JimC posted a short time ago with The Progressive Case for Steve Grossman. I was working on a similar piece and, in addition to seconding everything JimC said, I offer it now. Over the past few years I’ve had the chance to get to know Steve Grossman – and learn about his life – and I, a harsher judge than most, believe he’s a strong progressive Democrat who can achieve great things as Governor of Massachusetts.
I believe this because Steve’s life story shows a deep and abiding commitment to progressive politics. Steve was literally born into it. When he was just a baby his father and uncle hired African-American workers to work for the family business, Mass. Envelope. Virtually no family businesses like theirs were integrated in those days before Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King – and even the U.S. military was still segregated – but racial discrimination went against their values. The same values led them to believe unions were vitally important to worker empowerment and a just economy, so they brought the union in themselves early on, and in Steve Grossman’s lifetime that company has never had a problem reaching a fair deal with the union that represents its employees, a union that was proud to endorse Steve in this race.
Steve’s uncle Jerry, who died at 96 last December, was a leading anti-nuclear and anti-Vietnam War activist. He actually supported an anti-nukes candidate against Ted Kennedy in 1962. Jerry Grossman organized the largest rally in the history of Massachusetts, an anti-Vietnam War rally in October 1969 that drew 100,000 people to Boston Common. Unhappy because his Congressman kept voting for the war, Jerry Grossman recruited Father Bob Drinan of B.C. to run against him and Drinan won the seat. It was a tectonic shift in the Massachusetts Democratic Party, the first big step in its evolution from the Cold War, anti-abortion party where Tom McGee the elder held sway to the party of Elizabeth Warren, with its liberal platform, run today by Tom McGee the younger.
When Pope John Paul II decided he’d had enough of Father Drinan being too liberal in Washington, the Grossmans threw strong support to Barney Frank, that liberal rabble-rouser who got Ed Markey’s desk tossed out into the hallway on Beacon Hill and inadvertently launched the junior Senator’s rise. Jerry Grossman was on the board of the Mass. ACLU and countless peace organizations. He was a mentor and guru to countless progressive young Democrats in Massachusetts. His autobiography was called Relentless Liberal and that says it all.
Enough about Jerry Grossman, you say. What about Steve? Steve Grossman watched all this and soaked it up. He joined his local Democratic committee young and stayed active. He supported countless liberal candidates – many now-familiar names – and causes. Familiar causes too. He’s been here, in our community, fighting the same fights many of us have fought.
After the 1990 Silber debacle the party turned to him. He served as chair of the state party in a way that would make John Walsh tip his cap, I believe. He took a near-bankrupt party and restored its finances. He also traveled the state tirelessly and built countless relationships. He instituted rotating town hall meetings so everyone wouldn’t have to come to Boston for everything. He built a Democratic network in places that didn’t previously have one. In the first election after he took over, the Democratic majority in the state Senate went from 24-16 to a veto-proof 33-7 and we haven’t looked back since. How many vetoes were overridden during those 16 years of Republican governors?
Thanks in large part to Steve Grossman’s efforts, a Democrat (John Olver, specifically) won the Western Mass. congressional seat held for over 30 years by the moderate Republican Silvio Conte. The seat’s been Democratic ever since and today’s electoral maps show a solid bloc of blue west of I-91 except a cluster of towns in Hampden County. In 2008 and 2012 Berkshire County – which is something like 96% white – gave Barack Obama his highest vote percentage of any majority-white county in the nation (in the high 70s). Believe me, it wasn’t always like that. Western Mass. used to be a bastion of Yankee Republicanism. Before Rep. Conte the area was represented in Congress by a string of droopy-mustached Republicans stretching to the founding of the Republican Party.
Steve’s never stopped his party-building efforts or his advocacy for progressive causes. As state chair he worked to increase the role of women and people of color in the party, and was a strong supporter of Young Dems from that group’s creation. He’s been in the trenches with a great many people whose work I respect enormously. Steve and his wife Barbara were early, and outspoken, supporters of marriage equality. Barbara was a founding board member of Mass Equality, its first heterosexual member.
For a while, 20 years ago, Steve Grossman worked at AIPAC. That’s a four-letter word (acronym, really) to many liberals. Me too, most of the time. But the only reason AIPAC wanted anything to do with him was that they were on the outs in all directions. The Democrats were in office here, Labour in Israel. They needed someone with ties to both. He could have told them to go get stuffed in something other than a Grossman envelope. By not doing that, Steve Grossman was able to drag AIPAC, kicking and screaming, to official support for the Oslo Accords. Those accords got Yitzhak Rabin killed, and Israel/Palestine’s still a mess. But Steve Grossman fought the good fight and stuck it out at AIPAC until it was clear that he couldn’t keep the hardliners in check anymore.
Steve next chaired the DNC, a job he didn’t hesitate to leave when his father fell ill in the late 1990s – family comes first. Steve increased fundraising, which helped the Dems pick up – rather than lose – seats in the 1998 sixth-year midterms. (I’d love to see that feat repeated this year, but it’s only happened that one time since the days of Andrew Jackson.) At the same time, he put a system in place to avoid the sketchy donations that embarrassed the Clinton White House in 1996.
In 2004 he had the courage to support Howard Dean for President, even though John Kerry had been our sitting senator for 20 years and Steve had known and worked with Kerry since 1970.
For the last four years Steve’s been our Treasurer. The Globe editorial page gets a lot of things wrong, in my view, but they were right on in calling him the finest Treasurer in living memory:
- He’s created a program that’s enabled small businesses (particular those owned by women, minorities, and veterans) to get over a billion dollars in loans they might not have otherwise gotten.
- He’s promoted diversity and merit-based hiring at Treasury, while revising guidelines so the proxy votes of Massachusetts public pension funds are cast against corporate boards that don’t practice diversity.
- He’s improved the School Building Authority and worked hard to improve the bidding process, promote transparency and eliminate waste.
- And, oh yeah, he’s gotten our state its best bond rating ever.
Some of this stuff is not sexy, but it’s governance. Good governance. The kind that gives the lie to the Republican myth that Democrats can’t be good stewards of the public fisc. The kind that frees up money to spend on things we desperately need.
In the midst of it all, Steve also ran that family business. If he inherited Mass. Envelope, he transformed it into Grossman Marketing. A complete change in focus. Many family businesses founded in 1906 didn’t make it to 2006. Steve’s did and grew in the process; his vision had a lot to do with that. Through it all he maintained the company’s historically productive relationship with the union. Grossman Marketing also has offered its workers family leave time since the 1980s and give employees facing personal issues extended time off – paid and with their jobs waiting for them.
Some folks, I fear, have misinterpreted Steve’s calling himself a “progressive jobs creator.” People said, “Not impressed. He’s running as the pro-business guy. He’s the CEO candidate. It’s a Republican theme.”? Christopher, though, has shown wisdom on this question. Steve’s use of the expression is meant to negate an outright false Republican theme: that only by screwing workers, eliminating necessary regulations, and cutting taxes can we promote job growth.
When Republicans say “job creator,” they mean “rich guy with lots of investments who wants super-low taxes and minimal regulation, or else he’ll be forced to accelerate his process of eliminating good jobs in the U.S. with good benefits in favor of McJobs for all.” Steve Grossman – though his policy agenda and his life story – has offered a different path.
When we, as Democrats, envision a better America and a better Massachusetts, good jobs with dignity and higher pay are a big part of that vision. We want stable jobs that allow people to live a good life, rather than scraping through each month struggling to make the rent. Jobs that don’t leave you terrified you’ll be unable to afford food and housing if you get sick. The kind of jobs Steve Grossman’s employees have.
Here is a successful businessman who’s done right by his workers. He is, much more than Arthur T. DeMoulas, the epitome of a “good boss.” (Private note to EB3: By “good boss” I mean that Artie T. is a bottom-feeding scumbag who screwed over his unfortunate cousin, tried to bribe judges, destroyed countless lives, bought the local media, slaughtered puppies in satanic rituals, and used the last of the toilet paper. Bastard.)
But Steve Grossman’s more than just a “good boss.” He’s a good Democrat who knows that laws and policies must be in place to promote workers’ rights. He knows such things can’t be left to the whims of individual employers. He knows that a fair economy, one not marked by widespread precarity and rampant income inequality, is good for the majority and good for the society. He knows, firsthand, that the CEOs do pretty well too.That’s why he was the very first witness testifying before the House in favor of the earned sick leave bill in 2006. Eight years ago. (This year we’ll get it done ourselves – Vote Yes on 4!)
I don’t agree with Steve on casinos – I’ll be voting to repeal – but I agree with him on sick leave, and universal Pre-K, and supporting our teachers, and equal opportunity for all, and the need for capital investments and greater efficiency and more humane outcomes in our healthcare system. I also believe he’s got the energy and talent to lead Massachusetts forward, the fair-mindedness to always keep his door open to concerned citizens like us, and the values to fight for progressive causes I hold dear. He’s been there with us, fighting these fights, for over 40 years. And the day after tomorrow, win or lose, he’ll be working his tail off for the Democratic ticket. That’s why I’m proud to support Steve Grossman for Governor tomorrow and I hope you will too.
This is much better than mine.
I liked yours quite well jimc, but this is the best narrative testimony on his behalf I have heard (and thanks for the shout-out, fenway49).
Steve could’ve used both of you to help. I’ve long defended his center-left record, it’s why a registered socialist friend of mine from U Chicago is working the Grossman campaign hard (also a Warren campaign vet, and a Newton resident which makes the connection easier). I honestly feel if he was true to himself rather than try to be above the fray, he’d have done much better and made a strong contrast to Coakley. We saw the real Steve at times, at the convention, at an Arlington town meeting where he impressed multiple BMGers, and at the last debate. I wish him the best.
Your post mentions the word “Health” once. Steve Grossman’s campaign website does not list health care as a key issue. I find that troubling for someone claiming to be a progressive Democrat. From a fiscal point of view, it’s 40%+ of state budget expenditures. For most of us, it’s the most or close to the biggest monthly expense. For any of us who have had a friend of loved one involved in critical care, it’s all that matters. And yet it gets mentioned once by you and its a non-issue with the campaign. That’s one huge reason why I withdrew my support a while back.
to the country than any other special interest lobbying group. Steve Grossman ran it for almost five years. Your excuse-filled account of how he only ran it to reform it sounds like it could have been written by one of Whitey Bulger’s girlfriends. And it’s fiction.
Still, you did better than Jimc, who was too polite to even mention Grossman’s five years as a lobbyist.
…and I can vouch both that fenway49’s account is accurate and that Grossman himself is far from being a hardliner.
and state for the record that AIPAC is run by hardliners who don’t represent his own views.
Has he ever done that, Christopher?
All he is responsible for is his own tenure, and neither his current office nor the one he seeks has much to do with our Middle East policy. Time to knock that chip off your shoulder.
I understand that the NRA lobbies in favor of guns, which kill people in this country. AIPAC lobbies for Israel. Is that what makes AIPC “a 4-letter word to many liberals” here?
Wikipedia states that AIPAC’s aims include
Is Steve Grossman supposed to apologize for that?
And neither will Steve. His tenure there is a plus in my book.
has often veered to the Likudnic side of Israeli politics. It’s part of there being a narrower range of acceptable opinion in the U.S. about Israeli government policy than there is in Israel itself.
… knows that the range of opinions on Israeli policy here is very, very broad, as it is in Israel itself.
In regards to office holders, there are very very few politicians who are willing to criticize Israel openly.
that there are other things more deserving of their criticism.
if you’re actually arguing that politicians from either party prioritize what items are most deserving of criticism based on some objective standard of domestic and global issues, but the death toll of more than 2,000 Palestinians this summer just isn’t that big a deal.
US Condemns Israeli Expropriation of West Bank Land
Israeli Official Confirms US Nixed Arms Shipment (citing a WSJ article behind a paywall)
US Criticizes Israel After Yet Another Strike
It seems our vast conspiracy to control the government and the media is not working so well!
Please contrast what you linked to with what I said:
It’s true that the Obama Administration has had not had a smooth relationship with Netanyahu’s Admin. You have to, however do incredible mental acrobatics, to argue that it’s common for US representatives and senators to criticize Israel. Instead, they’ll argue who is a bigger ally of Israel in debates, and Rand Paul had to do quite a bit of back-peddling and damage control after he suggested the US ceases giving aid to Israel: https://www.google.com/search?q=rand+paul+israel&oq=rand+paul+israel&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5503j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8
At WashPo, a writer explains “It is not a position shared by any other sitting senator.”
But it had a Labor and Dem bias during the Clinton years, frankly, with the exception of Obama, it usually has a bias for whomever is in power in either country so it can exert the most effective lobbying and influence. Listen, I had Mearsheimer as a professor and have actually argued with him about this issue, he is correct to critique it in some areas, and way off base in many others. To single handedly blame them for the Iraq War is a bit of a broad fallacy to say the least, particularly since Sharon counseled against it.
Grossman endorsed Howard Dean in 2004, when most of our state endorsed the then pro-war John Kerry. I think that shows how serious Grossman takes progressive values in general, and that he backed the anti-war candidate from Vermont over the pro-war candidate he had a personal relationship with in his homestate also demonstrates where his heart was on that contentious issue.
are actually doing, ie. keeping very, very quiet about his tenure at AIPAC.
If he didn’t have anything to apologize for, we would have heard much more about it.
He’s running for governor of Massachusetts. Why should he stress work he did 20 years ago that concerns foreign policy, a realm that Massachusetts state government has nothing to do with.
Why did he endorse anti-war Vermonter Howard Dean over a pro-war baystater he knew for over twenty years? Maybe Dean’s opposition to the war had something to do with it? Grossman’s tenure at AIPAC marked a high water mark for it’s influence in both parties, since then, they have chosen to make their bed primarily with neoconservatives in the GOP, though I wouldn’t be surprised if the were Ready for Hillary. But while they were releasing press releases against Dean, Grossman was campaigning for him and putting his career on the line for the good doctor from Vermont. That should speak to where his heart lies more than his tenure at a troubled organization.
since more than half of this post, which you wrote, is about Steve’s ancestors. Is what the candidate did in the 1990’s less relevant than what his uncle did 50 years ago?
because it has little to do with the duties of being governor of Massachusetts. Or maybe they’re keeping quiet because they understand that many Democrats do tend to heap inordinate blame on Israel for evils they see in the world. In any event, I fail to understand why Grossman should apologize for heading an organization that advocates for the State of Israel.
Fine post
…If what Fenway says is true, and I’ve always found him to be truthful here, Grossmans tenure at AIPAC roughly coincides with the most progress we’ve ever made on the thorny issue of the Israelis and the Palestinians. Which suggests that when AIPAC wants something, AIPAC gets that something. This goes both ways and the implicit condemnation of AIPAC is complicity in the concretization of Israels worst impulses both before and after Grossmans tenure: it seems that America can pretty much have it’s way in the world, except when it comes to the State of Israel and this exactly and precisely because of AIPAC. Personally, I put the deaths of many people –Palestinians, Israelis and others — and the misery of countless others, at the feet of the Israeli hardliners and at the feet of AIPAC. That Steve Grossman was willing to wade into this and try to reign in the hardliners, as Fenway says he did, speaks extraordinarily well of both Steve Grossman’s character and abilities.
However… if what Fenway says is true the question that is begged is why isn’t Steve Grossman touting it as an accomplishment and an accolade — which it really sounds like it is and in a much more substantial and honorable manner than that of Mitt and the Winter Olympics — rather than keeping mum about it?? My sense is that it may well be true but that Grossman might feel unwilling or worse unable to criticize AIPAC or be entirely unwilling to reveal just how powerful AIPAC is… That’s a tough, tough question and, frankly, it suggests either unexamined intents or conflicting loyalties between the CommonWealth and AIPAC…
So, I would not look for Steve Grossman to ‘apologize’ (your word) regarding his tenure at AIPAC so much as offer an apologia: that is to say a defense and an explanation of what occurred and how and why he dealt with it.
First of all, to believe that America can pretty much have its way in the world is to deny reality since about the 1950s. Then to say the only country that America doesn’t have its way with is the State of Israel shows an extreme bias in my view against Israel. And finally, to lay all of this at the feet of AIPAC is to blame American Jews for all the evils of the world, which I hope is not really your point here.
… Is that the best you got? Why be wishy-washy? Can’t you come right out and say it? Just say it. You’ll get it out of your system. We’ll both get passed it and then you can offer constructive dialogue.
Of course, if you really believe it (doubtful) you can kiss my ass.
If Steve Grossman did righteous work on behalf of American to ease the burdens of Israelis and the Palestinians, and raise the hopes of the entire world… why is this not a prominent feature on his resume? It’s a simple question. You want it to be about ‘not part of governing the CommonWealth’ or ‘democrats heap this or that on Israel’… or about what you think I think… but why not a straightforward “he did this and this is why’. I believe that he, indeed, did do righteous work about which he promptly shut his mouth out of some misplaced loyalty. It happens, shameful as it is…
Anyone who can make a statement, as you did, that Israel is the only country in the world that American cannot control, and that this is “exactly and precisely” due to AIPAC, must, in my view, believe that American Jews are to blame for it. AIPAC is an American Jewish organization. I don’t see any other way around your logic.
… and you inadvertently make my point for me.
What you say would be true if AIPAC was honest, transparent and completely above board. But American Jews don’t really know what AIPAC is up to in their name. If they did the money would dry up and AIPAC would wither away… it almost did exactly that when Grossmans predecessor at AIPAC was caught bragging about how many politicians AIPAC owned.
That, I contend, is why Steve Grossman doesn’t brag about his ability to affect the US government on behalf of Israel through AIPAC… which affect is considerable and pointed but — if made public — would engender considerable questions about why, or why not, they choose to obstruct rather than
construct. I will stand by what I said: it suggests conflicting loyalties between the CommonWealth and AIPAC.
You say that “American Jews don’t really know what AIPAC is up to in their name.” If they don’t know what AIPAC is up to, who does? Apparently, in your view Steve Grossman does. You go on to say that he is purposely keeping silent about this. So, therefore Grossman must be part of some sort of secret conspiracy that is running AIPAC and thwarting the will of the United States. I rest my case.
… like ‘extreme bias’ and ‘all the evils of the world’ and ‘secret conspiracy’.
I can’t really tell if you’re trying to say is that all Jews are immune from the venality that afflict the rest of us and therefore we must genuflect to them involuntarily or if you’re asserting that Jews have a special affinity for righteousness denied the rest of humanity so they couldn’t possibly ever do evil. I’m the one treating Jews no different — for better or worse — than I treat any others. You, on the other hand, are inventing ways and logic to call me prejudiced and absurd. I suspect that if we were talking about an Irish pol who’d maybe have done something with the Hybernian Society or Tammany Hall back in the day we’d be in agreement on the analysis…
I actually didn’t say anything about secrecy and I certainly didn’t mention conspiracy. Sometimes all that is neccessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing… or, in the case of Steve Grossman, maybe do something but not talk about it… I merely said that AIPAC is powerful and Steve Grossman doesn’t, it appear, want to let on how powerful it is. Back in the day,as I alluded to earlier, Tammany Hall was “merely” a social club… Power is as power does and if you’re going to say that AIPAC can’t possibly be corrupt and corrupted then it is you who is being absurd.
Who knows… maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Grossman is just scared that if doesn’t appear insufficiently pro-Isreal somebody’ll want to shoot him like someone shot Yitzak Rabin.
“a special affinity for righteousness denied the rest of humanity” or that they couldn’t possibly ever do evil. It’s you who are saying that Israel somehow stands alone in doing evil in the world, and that it’s all due to AIPAC, a Jewish organization. The fact that you then twist my point by alleging that I’m asserting that Jews are better or more righteous than everyone else is simply more evidence of your bias.
You are right. You have not asserted such. You have, however, implied exactly that. So there’s that. I criticized Israel and AIPAC. You criticized my criticism as invalid, absurd even, and proceeded from the clear implication that AIPAC and Israel can do no wrong because I can do no right.
That I have said anything remotely resembling this is, simply, not true. To return to my example from earlier: it’s entirely possible to criticize Tammany Hall and not, in any way, be anti-Irish or accuse the Irish of some past attempt at world, or even city, domination. It is not, according to you, possible to criticize AIPAC because all such criticisms would therefore implicate all American Jews and further mean they are part of a vast cabal bent on world domination.
I don’t believe that. And I know you don’t believe that I think that: you have simply exhausted your cognitive dissonance and resort to tired accusations of perfidy upon my part because you are not capable of thinking that AIPAC might not be perfect. I think it’s an idea you should get used to…
A statement like that singles out Israel among all other countries in the world in a particularly negative light, and it singles out AIPAC in a particularly negative light. It’s going beyond ordinary criticism, which I would have no problem with. It is singling out one country for blame, saying it is the only country in the world that America cannot control etc.
Yes. I said that. I will state without hesitation or categorization of any kind that the US and Israel have a special relationship. I don’t think this is controversial. What is controversial is that I think, and I have evidence to back me up on this, that AIPAC very much games this special relationship for a particular, very extreme, section of the Israel political spectrum and in a very particular one way direction. I do, in fact, think that AIPAC exists in a very negative light. The light, in fact, is so very negative that I see Steve Grossman in similar negative light by his close association with the group. You insinuated that I extend this negative light to all American Jews and that I’m cooking up absurd theories about all the evil in the world. I understand the historical reasons why you might think that but I don’t really think you believe that of me.
Fenway, however, says, to the contrary, that “Grossman was able to drag AIPAC, kicking and screaming, to official support for the Oslo Accords.” I believe him but wonder –aloud– why Grossman doesn’t use this in a political campaign. It’s a game changer for me… and probably for a lot of people… for Steve Grossman to plausibly stand up and say “hey, I did my part and I took on the Israeli hardliners in AIPAC and got them to support the Oslo Accords” That’s not chopped liver. That’s really something. That’s, in fact, a really extraordinary something… and something I’d like to see in a Governor. Instead, Grossman would rather be quiet about it and leave me to think that he agrees with the AIPAC hardliners. If he did so agree there would be zero possibility that he gets my vote. Zero. If he took them on like is alleged then that might the one thing that makes me vote for him enthusiastically. I voted today for Martha Coakley because I think she’s a fighter willing to take on entrenched interests. I didn’t think that about Grossman and absent the true story I honestly don’t know what to think about him.
I avoided aiding your hijacking of this excellent diary, but please cut the crap.
I can tell you — first hand! — that I didn’t mention AIPAC because I don’t know much about Steve’s tenure there. Honestly, it never crossed my mind.
Hold the accusations, please. If you’re so worked up about AIPAC, you could have said something before yesterday, and in your own diary.
Grossman traded on the influence, and the connections he accumulated as a Democratic party official, and became a lobbyist. That’s problematic.
What’s more he used those connections to lobby for a foreign government. That’s even more problematic.
Even if you have no reservations about Israeli policies over the last 50 years, Grossman’s conduct is questionable for someone seeking to be Governor.
As a courtesy, jmc, can you post your special rules about when I’m allowed to post and comment on BMG.
Sorry I’m not playing. “Lobby for a foreign government” is tempting, but I’ll pass.
Don’t forget to vote today.
As AIPAC’s mission statement says, it’s role is “to strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of Israel and the United States” (my emphasis). This is different from being hired to promote the interest solely of a foreign power. AIPAC exists because it is primarily supported by supporters of Israel in the United States. A lobbyist for a foreign government would be primarily funded by that government.
“In any event, I fail to understand why Grossman should apologize for heading an organization that advocates for the State of Israel.” (emphasis added)
That quote is from you Dave, today.
AIPAC’s mission is to advocate in the interests of both Israel and the U.S. Maybe I should have made that more clear.
AIPAC is not a lobbyist for the State of Israel. You can verify this by looking at the FARA database, where you can find a listing of the firms that do represent Israel, as well as the firms that represent any other foreign country.
…on a good man, a good progressive, a great Democrat. Thank you for this. I will still vote for Berwick tomorrow, wishing both Don and Steve had done a better job of telling their stories and making their cases.
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Especially stupid from such a smart guy.
I believe Grossman is more sincere and would make a better governor than Coakley, and we should all be grateful for so much of the work that he’s done, but little of this came across throughout the campaign, and most importantly, I didn’t get any real feeling for what his vision for the Commonwealth was.
So, while he’s been admirable, I wish him much future success, but I’ll be voting my heart – Berwick.
Thanks Bob.
As of now, 38 comments (not including this one) and by my count 30 are exclusively about AIPAC.
Hijack successful.
Joe Curtatone shared both JimCs and your posts on Facebook and they got a lot of likes. Most new readers will ignore the comments.
Attempted hijack, successfully discovered. The diary stands.
… as they are about AIPAC I do not think they (for my part) are ‘exclusively’ about AIPAC. I, at least, made an attempt to see what this had to do with Grossman. I don’t think it so much a ‘hijack’ as a serious (for my part) exploration of his actions then and his intentions now. Apparently, however, one cannot be critical of Israel and even AIPAC without pushback. I knew that going in — and almost didn’t post initially because of it — but I think you are in earnest in your support for Grossman. That deserves both respect and reasoned response. For my part, I’ve tried to provide that…
This New Yorker article with an anecdote about a meeting between congresscritters and AIPAC:
Neatly demonstrating the kind of ledgerdemaine and gymnastics (as demonstrated elsewhere in this diary) the pro-Isreal lobby can do: If Grossman was part of that I want to know about it before deciding upon my vote. Where does he stand? Is he going to pull the same kind of shit the Senior Senator from NY does and accuse someone asking a valid question of “equating Isreal and Hamas”. That he did it shocking. That he got away with it is sickening. Would Grossman sit silently by or would he scold Shumer, as Shumer so richly deserved, for being a complete and utter tool?
To be perfectly honest, and for that very manner of intellectual thuggery Shumer et al has demonstrated, Grossman’s involvement with AIPAC is the main show-stopper for me. If his tenure there was good and distinctly at odds, as you allege, with the hardliners then that’s something I want to know about and which could very possibly change my view of the man. If it is good and he yet he doesn’t wish to talk about it… there’s a dynamic there, also, that perhaps needs some sunshine.