Srsly?
The cite says
If that’s true, then yes, he’d be a great choice.
Did you actually read it?
Thank you; yes. I was a bit overloaded at work the past few weeks and missed responding to comments in some threads, but you posted exactly what I would have written, steronz.
May I suggest revoking posting privileges of anyone unable to correctly spell the name of one of the two major parties in the U.S.
Of course I read it. Grayson has a very colorful history and will be a great choice. You know the name, you know the game. Grayson is a wonderful representative of the Democrat party.
Which party again?
Not the Republic Party, apparently.
doorhinge - and everyone - keep the cheap shots regarding party names and such to a minimum.
Please enlighten me, doorbinge, why you are so delighted at the prospect of Grayson being on this panel, why the snickering?
doorbinge???
Meanwhile - didn’t you read the cited Salon article by Heather Digby Parton?
*Perhaps people don’t realize that Alan Grayson isn’t just another lawyer/congressman. He’s an experienced litigator who fought whistle-blower fraud cases aimed at military contractors. The Wall Street Journal characterized him in 2006 as “waging a one-man war against contractor fraud in Iraq.” And he was very successful at it. As a politician Grayson is usually seen as a pugnacious fighter always at the ready with a pithy put-down on cable news shows. His floor speeches are often fiery indictments of his political opponents and the power elite.
But that’s not why the Democrats should tap him for the job. As notable as all those characteristics are, they are not where Grayson’s true talent lies. He is a master at the task of committee questioning. During his first term as a member of the Financial Services Committee he practically had bankers whimpering on the hot seat and he took on everyone from Ben Bernanke to Timothy Geithner, eliciting important information. Unlike the vaunted prosecutor the GOP has tapped to lead the inquiry, Trey Gowdy (who specializes in browbeating and histrionic questioning), Grayson is never rude and he isn’t dismissive or insulting. He is serious, composed and extremely well prepared. And when he has the floor he is completely in control*.
Lawyer/congressman, experienced litigator, pugnacious fighter, fiery, master at the task of committee questioning, eliciting important information, is never rude, isn’t dismissive or insulting, is serious, composed, extremely well prepared, and he is completely in control. What’s not to like?
Democrats should be calling Pelosi, Reid, and Obama and demanding that Alan Grayson be their parties representative on the Benghazi debacle investigative committee.
Grayson! Grayson! Grayson! Grayson!
Let it slide, h and b are adjacent on the leyboard.
Apologies for the typo.
Yes I read the article, I was the one who posted it.
Your explanation of why you are snickering and mocking of this (Grayson) is clear as mud. Is there any chance that you might expound a bit?
Did you come here for the 5 minute argument or the full half hour? 
YOU want Grayson on the committee. Heather Digby Parton wants Grayson on the committee. Eye want Grayson on the committee. Parton convinced me that Grayson would be a great addition to the investigative committee.
You seem to be somewhat confused that we agree on adding Grayson to the committee.
(bold and underline added)
doorbinge/Democrat party - What difference does it make?
One is an innocent typo, the other is an historic term of ridicule used by one party to refer to the other.
That action would certainly reduce the number of Democrats, liberals, progressives, etc who prefer to use much more colorful terms to describe Republicans, the GOP, the Republican Party, the Tea Party, Tea Party supporters, and conservatives.
Or hadn’t you thought that far ahead?
It’s *intended *that way, sure - but it’s *received *as meaning “Nothing I say is thoughtful or should be taken as such”.
Really, dude? It was a typo. Let it go.
Why are you being so obtuse?
Let me put it in simple terms. I want Grayson on the panel because he is the perfect foil for this nonspiracy. He will not be an inactive participant, and he will ask questions that I would ask were I on the panel.
Why do you want him there? It seems to me that you are implying that he’s a terrible choice, that he’ll crash and burn. Why?
Grayson would be awesome. Democrats would be wrong to boycott the circus. Having Grayson there would guarantee that there would be plenty of sound bites to debunk the right wing invented scandal talking points.
I have no quarrel with “colorful terms.” It’s the stupid ones that don’t belong here. As **Elvis1ves **points out, it’s a code for “Nothing I say is thoughtful or should be taken as such.”