Video: Bill Oreilly harrassment interview of Barney Frank is dead wrong

By Jason Williams

This is the type of journalism that the American public does not respect or wish to see. It represents the worst of the media. Those who approve of watching someone being attacked with no chance to respond may someday find themselves at the same end and change their mind. This interview is 100% unnaceptable and wrong.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 10:41 | Posted in Measure 37 | 31 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • CRAWDUDE

    Barney Frank deserves any attack he gets! He weaseled out of his criminal involvement in his boyfriend’s male escort service, run might I add from his taxpayer financed condo.

    Also here is a story about him and another boyfriend of his, read the last 2 paragraphs, they are from Bill Clinton and are pretty interesting considering the current mortgage industries issues.

    WASHINGTON — Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.

    So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.

    Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank’s relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie.

    Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical.

    “It’s absolutely a conflict,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. “He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?

    “If this had been his ex-wife and he was Republican, I would bet every penny I have – or at least what’s not in the stock market – that this would be considered germane,” added Gainor, a T. Boone Pickens Fellow. “But everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard.”

    A top GOP House aide agreed.

    “C’mon, he writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws?” the aide told FOX News. “No media ever takes note? Imagine what would happen if Frank’s political affiliation was R instead of D? Imagine what the media would say if [GOP former] Chairman [Mike] Oxley’s wife or [GOP presidential nominee John] McCain’s wife was a top exec at Fannie for a decade while they wrote the nation’s housing and banking laws.”

    Frank’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    Frank met Moses in 1987, the same year he became the first openly gay member of Congress.

    “I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus,” Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. “On Capitol Hill, Barney always introduces me as his lover.”

    The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”

    Critics say such programs led to the mortgage meltdown that prompted last month’s government takeover of Fannie Mae and its financial cousin, Freddie Mac. The giant firms are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.

    Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.

    Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank. Clinton now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds of today’s economic crisis.

    “I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Clinton said recently.

  • MS

    It is about time someone in the media hold our elected officials accountable. B Frank either lied to us knowing full well that we were heading down the economic path we went down or was grossly incompetent to see it’s approach. Either way he should be held responsible for his mismangement of this debacle. I agree with Bill when he says that this was on B Franks watch and he failed to take action and should be removed. I guess we will see, nezt election.

  • Steve Plunk

    Have to respectfully disagree with Jason. Barney Frank has been an enemy of the American people too long not to be held accountable for some of his misdeeds. Oreilly knows it and gave him a lesson in how we are losing patience with his kind. Someone had to do it.

  • Anonymous

    Frank was lying as he repeaetedly claimed he said “it wasn’t a good investment” when he actually said in the tape that “it wasn’t the best investment” which clearly suggests it is an OK investment.
    Together with his other remarks he was misrepresenting the status of both.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    I saw this clip last night and its ridiculous. O’Reilly really missed an opportunity. Barney Frank is guilty as hell and O’Reily has been fuming about it for months. Frankly I think this was not schlock journalism, I think O’Reilly was genuinely so mad at Barney Frank and the fact that the press won’t cover any of his involvement that he just lost it. Was that professional? No. Did it help O’Reilly’s case? No. Is it understandable? Yes, it perfectly understandable, but not in that time or place, and not when you are supposed to be conducting yourself in a professional manner. O’Reilly failed in that regard. The fact that we just spent a trillion dollars ( don’t kid yourself, that $700B is going to be a trillion by the end of the month ) and guys like Frank and Chris Dodd are not subject to any scrutiny whatsoever, especially in the case of an Obama win, is ridiculous. Its enough to inspire anger in anyone, I know it does in myself. The fact that O’Reilly could not contain that anger, however justified it may be, resulted in a failed opportunity.

    • Crawdude

      The bill that came out of the senate had 100 billion more tacked on to it, making it 800 billion (not that the media was going to report that). With the 300 billion from the failed Fannie and Freddie bail out that was supposed to be the fix all, it already brings the total to 1.1 trillion.

      Banks are saying they will need more and the FDIC requested ” unlimited” funds from the Treasury last Friday, which means they haven’t got a clue how much more they’ll need but they are worried.

      This may end up as the single largest fleecing of the American public by our elected officials.

  • CLUELESS EMMA

    Barney Frank is an ugly little weasel interested only in covering his own backside. He got only a bit of what he deserved. O’Reilly is dead on.

    I’ve had it with spineless kowtowing interviewers and politicians. Say it like it is, or get out of the way.

    No more holding hands with the enemy.

  • Anonymous

    If I had my way Barney Frank would hung in a public square. It is no less than he deserves.

  • Anonymous

    I enjoyed watching that.

  • Anonymous

    I definitely appreciate Jason’s opinion, but also disagree this time. The problem with Barney Frank in this interview is that the discussion couldn’t proceed because Barney Frank was trying to spin his own public comments as being the OPPOSITE of what they really were (a.k.a. LYING). Nearly every other media personality would let that slide and simply let Barney Frank answer the question as he choses while agreeing to disagree. However, when the price tag is $700 BILLION and every Democrat in any position of responsibility in Congress is placing this blame on Bush and congressional Republicans, they deserve to be taken to the woodshed. The Presidency is on the line and shouldn’t be obtained by the Democrats thru such unchallenged deception. Go Bill Go!

  • Vonski

    Jason, in your opening phrase, it sounds like you think Bill O is a journalist. He isn’t. He is a commentator/analyst. So, it was well within the format of his show to lambaste someone like that. That being said, he’s still a ass for behaving like that on TV… and Frank isn’t any better.

  • dean

    2 blowhards going at each other like 4th graders. Must see TV. Shedded a lot of heat and zero light on the most important issue of the day.

    • Crawdude

      One with a really bad lisp and poor tastes in men (yuk!), the other with a huge ego and rumor has it, nothing to back it up…..lol!

      As for the 12th post? TJ? anyone seen a post from this person before? It reminds me of Charlie L. from another article. Yet another Blue Oregon drone? Great! Jason, is the catalyst switching formats?

  • TJ

    Jason,

    You are absolutely correct. Thank you for your insight.

    If we don’t speak the truth with respect, we can’t expect those who disagree with us to respect us or even consider our point of view.

    • 2na8gm7q8h

      7qqh8g56y17 g6nmg3xuyjg32wq [URL=https://www.668938.com/192724.html] 0nqfjp29h20 [/URL] ryabkv83zgd9fn0

    • 2na8gm7q8h

      7qqh8g56y17 [URL=https://www.668938.com/192724.html] 0nqfjp29h20 [/URL] ryabkv83zgd9fn0

    • 2na8gm7q8h

      7qqh8g56y17 https://www.399814.com/1025123.html ryabkv83zgd9fn0

    • 2na8gm7q8h

      7qqh8g56y17 t9zdtidm27jy1xm ryabkv83zgd9fn0

  • Jaceson

    Just the title of this page is wrong. Harassment? Are you serious? Why is it harassment when a democrat is challenged with less than coddling words? Do it to a conservative, or anyone other than a Democrat, and it is deemed “tough questions”.

    Give me a break.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Maybe the way to look at this video is that yes, it was unprofessional.

    However, is the unprofessionalism of O’Reilly in this video really any more egregious than the media totally ignoring Frank for his part, and it was major, in this scandal?

    I think not. When you have an ex president, Clinton, saying on record his party resisted tightening CRA lending requirement efforts of the Republicans (“I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Bill Clinton, whilst chasing down “the cracker vote” in Florida), and you have a guy like Frank at the epicenter of it, with a boyfriend who benefitted financially from Franks corruption, then the sin of omission by the media is vastly more of a lapse of professionalism than anything O’Reilly did.

    O’Reilly’s behaviour was poor in this instance.

    The rest of the media’s behaviour has been shameful.

    Imagine the hang time just Clintons comment would have had, had republicans been truly responsible, and a Republican president had said that.

    Imagine the hang time this would have had if the Republicans had tried to loosen restrictions and one of them had the same relationship Frank had with his boyfriend.

    What was it last time around? We had some republican congressman write a dirty email to an an intern on his 18th birthday. That was a story that went on for weeks, front page. I guess that was important.

    There is a positive side to all this though.

    The gyrations the media is having to go through to get Obama elected are amazing. When you have the kind of bias that the non reporting of the Frank and Dodd events represent, and you can only get your candidate Obama a five point lead, that tells you a lot about how much people are buying what he is selling.

  • John in Oregon

    I find I agree with Jason, tho possibly not for only the reasons Jason has in mind. The problem is I also agree with commits of others here;

    > It is about time someone in the media hold our elected officials accountable.

    > “Barney Frank has been an enemy of the American people too long not to be held accountable for some of his misdeeds.”

    >”Frank was lying as he repeaetedly (sic) claimed he said “it wasn’t a good investment” when he actually said in the tape that “it wasn’t the best investment””

    But I really agree with Rupert;

    > “O’Reilly really missed an opportunity. Barney Frank is guilty as hell and O’Reily has been fuming about it for months. Frankly I think this was not schlock journalism, I think O’Reilly was genuinely so mad at Barney Frank and the fact that the press won’t cover any of his involvement that he just lost it.”

    Rupert is right. And having lost it, the important points were missed.

    For example the fact that Barney Frank lied too Bill O’Reilly on national television. Barney Frank stated that after 2006 was the first time he had the chance to get more oversight of Fannie and Freddie.

    That statement was a flat out lie. Barney had the chance to support such legislation in 2002, 2003, and 2005. Instead he opposed it.

    I made that comment in another post here, which brought Dean into the discussion. Dean made some important points and its appropriate to re-post my last comment to Dean here. Deans commits are from the earlier post.

    Interestingly I agree with much of what you say Dean. There is too much performance outrage. Whoopi, does it. Bill Maher does it. And of course the king of performance outrage is Michael Savage.

    John Stossel doesn’t do it, which shows its not necessary.

    Dean said > *I heard Frank say a couple of important points. First, that he was not chair of the House banking committee until 2007. Second, that within a few months, under his leadership they got a bill out that increased oversight on Fannie. The first point is obviously true, the second I don’t know about one way or the other.*

    Absolutely true that Frank became chair at the start of 2007, prior to that he was Ranking Member of the committee, the second most powerful committee position.

    On the second point, without getting into motivation and all that, in late July 2008 legislation was passed and signed transferring oversight from the Congress to the Treasury Department. The legislation, Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008, (HR6521) essentially identical to the 2003 proposal, created the new Federal Housing Finance Agency to regulate Fannie and Freddie.

    Dean said > *about his inability to get Frank to admit to culpability in the demise of Fannie. he based what little point he had on a clip he played of Frank offering his opinion that in the long run Fannie would be sound as an investment, not so in the short run.*

    One problem I have had is Bill tends to focus on one or two data points, looking at the trees not the forest. While a generalist like I. F. Stone would look at the forest and see the lay of the land.

    O’Reily used a clip from 2007 to make the point that the job of Frank (and Bush) was to warn people that Fannie and Freddie were bankrupt. Unfortunately for Bill that clip, aside from being a bit less strident and mentioning the housing slow down, is not much different from all the other clips of Frank going back to the mid 90’s.

    Unfortunately for Congressman Frank, there are all those clips going back to the mid 90’s so his position opposing regulation is abundantly on the public record. For example the Boston Globe reported that “Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.”

    So for Frank to state 2007 was the first chance is a lie. He could have supported the legislation back in 2003. He did not need to wait until 2007 to pass the legislation.

    BTW I disagree with O’Reily that Barney Frank, (Congress or Bush for that matter) had a duty to warn the public that Fannie and Freddie were bankrupt. The duty was and is policing Fannie and Fredie to make sure that they made decisions safely and honestly. [This is were O’Reily totally missed the point!]

    Dean, the questions you raised prompted me to ponder something I hadn’t considered earlier. Why, after more that a decade of opposing oversight and regulation, did Barney Frank (and other Democrats) suddenly change position and support the oversight legislation originally proposed in 2003?

    First a bit about accountants. They are methodical going through books entry by entry. Checking the books of a multi-billion dollar Government Sponsored Enterprise can literally take years.

    On July 30 Bush signed legislation granting the Executive Branch authority over Fannie and Freddie for the first time. Although the authority did not become in force until early September, Treasury did begin to look at Fannie and Freddies books immediately.

    And now we come to the KEY event. Treasury authority over Fannie and Freddie came into effect on September 7. Within 36 hours Treasury seized Fannie and Freddie, delaying only long enough to inform the McCain and Obama campaigns.

    What that tells me is that when Treasury started looking at Fannie and Freddie’s books in August they found the books very far off the accepted accounting practices reservation. It must have been obvious in just 30 days that both were way past bankrupt.

    Dean you mentioned that Moody had given A bond ratings. Moody made those ratings based on representations of the bonds made by Fannie and Freddie.

    Should Moody have distrusted Fannie and Freddie’s representations? Should Moody have unraveled and checked each and every mortgage in a Fannie / Freddie bundle?

    In hindsight yes. Its clear now that mortgagee operations within Fannie and Freddie were fraudulent. Moody should not have relied on the repeated assurances of Congressman Frank and others that Fannie and Freddie were sound.

    I noticed today on Fox News Sunday that Britt Hume nailed the facts.

    But we don’t need to rely on Hume to make the point. Under Bill Clinton the Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, and was thwarted by Frank. Clinton now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds of todays economic crisis.

    Clinton said recently “I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more _in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president,_ to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

    At this point I would add one thought. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama made the following statement;

    “Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”

    What was not apparent at the time Congressman Davis made the statement, and is still not being acknowledged, is that the principal cause of the Wall Street meltdown are fraudulent Mortgage Backed Securities issued by Fannie, Freddie and others.

    And that is what O’Reily failed to show us in his piece. Bill simply blew it.

    • dean

      John, in the spirit of bi-partisan thoughtful reconsideration, the NY Times has an interesting story on what happened at Fannie.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

      After reading it, and assuming it was well researched, I now agree there is a lot of evidence that Barney Frank had a role in abetting Fannie’s bad busines decisions by helping to shield them from increased capital requirements and oversight. He also did push for increased loans to lower income (and more risky) home buyers, and this push (which others in Congress made as well) helped Fannie’s leaders rationalize getting into the subprime market. Interesting though, is that Fannie was very late to get into this, and had lost 50% of their market share because they avoided purchasing the subprime bundles until 2005. They had a lot of pressure from their own investors to throw caution to the wind and get onto the gravy train. This is very clear in the article.

      I stick with my earlier conclusions that the housing bubble and ongoing financial meltdown is PIMARILY a result of bad, reckless, sometimes sleezy and greedy decisions by PRIVATE CAPITAL., including private capital invested in Fannie and Freddie. Government failed to properly regulate, and Barney Frank, even though he was in a minority position start to near finish, was probably more hurtful than helpful.

  • Carla Axtman

    Well done, Jason.

  • John in Oregon

    Thanks Dean. Your comment proves that more is accomplished talking to people rather than shouting at people. Hint to Bill O, you really did blow it!

    Dean I think you see from the NY Times article that there were also forces pushing for appropriate oversight. My biggest fear however is that Barney Frank will be made a scapegoat and inside the beltway business will continue as usual. Frank may be guilty of many things, a scapegoat he should not be.

    BTW Dean, you can add Senator Bob Bennett [R}Utah right along with Barney Frank and his cohorts.

    Lets think a bit about greed and bubbles. I’m going to use the DOT COM bubble as an example. During the mid to late 90’s many investors saw a great opportunity to make money investing in Internet companies. The desire to make money, Greed if you will, propelled a willingness to enter a market and take advantage of opportunity. In time the Internet market was overbuilt, over invested and opportunity exhausted. In other words the “bubble popped.”

    Did Bill Clinton cause it. NO. Could Bill Clinton stop it, again NO. Did it slow the economy? Yes, but there were other factors slowing the economy as well, 1999 through 2000. But, and this is important, the DOT COM bubble did not threaten a major meltdown.

    For as long as I can remember there have been housing bubbles. The housing bubble follows a predictable pattern. Demand increases push housing prices up. Rising prices push housing construction up. Increasing supply and over supply caused prices to fall.

    This is a key point. We have had many housing bubbles in the past, none caused this kind or scale of problem. Sure the economy might slow, but this situation is such a different magnitude one has to ask _what is different_ this time.

    Is it Greed? Greed is good, it propels a willingness to enter a market, take advantage of opportunity. Greed brings capitol to markets in need. Greed was in every prior housing bubble so that just isnt the cause today.

    Predatory Lenders, and where were some. All things being equal I would normally say there is no such thing as a predatory lender (excepting loan sharks). The predatory lender, walking the streets, looking for the gullible to sucker them into a loan just isnt possible, or is it.

    You should rightly ask why I would say that. Dean, I hope you don’t mind me using you in this example.

    Lets say Dean comes to me asking for the loan of $100. If I think Dean will pay I will probably make the loan. If I’m not so sure, I may for enough interest. But if I don’t think Dean can pay I simply won’t make the loan, after all I’m greedy not stupid.

    The loan shark will make the loan because the shark knows he will be paid back. Either in coin of the realm or broken knee caps.

    I can hear everyone now. John your not making sense. You said there were predatory lenders and then you demonstrated predatory lenders were impossible.

    You are right to ask. Under normal conditions predatory lending is impossible. I won’t make bad loans. (Well possibly to family or friends, ergo the admonishment not to.) But what happens when things aren’t normal?

    Lets use Dean again in an example. He asks for the loan of $100. If I don’t think Dean can pay will I make the loan? But lets make one small change. That change, I know Aunt Fannie down the street will buy the loan from me. I can make the loan to Dean, sell the loan to Aunt Fannie and make profit. Will I make the loan. Hell yes, if I don’t someone else will.

    Lets throw in a few more changes from normal. Officer Dumphry walks in the door rattles his nightstick on my desk. You better loan to my friends or I am gonna run your butt in. Then I open my mail to find Snidely Whiplash the lawyer down the street has filed class action lawsuit for discriminatory lending.

    I want to restate something I have mentioned a number of times here. *The bulk of sub-prime borrowers are paying their mortgagees.* There is a very real place for a sub-prime market so long as the risks are known and honestly stated.

    At the moment there is a very real possibility that Government will shut down the sub-prime market or step in and dictate conditions of the market. Neither solution is good and either solution will shutdown opportunity for low income borrowers. Risky loans aren’t predatory so long as the risks are known and honestly stated.

    What I wanted most to talk about here is Deregulation, Oversight, and Regulation. HT Bookworm.

    We keep hearing that the credit bubble popping loudly on Wall Street results from “Deregulation.” Yet no one stepped up to explain the difference between Deregulation, generally a good thing, and the fact that, in a deregulated environment, the government’s appropriate role is as a policeman.

    The Wall Street meltdown was caused by too much regulation. Regulation which compelled risky loans and provided a mortgagee laundry to wash those loans. Government control without oversight gave us the mess we have today.

    There is a difference between Regulation and Oversight.

    Regulation tells Wall Street what to do.

    Oversight punishes corrupt or fraudulent behavior.

    “None of this would have happened if there had been oversight. Oversight doesn’t mean telling Wall Street what to do, it means policing Wall Street to make sure that, when it makes business decisions, it does so honestly.”

    Currently some politicians want too increase how much government dictates to Wall Street. We have seen the disaster that is.

    Other politicians want to get government out of bossing Wall Street around. They want government to do its more natural and appropriate role of policing Wall Street.

    By the way Dean you said something that latterly blew me away. > *[T]his helped Fannie’s leaders rationalize getting into the subprime market… [They] avoided purchasing the subprime bundles until 2005.*

    I take that as accurate and here is what blew me away. The mission of Fannie and Freddie is the loan guarantor of last resort. Country Wide sent huge numbers of loans Fannie and Freddie’s way.

    I have seen estimates that over the last decade at least $5.4 trillion in mortgagees flowed through Fannie and Freddie (I’m not sure anyone really knows). When Fannie and Freddie were seized they held about $800 billion mortgage assets between them, leaving $4 + trillion on the market.

    The idea that Fannie began to “invest” in sub-prime bundles is just mind boggling.

    • dean

      Regulation is not telling banks and investors what they have to do. It is setting the standards and rules they do their business within. The end lines, the goal lines, and the rules of the game. The investors still get to field their teams, call the plays, and score as many points as they can. Government provides the referees to make sure there is limited cheating.

      So when government tells insured banks they have to retain X percent in deposits relative to loans, that is not telling them how to do their business outside of that. The investment banks had no oversight other than through the SEC, which apparently allowed them to “self-regulate” under the Bush Administration. Didn’t work.

      You are right we have had previous housing bubbles, but they never got so big so fast and burst so abruptly, at least since the depression. It seems to me the big changes that helped bring this on were:
      1: Global financial networks that could move capital around quickly and freely
      2: Absurdly low interest rates, making other safe investments (T-bills) unatractive
      3: Creation of the new funding and bundling strategies that bypassed traditional mortgage lenders

      Some of this may have been due to de-regulation, but some was more due to new ways of doing business that government failed to take notice of and decide to regulate. Nearly everyone became over leveraged with too few reserves, including many home purchasers and re-financers.

      Bubbles are an entirely natural facet of capitalism. Tulips, stock shares, fiber optic lines, housing. Capital chases profits, and when a herd rushes off to a new pasture, that is where the profits lay until all the grass is eaten up. If one role of government is to prevent steep drops in the standard of living of the people, then government has to be on the lookout for bubbles that can take down the economy. The Bush Administration and Congress stood by and watched this happen. Yes, so and so gave a warning, and such and such tried to get a bill passed. Too little and too late. It is going to take us 5-10 years to recover from this, and my guess 20 years for the Republican party to regain the trust of the people.

      • cc

        “The Bush Administration and Congress stood by and watched this happen. Yes, so and so gave a warning, and such and such tried to get a bill passed. Too little and too late. It is going to take us 5-10 years to recover from this, and my guess 20 years for the Republican party to regain the trust of the people.”

        The all-powerful Bush administration again?

        What about your friends Pelosi and Reid?

        You sound as if they had nothing to do with it. Oh wait – they didn’t! How is that when they control the House and Senate? Must be somebody else’s fault – the default for the D’s impotence and obstructionism.

        Listening to you pontificate on matters economic is beyond amusing. Your prediction for the R party is nearly as ludicrous.

        Quick, back to your minders for more talking points!

        • dean

          Pay attention. Housing bubble began in 2001, ended in 2006. Pelosi and Reid were in the minority party. As a general rule, American voters hold the party in power responsible for the fate of the economy. Think Jimmy Carter losing to Ronald the Reagan in 1980. When people old enough to remember think back, they don’t ask who were the minority Republican leaders of the House and Senate from 1976-1980. They say: Jimmy Carter, Democrat, with a Democratic majority in Congress, brought us stagflation. Reagan (they don’t bother to remember he had a Democratic House his whole 8 years) ended it.

          That is what you are up against cc. If a President Obama with a Democratic majority congress manages to extricate us from this mess, he will be remembered for it. And you should be able to remain amused for a long time.

          • Anonymous

            “Pay attention. Housing bubble began in 2001, ended in 2006. Pelosi and Reid were in the minority party. As a general rule, American voters hold the party in power responsible for the fate of the economy.”

            Paying attention to Frank, Dodd, Obama and the others who shared in the Fannie/Freddie largesse will be ensured by the new media – nonexistent in Carter’s day. That is what you and your ilk are up against these days, deanie.

            Or haven’t YOU been paying attention?

  • Hapypacy

    Think you’re wrong here Jason. O’Reilly’s outrage was justifiable. It was a true reflection of millions of people all across this country. As a matter of fact, if it were a hundred years ago, considering Frank’s shady involvement with the whole Fannie/Freddie debacle, he’d not only have been verbally whipped, he’d have rightfully been pistol-whipped.

  • Fred Brady

    Verbal beratement is just a start of what these Washington weasels and BF deserves. Now they should be sent off to a prison cell. These guys should all be given 20 year hard time in prison. Anything short of that is crap.

  • jerry rudecki

    barney frank is a unqualified bafoone. he got only a fraction of what he deserved from bill oreilly. moreso, he should be recalled and booted out of congress.
    unfortunately frank isn’t as good a salesman as obama and in a month we’ll have pretty much the same lies and deceit’s from our new president.
    its time for a revolt against our politicians who cost taxpayers money by recalling them, and inserting some common sense “joe’s” or “josephines” in office who represent the people. after all, we are the biggest special interest group in america, and if we stop our funds, maybe these jokers will finally represent us.
    Barney Frank belongs in the United Nations. Thats where his kind reside after politics bites them back.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)