attended a reception with somewhere around three dozen Democratic candidates for office. Some were running in local Texas races. One was running in a primary against Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin. But most of them were running to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. As someone who had researched every competitive House race in the country, I already knew these people by name, had reviewed their web sites, knew how much money they had raised, who they were running against, and the nature of their districts. I knew who was a long shot and who had a real chance. At least, I knew those things on paper. But talking to them gave me a chance to size up their political skills.
I have a routine when I talk to prospective candidates for Congress. The first thing I ask is what committees they want to serve on. You’d be amazed at how infrequently I get a cogent answer. Most politicians seem to run for office without having really considered what the job entails and what they want to do if they get there. I always find this strange. When I do a job interview, I always try to find out how I’d be spending my day. Most politicians are running for office for their own strange reasons, and haven’t gamed out how they’d actually accomplish anything in Washington.
The second thing I ask is about their districts. We all know the national issues. But I want to gauge how attuned a politician is to the specific needs of the people they want to represent. Most candidates are very good at answering these questions. If they’re not, they’re probably not going to win.
I talked to a lot of politicians that night. And most of the conversations went the same way. Some people really impressed me, like Martin Heinrich of New Mexico (who went on to win) and Sam Bennett of Pennsylvania (who went on to lose). Some struck me as out of their league. But the person who really stuck out was Alan Grayson, who was running for a seat in Orlando, Florida.
Grayson was totally uninterested in answering my questions. He didn’t want to talk about committees or his district. He wanted to talk to me about an article that was going to be published detailing what a crook his opponent was. He wanted to talk about how criminal the Bush administration was. He was incensed about war profiteering. Try as I might to steer the conversation back to his district, he wouldn’t bite. He sounded just like a blogger. What he was saying was not much different from what I had been writing for three years about the Republicans. It was clear that he was running for office because he was completely outraged about the direction of the country. But he was only concerned about it on a national level.
I decided then and there that I wouldn’t be asking my readers to support him. It wasn’t that I didn’t agree with what he was saying. That’s not what concerned me. What concerned me was that I didn’t think he had the right skill sets to be a successful representative of such a competitive district. Grayson surprised me by going on to win. But his behavior since he became a congressman hasn’t surprised me at all. I have no idea how well his office is doing at constituent services, and perhaps his staff is doing a great job. I hope so. But it’s clear that he is most interested in making a splash on the national stage. How well that translates back home is anyone’s guess, but he is definitely not following the blueprint for winning reelection in a tough district.
It’s been a bit odd seeing him become somewhat of a champion of the progressive blogosphere, considering my pre-existing ambivalence about him. It’s also been weird to watch the punditocracy’s reaction to him. They are dismayed by his lack of civility and convinced that he’s committing political suicide. But he’s got a ton of money and he’s willing to fight. Check this bit out from Stu Rothenberg, from his subscription piece at Roll Call, which is headlined: A Lesson on How Not to Win Re-Election:
I didn’t meet Grayson during either of his two Congressional runs (2006 and 2008), but I heard plenty about him. My first and only meeting with the Congressman occurred earlier this year, in late March, in Orlando, Fla., when we spoke at the same event.
At the time, a handful of names of possible GOP challengers were already floating around, including former state Sen. Dan Webster and Orange County Mayor Richard Crotty. Both have since passed on the race.
Smart freshmen from difficult districts, when asked about their re-election prospects, will respond either that they are focused on doing their job on Capitol Hill or that they know that they’ll have a tough fight on their hands and will do everything they can to deserve re-election. Some even say something nice (e.g., “he’d be formidable”) about a potential opponent.
Grayson did none of those things. Instead, with not a whit of humility, he proceeded to bash, then dismiss, Webster and Crotty. A Grayson aide has since said in print that potential opponents have decided against challenging the Congressman because “they don’t want to be gutted like a fish.”
Grayson’s problems, from what I can tell, include an exaggerated sense of his intellect to cover up some self-esteem issues and a misguided belief that voters supported him because they actually liked him.
It’s Grayson’s willingness to gut his opponents like a fish that endears him to many progressives who are sick of watching Democrats back down from a fight. That, along with his warchest, is why no Republicans have stepped up to take him on despite his atypical behavior. Rothenberg is convinced that Grayson is wounding himself to a degree that none of that will matter.
Grayson’s comments resonated with some grass-roots Democrats, but elections in Florida’s 8th district aren’t won by those kinds of voters. Swing voters, and particularly Republican-leaning swing voters, are likely to pick the next Congressman.
Republican strategists don’t have a top-tier challenger to Grayson, but given the Congressman’s public persona, they probably don’t need one to make for a competitive contest. A competent, well-funded challenger with some private-sector experience would give Grayson a headache.
Those who say that Grayson will or won’t win re-election at this point are getting too far ahead of themselves. The race is a long way from developing. But it’s already clear that Grayson loves controversy, thinks he can do no wrong and is widely seen as the loosest of cannons. That’s enough to almost guarantee he’ll be in the political fight of his life.
I can’t say that Rothenberg is wrong. I can only say that Rothenberg is echoing the common wisdom about American electoral politics. Whether that common wisdom is accurate or not is what we will soon find out as Grayson seeks re-election. If I have any advice for Grayson, it is this. Put the people of your district first, and your desire to influence the national debate second. If you want to be a firebrand, that’s fine. But don’t lose sight of the people you represent. My advice for Rothenberg is different. As John Riggins said to Sandra Day O’Connor, “Loosen up, baby.” Grayson makes things interesting.
