Oof. From Jim Braude’s interview with Congressman Barney Frank, to be aired tonight at 7 on NECN:
“The real Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsover. He is the most intellectually dishonest human being in the history of politics.”
Later in the show, Rep. Frank stopped holding back and told Braude what he really thinks. đŸ˜‰
Frank took some other interesting positions, notably on casino gambling and on the upcoming ConCon:
“Why is that any of (their) business? … This notion that ‘these poor, stupid people don’t know as much as we do and we must protect them from misspending the money they get’ is the worst kind of arrogance.” …
“The Constitution says if you get the signatures you are then entitled to a vote on the merits of the legislation… Everything that is being done now is to try to persuade legislators not to vote for this on the merits.”
Even if you don’t agree with Barney Frank, you’ve got to admire his plain-spokenness.
David, did they send you the who transcript, or just some teasers? I’d like to read it whole and in context before commenting on what look like potentially vexing comments by Frank.
You’ll have to watch the interview. If you can’t watch NECN at 7, they usually post the video online within an hour or so after the broadcast.
with the health care bill, last January.
<
p>
Here’s the bottom line David – and there’s been no argument anyone has made to convince me otherwise.
<
p>
It’s homophobia running rampant to start following the so-called principals of the constitution when it has to do with putting the queers down. That’s what it is, pure and simple. It’s uncomfortable to say that, but the truth.
<
p>
If this were any other discussion, this conversation wouldn’t have taken place. Almost no one batted an eye when the health care bill was killed, procedurally, just days after the SJC’s ruling. It’s happened for seemingly eternity and it’s widely, likely because the process itself is flawed – except when it comes to The Gays. Then we need to follow it to a T. I don’t see why we should start obeying this flawed process – for seemingly the first time – when it comes to giving a chance to strip equality away from the minority: we’re better than giving into the right-wing nuts who think 25% of the legislature should be able to advance constitutional amendments against minorities.
<
p>
If you have a problem with legislators abusing the process – a problem I also share – then let’s do the right and honorable thing: advocate for a change to the process. Let’s not start by arguing to put forward a ban on the constitution. We should revamp the constitution to fix this problem – and any others like it – to make it right and fair, not allow the constitution to be abused by some shrewd homophobes who knew how to work the system.
<
p>
We, as a state, cannot accept the rule of 25% of the legislature and 50% of the populace when it comes to dictating constitutionally granted equality: the constitution is higher law and ought to mean more than trivial votes: an overwhelming majority, 2/3rds at least, ought to be required in order to change it. Yet, today’s bar is too low – and if it takes procedural maneuvers to bring that bar back to its place, in leau of a fair system, then so be it.
…due respect to Congressman Frank, someone I respect immensely, neither part of this statement….
<
p>
<
p>
….is entirely accurate in substance or in spirit.
First of all, the “vote on the merits” has to do with a LEGISLATIVE vote on the merits. Which is correct. Legislators who claim the the PEOPLE have the right to vote on it are wrong.
<
p>
Secondly, I think what he meant was that they are being encouraged to vote “NO” on the merits of the amendment.
<
p>
If I am correct about these two points, then his statements are absolutely accurate both in substance and spirit.
So then it means that everything being done by the “let the people vote” crowd is trying to convince legislators not to vote on the merits.
<
p>
It’s definitely not very clear here. I hope it’s more so in the interview.
For Barney’s “plain-spokenness.” ;p
…on most issues, Barney Frank is pretty much a Democratic party apparatchik. He did yeoman’s work on the gays-in-the-military issue in late 1992 and early 1993 with little support (that’s putting it mildly) from the Democratic party, but that’s about the only issue on which I agree with him.
<
p>
We’ve lived in Barney’s district since the mid-1980s, but I have never voted for him. (I’ve never voted against him either.) But if the Republicans were to ever run a credible candidate against him I probably would vote for him. But otherwise, as far as I’m concerned, he is way too liberal.
<
p>
On the other hand, he services the district quite well, and that’s probably why he continues to be re-elected. On a Friday in 1989, mid-day, my spouse called Barney’s local office to discuss an issue on which he disagreed with Barney. That very same night, Barney, personally, called back to discuss the issue. I don’t recall what the issue was, and it really doesn’t matter, but the idea that Barney would personally call back to discuss the issue was quite impressive.
…not.
<
p>
First off, the Constitution of the Commonwealth says nothing about legislators having to “vote on the merits” so substantively, he is incorrect. In spirit, there are those that beleive that is what the Constitution means but there is not an absolute consensus among scholars or legislators. The SJC opined that this was the meaning but also stated that they are not empowered to make the decision and dismissed the case so the spirit of the constitutional meaning is up for debate.
<
p>
Secondly, in my opionion, his second statement implies that people are putting all there effort into convincing legislators to kill the amendment without taking a vote. That is clearly untrue. People have been feverishly lobbying legislators to vote no and kill the amendment with and up or down vot in addition to lobbying that the amendment be killed procedurally.
It’s not the case that
<
p>
<
p>
that it was the Legislature’s duty to act. The court was not at all ambiguious in saying that the Constitution requires the Joint Session to vote. Its decision not to order the legislature to do anything or to face any conseqiences was based on other grounds.
<
p>
I agree with Ryan’s take on what this boils down to in practical terms (and on what the correct remedy would be). I add that the Constitution, for whatever it is now worth, is hardly strengthened by this shameful double standard.
<
p>
I just don’t see how we get anywhere by advancing a patently wrong description of events.
….was nothing but ambiguous. This is what we think but we have no power to affect the decision which ultimately belongs to the legislature (clearly paraphrasing here) is as ambiguous as you can get. The other grounds of which you speak is the fact that the SJC has not authority to tell the legislature how to interpret its duty under the constitution which the SJC stated was exclusively the purview of the legislature.
Ryan’s got it absolutely right.
<
p>
The SJC made a decision. The religious right went berserk over equal rights for homosexuals. So, the wingnuts lied, cheated and stole people’s signatures to prove that the decision was wrong and to take control of the issue. Never mind that they don’t have the right to overturn the court. Doesn’t matter to the wingers. God is on their side (even if all evidence proves them wrong).
<
p>
It’s disgusting that this has been allowed to go as far as it has.
…I wish he were my Congressman. He tells it like it is.