An interesting article about Alan Grayson from last November...do you think it's still a valid analysis?
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...
...Note that the Congressman isn't merely fighting for what he believes to be right, or that he is trying to work with others to improve things. His side stands for right, while the other side is wrong.
...Grayson clearly has some issues with who he is and where he came from. And that shows, not only in his bio but also with the way he deals with those who may disagree with him.
Grayson was elected to Congress not because of who he is and was, but because he wasn't Ric Keller, the incumbent Republican. The challenger won because of a big Democratic wave in a competitive but Republican-leaning district that President George W. Bush won with 55 percent in 2004. Barack Obama carried it with 52 percent last year - roughly the same showing as Grayson. The district's Democratic Performance Index is only 44 percent, making it a difficult district for any Democrat in a normal year.
Keller, of course, had a shockingly close 53 percent to 47 percent primary win about 10 weeks before last year's general election, a sure sign of his problems in the district. And Grayson outspent Keller by almost 2-to-1, $3.21 million to $1.77 million, in the race.
It was his money and the mood for change that made Grayson a winner, not the public's affection or admiration for him.