Yay Barney Frank

[lapsedmodernist]

Comments

[doraphilia.livejournal.com]

this is so amazing.

[olamina.livejournal.com]

awesome. what is that lady's deal?

[anthrokeight.livejournal.com]

Barney Frank, je Adore!

[pdanielson.livejournal.com]

I rarely say this of politicians, but I wish Barney Frank would actually get out there and speak more on TV.

Another one of his fine rhetorical moments from awhile back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAPXPOvWyok&

[danschank.livejournal.com]

it's kind of amazing that it took this long for a public figure to say something hilarious. the dems are such chickens.

[brooklyn-jak.livejournal.com]

Frank is a toady for banking interests generally but he sure got a mouth on him. I loved this.

distracted much?

[mjmj.livejournal.com]

"frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" what barney frank or any other democrat has to say, at this point. hey democrats! want a good reply to the right wing and its wacko, simpleton followers? pass good health insurance legislation for the country. if you had passed it before going on a month-long vacation, you wouldn't be facing this noise now.

why aren't we hearing about the people who are being denied their insurance claims? why aren't there people explaining the connection between these denied claims and insurance company profits? why aren't there explanations showing how people are being paid large amounts of money to produce -- literally -- nothing? why aren't there explanations demonstrating how these "insurance" companies are monopolies in their markets?

this whole "what does the right wing think about health insurance legislation?" phenomenon is just more of the same from the corporate media. whatever the right wing is currently "obsessed with" (that is, using to distract people with), that is what the corporate media pays attention to, regardless of how phantasmal or idiotic. remember elian gonzalez? (colbert hasn't forgotten) remember how "the country" (that is, the corporate media + right wing) was obsessed about one boy for days on end? how about the "teabaggers"? "acorn"? back in the winter of 2002 when the news of Enron's crimes and public anger about them was reaching a peak, and it looked like some significant legislation was going to be proposed to do something about it. That weekend, dick appears from his secret bunker and yells "terrorists!!", and the corporate media jerked its collective head around, relieving the public anger by replacing it with fear. mission accomplished, dick.

the list goes on and on. meanwhile, the real problems the country and the world face go unaddressed.

Re: distracted much?

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

of course I agree with you, but in a purely immediate gratification way it is pleasant to see someone NOT treat these troglodytes as legitimate interlocutors.

Re: distracted much?

[mjmj.livejournal.com]

i see it as a chairman of a committee fighting with one of the minions sent out by the "insurance" companies, instead of telling the executives of those companies that their days of making money off denying medical care to sick people are over. those executives are nowhere to be seen at these "town hall meetings." and we shouldn't forget the pharmaceutical companies.

why is there not a wholesale un-doing of all legislation that has been put in the federal code during the illegitimate "presidency" of shrub? we can only conclude that it is because a significant fraction of the democratic members of congress agree with it.

- the "patriot" act
- the "authorization for the use of military force" in iraq/afghan.
- the FISA "reform", including retroactive telecom immunity
- the bankruptcy "reform" -- bankruptcy is only illegal for those making less than the median income
- the medicare drug-cost "reform" passed when they "held open" the vote for several hours in the middle of the night while they twisted arms
- anything else that Delay concocted for his lobbyist masters
- assorted regulation changes such as renaming mining waste as "fill", allowing mountain streams to be filled with the mining waste
- the TARP and subsequent fed/treas. actions (yeah, this has become obama's -- the difference between his actions and paulson/sachs is zero)

in other words, what are people not noticing while they are told "look! over here! people are yelling!"?

(and now ridge writes in his book that the "color/terrorism alerts" were politically motivated, i.e., used to scare the country, distracting them from the repubs failings: http://www.truthout.org/082009K)

sorry to go off-topic, but once this thread starts getting pulled...

[mjmj.livejournal.com]

P.S., what have we not heard barney frank say? "i will not vote for any health insurance legislation that does not include a 'strong' public option plan." a few weeks ago, 57 members of the congressional progressive caucus signed a letter saying that they would not vote for any such "reform." frank's name was not among them.

talk is cheap, barney frank.

P.P.S., even the congressional progressive caucus has backtracked, with some saying that they would not vote for 'reform' legislation that does not include a public option, but then saying that they might vote for whatever comes out of a house-senate conference, making their prior commitment moot.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

hmm. I know he is listed as in favor of the public health option on standwithdrdean.com, unlike many many cowards...but yes, that is disappointing.

this is like watching a trainwreck in progress.

[mjmj.livejournal.com]

here is the congressional progressive caucus's letter (.pdf) that includes the signatures of those (as of July 31) 60 members who said they will not vote for a house bill that does not contain a public option. scroll past the (hard-to-read) signatures to see a printed list of the members names:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/uploads/July%2030%20sign%20on%20letter1.pdf

this still leaves the possibility that some of them will vote for whatever returns from the house-senate conference (when the screws are turned on them). many members of the CPC voted for the funding of the military action in iraq/afghanistan after a similar move by obama&co earlier this year.

on the other hand, here is an argument by an activist that the public option is inevitable, but only if the CPC rejects any non-public-option bill:

http://www.truthout.org/081809R