[skeptic2]

(CNN) - A spokesman for Florida Rep. Alan Grayson is defending the outspoken congressman's recent comment calling an aide to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke a "K Street whore."

The comments - directed toward Bernanke aide Linda Robertson - came during a radio interview a month ago but are just now circulating Capitol Hill.

Grayson spokesman Todd Jurkowski said the congressman's comments came in response to an attack from Robertson over the his support of a GOP-backed bill to audit the Federal Reserve.

"She actually questioned his understanding of the difference between fiscal and monetary policy," he said in a statement to CNN. "She had the audacity to attack a congressman who used to be an economist. She's a career lobbyist who used to work for Enron and advocates for whatever she gets paid to promote."

Jurkowski also questioned why the comments are making news a month after the interview aired.

"Why is this coming up now? This interview happened weeks ago. This is just another way for the NRCC to attack their number 1 target," he said.

The comments are the latest in a string of controversial statements from the freshman congressman, who last month angered Republicans but became a hero to the left when he declared on the House floor that the GOP health care plan is to let sick people "die quickly."

Several Democrats have said Grayson's language describing Robertson was inappropriate.

"Is this news to you that this guy's one fry short of a Happy Meal?" New York Rep. Anthony Weiner told Politico.

Weiner later issued a statement calling his remark about Grayson 'playful' and said the Florida Democrat is "a friend and an extraordinary member of Congress."

[ArtVandolay]

(CNN) - A spokesman for Florida Rep. Alan Grayson is defending the outspoken congressman's recent comment calling an aide to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke a "K Street whore."

The comments - directed toward Bernanke aide Linda Robertson - came during a radio interview a month ago but are just now circulating Capitol Hill.

Grayson spokesman Todd Jurkowski said the congressman's comments came in response to an attack from Robertson over the his support of a GOP-backed bill to audit the Federal Reserve.

"She actually questioned his understanding of the difference between fiscal and monetary policy," he said in a statement to CNN. "She had the audacity to attack a congressman who used to be an economist. She's a career lobbyist who used to work for Enron and advocates for whatever she gets paid to promote."

Jurkowski also questioned why the comments are making news a month after the interview aired.

"Why is this coming up now? This interview happened weeks ago. This is just another way for the NRCC to attack their number 1 target," he said.

The comments are the latest in a string of controversial statements from the freshman congressman, who last month angered Republicans but became a hero to the left when he declared on the House floor that the GOP health care plan is to let sick people "die quickly."

Several Democrats have said Grayson's language describing Robertson was inappropriate.

"Is this news to you that this guy's one fry short of a Happy Meal?" New York Rep. Anthony Weiner told Politico.

Weiner later issued a statement calling his remark about Grayson 'playful' and said the Florida Democrat is "a friend and an extraordinary member of Congress."

I heard the rant on the radio today. Not Playful, just hate filled venom ala Olbermann.

"Playful" That's a good one. Well not a "Whore" Whore.

It's always ok for a mentally off kilter Dem to just say sorry and it goes away??

Definetly his next rival will use the audio in an attack ad when he is up for reelection.
And they should and will pound the jerk.
Ant fems out there want to weigh on this??

[skeptic2]

I heard the rant on the radio today. Not Playful, just hate filled venom ala Olbermann.

"Playful" That's a good one. Well not a "Whore" Whore.

It's always ok for a mentally off kilter Dem to just say sorry and it goes away??

Definetly his next rival will use the audio in an attack ad when he is up for reelection.
And they should and will pound the jerk.
Ant fems out there want to weigh on this??

Playful was referring to Wiener's remark

So all these Republicans like the Federal Reserve and don't want an audit?

[salty]

"Is this news to you that this guy's one fry short of a Happy Meal?" New York Rep. Anthony Weiner told Politico.

Weiner later issued a statement calling his remark about Grayson 'playful' and said the Florida Democrat is "a friend and an extraordinary member of Congress."

This is revealing. Does he have lots of friends who are extraordinary members of Congress, and are a fry short of a happy meal?

Bernanke deserves worse than coarse language.

[Gates of Eden]

This is funny. Because most every politician is a whore. It's the key to their success.

[FreeThINC]

Grayson is a funny dude. I love it.

[Hawkeye]

The rapid recovery of US 2009 stock markets from the record lows of the Subprime, etc. debacle points up the very short term view of most Wall Street sophisticates. The destruction of Leaman Bros. by the Bernanke-Paulson team occurred before the Street had time to realize the depth of the abyss that confronted the sub-prime geniuses who promoted it. Leaman Bros. demise quickly became just another Wall Street event to the downside. If the Dow, etc., can so quickly overcome such an apparent catastrophe, one may well speculate on the effects of a really shattering series of events such as the death not only Leaman Bros, but the simultaneous demise of AIG, Bank of America, Goldman-Sachs and Wachovia. If the death of all of the major financial rascals had occurred all at once, as it might have (and almost did) would the DOW have recovered just as soon as it has? We will never know, but clearly the debacles that promoted the downturn of 2007-8-9 were not enough to instill anything resembling common sense to US stock markets by the fourth quarter of 2009. Next time, the current experience may provide more reason to allow the "malfactors of great wealth" to take their lumps sans the crutches of tax payer dollars. Saving the big boys on Wall Street does not guarantee the security of the men and women on Main Street as current unemployment figures clearly indicate. Absent the constant avuncular attention of Uncle Sam on behalf of all his nephews and nieces, Wall Street replays its ancient and selfish scenario almost instantly and endlessly. Wall Street needs constant and aggressive reminders that the days of nineteenth and twentieth century business as usual are long past and that a new and brighter decade of a new and different century is at hand.

[Bustina di tè]

Wall Street needs constant and aggressive reminders that the days of nineteenth and twentieth century business as usual are long past and that a new and brighter decade of a new and different century is at hand.

Not if the republicans and more than a few Democrats addicted to that Wall Street DNA dribbling down their chins can help it.
Check out who helped bring Obunko to the dance.

[skeptic2]

The rapid recovery of US 2009 stock markets from the record lows of the Subprime, etc. debacle points up the very short term view of most Wall Street sophisticates. The destruction of Leaman Bros. by the Bernanke-Paulson team occurred before the Street had time to realize the depth of the abyss that confronted the sub-prime geniuses who promoted it. Leaman Bros. demise quickly became just another Wall Street event to the downside. If the Dow, etc., can so quickly overcome such an apparent catastrophe, one may well speculate on the effects of a really shattering series of events such as the death not only Leaman Bros, but the simultaneous demise of AIG, Bank of America, Goldman-Sachs and Wachovia. If the death of all of the major financial rascals had occurred all at once, as it might have (and almost did) would the DOW have recovered just as soon as it has? We will never know, but clearly the debacles that promoted the downturn of 2007-8-9 were not enough to instill anything resembling common sense to US stock markets by the fourth quarter of 2009. Next time, the current experience may provide more reason to allow the "malfactors of great wealth" to take their lumps sans the crutches of tax payer dollars. Saving the big boys on Wall Street does not guarantee the security of the men and women on Main Street as current unemployment figures clearly indicate. Absent the constant avuncular attention of Uncle Sam on behalf of all his nephews and nieces, Wall Street replays its ancient and selfish scenario almost instantly and endlessly. Wall Street needs constant and aggressive reminders that the days of nineteenth and twentieth century business as usual are long past and that a new and brighter decade of a new and different century is at hand.

I am not for abolishing the fed, but someone needs to keep an eye on them. If you missed Grayson hammering someone from the Fed speaking at a congressional hearing on the bill which will audit the Fed, it was breathtaking and spectacular. Grayson is his own man.

[FreeThINC]

Grayson fails to yeiled. This is a clip from The Young Turks, but even if you don't like TYT its worth it for the Grayson clip. If you'de rather skip the commentary the Grayson clip starts at 1:18.



I can see how the republicans are getting tired of Grayson.

[skeptic2]

The transcript:

GRAYSON: I’d like to ask the gentleman from Georgia a few questions, and I’ll yield to him for the purpose of having answers to these questions. Does the gentleman from Georgia know what a bill of Attainder is?

BROUN: A bill of, the answer’s yes, in fact it’s been very explicitly described by the court’s.

GRAYSON: What is it?

BROUN: [long pause. Scrambling through papers.] The courts have applied a two pronged test. Number one, whether specific individuals or entities are affected by the staute, Number two, when the legislation affects a “punishment,” on those individuals, it serves no legitamate regulatory purpose.

GRAYSON: What, um, does the Constitution says about Bills of Attainder?

BROUN: Oh, I suggest that this is not a Bill of Attainder. It’s, um, certainly does focus on a specific entity, but it does not inflict punishment by any means. In fact…

GRAYSON: Will the gentleman from Georgia explain what the Constitution says about Bills of Attainder?

ANOTHER CONGRESSMAN: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a second? The gentleman from Florida?

GRAYSON: No. I’d like an answer to my question. [...]

GRAYSON: The question is, will the gentleman from Georgia agree with me that the Bill of Attainder clause was intended not as a narrow or technical provision, but as an implementation of the seperation of powers, and a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply, trial by legislature. Will the gentleman agree to that?

BROUN: No, sir, I will not, and I ask counsel to help us with this. I think all this is determination of the court and I’d like to appeal to Mr. Sensenberner.

GRAYSON: Well, I’m sorry, but it’s my time, not yours or Mr. Sensenberner’s, so I will reclaim my time, and I will point out that what you just you would not agree to is from a Supreme Court case called the United States v. Brown, something I would expect you might know about, given your name.

(They must hate his guts)