Mr. Paulson has said that when he arrived in Washington, he was surprised to discover Mr. Frank’s keen understanding of Wall Street, given his lack of work experience in the private sector. In an interview, Mr. Paulson said he had enjoyed Mr. Frank’s penchant for brokering deals.
“Because he is looking to get things done and make a difference, he focuses on areas of agreement and tries to build on those,” Mr. Paulson said. “He doesn’t waste anybody’s time, your time or his.”
I thought Barney would be a little more partisan. But I’m happy that he’s been loyal to the party and his issues, but has found ways to be practical and effective. What more can you ask?
“Barney has been very fair,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher of California and one of the most conservative members of the House. “I think that I have been treated more fairly, and a number of my Republican colleagues have been treated more fairly, since the Democrats have become the majority than I was treated by my own leadership.”
I always think it unfortunate that as a gay man he never stood a chance to seek much higher office in his time, even without the scandal. The scandal itself was also very disappointing.
But there is a lot to like about Barney Frank and the way he operates. Plus, like Paulson says in the article,
“It’s always more fun to work with someone who has got a sense of humor.”
If not for the times and the scandal, where do you think he could’ve gone?
He could easily replace one of the Senators either by pop vote or appointment
But I worry he’d be reluctant to give up his senority in the House and start over in the Senate at his age.
I got the impression when JK was running for President that BF was angling for his seat (lot’s of TV time on high profile issues). Perhaps it was just wishful thinking on my part?
but I think he said at the time that he would run for Senate, unless the Dems won the majority and he became Chairman of the Financial Services Committee. I don’t see him making the move to a Jr. senate seat, since he has a lot more power & resources in House than he would have as a first-term Senator.
For instance..
He is against extending abortion protest buffer zones.
While we’re praising Barney, wouldn’t this be a good time to call on him to condemn Hillary Clinton’s race-baiting tactics and to declare his support for the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama?
<
p>Compromise and fairness doesn’t have to mean sacrificing your core principles.
<
p>Attaboy, Barnie.
Which again is why I ask, has this principled man not been bothered by HRC’s tactics, and if so, why has he not spoken up?
… I assume that the relative importance of subject in relationship to the work to be done in the world of a U.S. Congressman and Committee Chair is relatively small.
<
p>I say that as an Obama supporter. Not the rest of the important matters that face our country need not and should not be drowned out by the electoral dogfight.
I take it you’re a Democrat, as am I. And as is my congressman, Barney Frank. What could possibly be more important to our shared values than the outcome of the next presidential election? Seriously. Name one thing.
<
p>Also, you are aware Barney endorsed HRC? That is why I am wondering what he thinks of the way she is trashing our nominee.
if you go by the obama campaigners’ “rule” that superdels support the same candidate that their constituency does.
I’m not questioning Barney’s initial decision to endorse Clinton. That is water under the bridge.
<
p>I am questioning his silence as HRC has gone increasingly negative, declaring our party’s presumptive nominee unelectable, appealing to racial bias, and refusing to admit defeat, thus doing the Republican nominee’s (who happens to be an extreme conservative) work for him.
by saying “you are aware Barney endorsed HRC?”
… his opinion on a primary, it’s politics not representation that he is doing. I elected him to represent me and I expect that his duties in doing so outweigh any desire to express an opinion on a primary. I actually find that it is so much more important that he pay attention to the job I elected him to do that I was unaware he endorsed HRC.
Again, my problem is not with his initial endorsement way back when, before the Mass. primary. My question is, when will this principled man speak out against HRC’s highly unprincipled tactics, and the damage she is doing to our party?
My point stands. I think when it comes to dealing with ‘unprincipled tactics’ there are things in the US Government that should be higher on his priority list. I mean, he has oversight of the Bush administration for god’s sake. I’d love it if he spoke out. I’m not going to hold it against him, however, that he doesn’t go far enough, especially since his role is in the periphery anyway. What’s important is that he goes far enough in the well of the House. His role isn’t periphery there, so it should concern him more.
Ok, but again I ask: What could be more important to our shared ideals – yours, Barney’s, and mine – than the outcome of the ’08 presidential election? How much more difficult is his job in the House going to be if McCain is our next president? As a prominent early endorser of Clinton, Barney’s silence now as she inflicts harm on our presumptive nominee is deafening.
… the impact of the election is huge. The impact of Hillary apologizing is less so. The impact of Frank asking her to apologize is even less than that. So much less, that relative to the great job he’s doing in Congress, its not worth my time to worry excessively about. Your level of worry may vary of course. Just like the Lewinsky scandal, although I can’t approve of Bill’s behavior, I don’t think it was worth $60M and several years of lost legislative and judicial productivity. I agree about the tactics and what Frank should do. I’m just not as upset about it as you are and I’m certainly not going to let it get in the way of electing him to do a great job in the House. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and his opinion. Hell, we’re not even talking about his opinion, but merely the lack of expression of an opinion that we have. For all we know he agrees with us but for reasons of not burning bridges he hasn’t ‘put it out there’. He does such a good job I figure he’s entitled to keep his mouth shut if he feels he needs to.
I’m not asking Barney Frank to ask HRC to apologize. I’m asking that he condemn her tactics and that he call on Democrats to rally around the guy who is going to be our nominee.
<
p>He can show some leadership and act now to reduce the damage HRC is doing to our hopes in the general election. Or he can remain silent and wait for whenever HRC finally gives up the ghost. He is certainly not the only prominent Democrat facing this choice. But he happens to be my congressman.
<
p>Which is why I ask: Where did his principles go when HRC started breaking cardinal rules?
You went through this whole back-and-forth with “Mr. Lynne” above and never once actually gave an example of something she said or did that you found objectionable. The Clintons do not and never would race-bait. It is NOT race baiting to point out that Jesse Jackson won SC twice; it is NOT race baiting to point out that Clinton does better among white working-class voters. When has Clinton ever said, “We cannot nominate a black man because he will lose.”? In fact Clinton has said several times that she believes he is electable and that she will help make that happen. Besides, why is it a sin to do “whatever it takes” within legal bounds to win? Maybe that’s what we need in a Democratic nominee. She’s nowhere near the Atwater/Rove level and I don’t want her to be. However, maybe if our candidates were a bit tougher Dukakis would not have lost after coming out of convention 17 points ahead and Kerry would not have been sunk by “Swift Boats” of all things!
I guess it’s all just a big misunderstanding on my part.
I’m guessing its a tactic.
HRC tactics, as if you needed me to tell you:
<
p>1. Hillary Clinton, along with others in her oranization, has repeatedly described Obama as unelectable and inexperienced. She has stated that only she and McCain have the foreign policy experience to be president. The absurdity of HRC making these claims aside, this is a cardinal sin. You argue you’re better than your party opponent. But you don’t endorse the other party’s guy over yours.
<
p>2. Bill Clinton certainly was appealing to race when he made his comments about Jackson and S.C. And it was no mistake. The Clintons are not people who say things in public by accident.
<
p>3. Similarly, Geraldine Ferraro was deliberately deployed as a Clinton surrogate to raise concerns about Obama’s race and electability. It doesn’t matter that she was then cut off from the campaign. She did her job.
<
p>4. Likewise, HRC’s recent remarks equating “hard working” with “white” – a deliberate, calculated appeal to racial bias.
<
p>5. The Clinton campaign also used Bill to propagate the story that Obama didn’t really oppose the Iraq war resolution. A complete lie.
<
p>6. Breaking her pledge on the Florida and Michigan primaries – HRC, Obama, and Edwards all agreed with the DNC ruling. Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. HRC has reneged on her pledge and wants the delegations seated, as is.
…in general I disagree as shown point by point:
<
p>1) Obama does have a lot to be desired in the experience department. Better than McCain overall to be sure, but objectively on foreign policy the experience variable has to go to McCain. If it weren’t for Deval Patrick’s successful campaign I’d write off Obama as a half-term Senator with negligible qualifications for President. I have already pointed out that she has in fact said that he IS electable, in the PA debate as one example, but other times as well.
<
p>2) Bill’s comments about Jackson and SC said nothing about race. If I didn’t know otherwise I could not have figured out by that statement that he is black. Bill made similar comments about his own losses in 1992. All he was saying that a given state does not make or break a nomination.
<
p>3) Ferraro stated that she believed Obama would not be where he was in this race if he weren’t black. Again, objectively I think this is true, but that doesn’t make it bad. African-Americans are proud to vote for one of their own, but I’m sure that given that population’s affinity for the Clinton’s stemming from Bill’s tenure they would be voting overwhelmingly for Hillary and Obama would just be another half-term Senator in the same class as Edwards in 2004.
<
p>4) I did not infer that only whites are hard-working. It’s a simple fact that those who are both blue-collar and white-skinned tend to be voting for her. These are the Reagan Democrats which we need to get back into the fold in order to win. If she’s getting them and he isn’t that goes to electability.
<
p>5) They never said that Obama didn’t oppose the Iraq resolution, only that he is not on the official record having not been a Senator at the time. I have never heard the accusation that he ever overtly or covertly favored the war. I believe since they have both been in the Senate they have voted the same way on matters relating to Iraq, if not 100% of the time then almost.
<
p>6) In this case she’s pretty much guilty as charged, but I agree with her. I think the mistake was ignoring the states to begin with, although I understand it was Obama who campaigned in Florida. Of course she is going to argue that they should be seated, especially if it benefits her – that’s politics! Besides, disenfranchisement of those voters is completely unacceptable to me.
<
p>So yes, I needed you to tell me, but apparently I also needed to explain why these things are hardly worth getting upset over.
You conveniently avoided the crux of point 1. It is fine for one candidate to assert she is better qualified than a rival candidate in her own party. But you don’t endorse the OTHER party’s candidate over someone from your party.
<
p>And that is exactly what HRC did. She explicitly endorsed McCain over Obama. For that alone she should be persona non grata to Democrats.
I hate using the internet equivalent of yelling, but for crying out loud you are so full of it. She has said time and again that the differences between her and Sen. Obama pale in comparison to the differences between either of them and McCain, and that she will fight for the Democratic nominee. For that matter, Obama has returned the favor and said likewise about her. I challenge you to link the quote (in print as I use dial-up and can’t play video) where she says, “If Barack Obama is the nominee I urge my supporters to vote for John McCain in November.” THAT is an endorsement and I’m confident you will not find her saying that.
She said only she and McCain have the foreign policy experience to be president.
<
p>No, she did not rad a statement that said, “I endorse John McCain.” But what she said endorsed him over Obama.
<
p>Mince words all you want. Like I said, she broke a cardinal rule. And her transgression will do real harm. McCain will run ads pointing out Hillary said he, but not Obama, is qualified. And so on.
I am, however, going to be picky about language and “endorse” to me clearly names an explicit statement supporting one’s candidacy. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time primary opponents said something likely to be used by the opposing nominee. Jimmy Carter ran ads in 1980 citing George H. W. Bush’s calling Reagan’s plan “voodoo economics”, but that apparently did not hurt the GOP ticket, which of course included Bush himself in the second spot. I also agree with Hillary that this is a legitimate concern. If this general election comes down to national security and other commander-in-chief issues, it’s definitely to McCain’s advantage. For Hillary to point that out goes to electability. She may have broken a cardinal rule in your opinion, but don’t state it like it’s a fact. It’s an opinion I do not share.
Well, then, live happily ever after on Planet Hillary.
It was widely covered at the time and I’m not going to do all your homework for you. But here’s one piece about it:
<
p>www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/01/politics/fromtheroad/entry3896372.shtml
<
p>First paragraph:
<
p>FORT WORTH, TEXAS — Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. “I think you’ll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” Clinton was referring to Obama’s anti-war speech he delivered in Chicago before entering the United States Senate.
<
p> ~ ~ ~
<
p>Now, seriously. As Democrats, how should we react to that?
From the Chicago Tribune:
<
p>weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clinton_ive_crossed_commanderi.html
<
p>Excerpts:
<
p>”I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.
<
p>”I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.
<
p>Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a “distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,” Clinton said, “Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with.”
<
p>AND:
<
p>”There are certain critical issues that voters always look to in a general election. National security experience (and) the qualifications to be commander-in-chief are front and center. They always have been. They always will be,” she said.
<
p>She said she and McCain had traveled to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan together as she repeated a line that surfaced from the campaign trail. She and McCain “bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, Clinton said, while “Sen. Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002,” stating his opposition to the Iraq war as an Illinois state senator.
Hello? It suddenly got real quiet in here.
vis a vis gambling, alcohol etc…
<
p>It’s been hard for me to come to terms with that……
<
p>I just wish he’d come around on pocketbook issues vis a vis taxes etc.
…but I have always respected him as a person of character and honesty. Wish I could say that about more politicians with whom I may disagree.
I wish I could say it about more politicians with whom I AGREE!