And The Biggest Pile of Chutzpah Award goes to…
Barney Frank! Mr. Frank received the award for this statement about the failout.
…Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee [said]: “Because somebody hurt their feelings, they decided to punish the country.”
As they say on the Interwebs, “I see what you did there.”
Frank, one of the prime architects–and by “architects,” I mean “strongarm artists”–of this debacle, has turned around and blamed others for not riding to his rescue. It’s like an alcoholic who’s pickled his liver after 30 years of swigging, then blames his friends for not forcibly locking him in rehab. Or the abusive spouse (insert your own joke about Frank here) who blames the abused spouse (insert another joke about Frank here) for “making him treat you this way.”
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what the Boston Globe had to say about Frank’s complicity in what BizzyBlog artfully called “Barney’s Rubble.”
Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that “these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis.” When the White House warned of “systemic risk for our financial system” unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.
Now that the bubble has burst and the “systemic risk” is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: “The private sector got us into this mess.” Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.
[...] From Southern Appeal: [...]
Throckmorton,
Great points.
Pelosi, Reid, and Frank all believe that a failing economy will benefit Obama. They are serving their own needs at the expense of our economy.
The stock market lost a trillion in one day. 7 trillion would have been a good deal. A trillion a day is a bad deal for Americans.
God help us!
By the way it is not a bail out for rich people.
This is an investment to help keep small businesses and home owners survive. The 7 trillion was a good deal for the property purchased and the stock market.
You guys are conflating the issues. Frank’s quote was in response to several Republicans’ claims that Pelosi’s monologue blaming Bush and right-wing politics caused the bail-out to fail. Specifically, several high-ranking house Republicans asserted that absent Pelosi’s partisan speech, the bill would’ve passed. In that respect, I think Frank’s response is dead-on — if her speech is really what caused Republicans to vote nay (which I seriously doubt), then that takes petty politics to a whole new level.
But Mark,
The point is that if the Dems really wanted to pass the bill they didn’t need the Republicans at all.
The Democrats are in the Majority. If Pelosi and Frank really wanted it passed they should have used their “Talents” and “Skills” to encourage their Dem. pals to help our country out of this mess. The reality is their goal is to blame Bush and the Republicans for everything and make them looked bad. Then if they get Obama elected they can recreate this country in their own image.
Pelosi’s words and Frank’s diatribe are just their attempt at distraction from their mistakes.
Speaking of petty politics.
I understood Franks point fine. But like I said on the other thread, MAD politics was a huge part of how this deal was put together, and Pelosi’s comments made it clear that MUTUAL assured destruction didn’t apply in her mind. There was no sharing of political risk in the name of an unpopular but necessary action. On those terms, why should Republicans act as if they were being set up?
should read “why SHOULDN’T Republicans assume”
I am very concerned about how bad things are going. Not about McCain or Obama winning (or not) that is irrelevant. It is how in the bag the MSM is for Obama and how willing many are to derail the economy (both pro Obama folks and those WTO conservative anarchists who want to see a melt down to bring on a mythical conservative age).
McCain has been holding back hoping to make a deal (we could all unleash on Dodd, Frank and Obama). But we are beyond that.
I do not like this government intervention either, but if we are going to Ron Paul route we need to be honest about what that means. The tough love route might work in the long term, but it only works if you are consistent. A hybrid Ron Paul hands off approach with a massive Democratic entitlement expansion is a recipe to Argentina style economics. This is a very big deal and people better start wrapping their heads around that.
Barney Frank is one of the biggest political tools I’ve ever heard or seen since Nancy Pelosi or dare I say Frank Church?
“There was no sharing of political risk in the name of an unpopular but necessary action.”
Given that 60% Democrats voted for the bill and 2/3 of Republicans opposed it, there most definitely was sharing of political risk, Pelosi’s words nothwithstanding.
I don’t deny that Pelosi was playing petty politics here, and as I said on the other thread, it’s possible that it was an intentional effort to torpedo the bill.
Look, there’s no doubt that politics were involved on both sides of this vote. Anyone who voted for or against the bill based on Nancy Pelosi’s comments or anything else political should be ashamed. Members of Congress should’ve voted up or down based solely on whether they though it was the appropriate solution to the problem.
there’s no doubt that politics were involved on both sides of this vote.
But political cover also had to be involved too.
Pelosi’s speech made it kry-STALL **from the highest level** (i.e., we’re not talking about Maxine Waters) that the Dems were gonna play politics with the votes on the bill and blame the Repubs, despite the statistical fact that even if Pelosi flipped 20 votes against her, most of the support for the now-OK’d bill still would have been Democratic.
I don’t blame the Republicans for refusing to play along with that script, refusing to be cast by the Dems in the role of the Washington Generals.
Bottom line … if you’re relying on a bipartisan MAD pact, you’d better come through on the political **cover** too, and Pelosi’s speech made it clear that Dems would not do that.
On those terms, why should there be a bipartisan deal?
And keep in mind that if Pelosi actually WANTED a bill and didn’t care about the “bipartisan cover” part on their part, then all she, Hoyer and Clyburn had to do was simply crack the whip.
Republican support was only ever a factor under the stipulation that, as Pelosi herself said Sunday, this bill has to be bipartisan. But listening to Pelosi’s speech, Republicans rightly heard the sound of a rug being pulled out from under them.
Barney’s shame…
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi I have always had a hard time liking. But Barney Frank, once upon a time, was different. Maybe it’s the amusing way he talks, like he’s chewing his cud at the same time. Or his basic dishevelment,……
VM –
EVERYONE voting for it was going to take some heat. Look at the fact that even 40% of Dems bailed on the bill. There was absolutely NOTHING that Pelosi or anyone else was going to be able to do to ‘crack the whip’ to get this passed. Given public sentiment right now and blowback from the electorate, there is no way that she was going to get enough democrats on board to get this passed in the face of republican dissent.
The reality is that the ‘cover’ argument doesn’t make sense. If the only reason that they were courting Republicans was for ‘cover,’ then you would have seen a lot more dems voting for the bill. No, every single vote in favor, regardless of party, was absolutely necessary because at the end of the day the electorate is pissed and didn’t want it.
If the republicans were going to be so testy about something so contentious, and didn’t think that the bill should pass regardless of ‘cover’ because it was just crap in the first place, they should never have bothered to announce a deal in the first place.
I’m not defending Pelosi – she’s terrible and has ideas that make the hair stand up on the back of my neck. And, yes, there was no need for her speech. But if the republicans are going to whine that they bailed because of partisan politics from something that is “absolutely necessary” to protect the voters, then they are either: 1) lying about their assessment of the seriousness of the problem; 2) don’t care about throwing the voters under the bus; or 3) are just as willing to give up principles over partisan politics as they have been crying the democrats are for years. Possibly all three.
Mark: Pelosi was protecting vulnerable Dems by permitting them to vote no even as Dems promised to use yes votes against the Republicans this fall:
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTNmYWE2OWNmYWM5ZGFlOGUwMWM5ZGFmZThkZWNjNjU=
That’s not “sharing risk”; that’s irresponsible. If she had any shame she would step down. She’s worse than useless.