gee..., a DemoPublican politician doesn't deliver what his supporters believed he would!

who'd'a thunk it?

Frank is the anti-Larry Craig.

I think the reason there's so many bad actors in the lending
world is, well, well, because it's um, PROFITABLE? Gee, I
wonder why everyone wants to
go into all this investing
stuff, could it be, maybe, to
MAKE MONEY?!?!?!? Yeah, maybe,
and these guys and their
freddie/fannie scam-game
have been rakin' it in, and
this guy doesn't look like
he's missed a meal recently
either. These are the same
people that kind of stood there drinking coffee while
we passed the 9 trillion mark, too...guess you gotta
invest in it to get away
from it, or something...what a racket...

What you missed in the story was the absolute arrogance of Congressman Frank's staffers. They know full well that those legal aide lawyers CAN'T call their legislators, thanks to the Newt backed bill that pulled the teeth on legal aide lawyers and put gags in their mouths. Frank and the rest of the Democrats who promised to remove these restrictions from legal aide lawyers have refused to honor their commitments. Now they rub our faces in it too.

Even at my most cynical (and I'm a pretty cynical old bird) I didn't anticipate Frank's rush to join the establishment Bullyboy Clique with the likes of Murtha, Dingell, and Conyer in the House, and Schumer, Feinstein, Baucus in the Senate. If this is what the Democrats have to offer, we are lost!

Re-read the article.

It was a vision of the GOP that Frank would be the devil - it was not true and he is not what the GOP defined him to be.

Big surprise. The GOPhers lied again.

Yeah, re-read the article.

No doubt many Repubs have loved to cast Barney as The Devil, but then he doesn't seem to be quite The Consumer's Angel of Mercy his apologists make him out to be, either.

While you're re-reading the article, read this part:
["Frank is putting the finishing touches on a bill designed to rein in abusive lending, but the consumer lawyers think it's simply window dressing that won't solve the problem. They're primarily concerned that it would EVEN MAKE IT HARDER FOR CONSUMERS TO GET RELIEF when a lender breaks the proposed new law. That's because THE BILL WOULD INVALIDATE MANY OF THE STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACTS the lawyers rely on to help clients and hold big finance firms accountable for making predatory lending so profitable. Not only that, but THE BILL WOULD ACTUALLY DEFANG SOME NEW LENDING RULES coming down the pike from the Federal Reserve and provide aggrieved consumers with FEWER REMEDIES THAN THEY HAD BEFORE."]

Tell me Cap'n..., did you ever see a Democrat you wouldn't defend?

Frank is a real consumer advocate. He's not going to sell out to the banking industry for a payoff like the Republicans.

"did you ever see a Democrat you wouldn't defend?"

I would never defend anybody I thought was wrong. The party affiliation has no sway over right and wrong from my POV.

We disagree, that doesn't make me anything, especially not some kind of partisan defender.

A swing and a miss.

No reason to depart from the issue into personal crud.

Would you really care what I do or say in defense of anybody?

FYI

I am, in fact, a lilly livered white wine swilling, Volvo driving, quiche eating, alternative lifestyle accepting, womans choice supporting and defending fiscal conservative liberal and progressive American patriot and I will defend whomsoever I please with or without any other persons permission or concern.

Thanks

If that matters.

This article illustrates a serious problem that is being propagated in this country. The article is about a bill, concerning mortgages, that is being submitted by Barney Frank. Yet, at the very beginning of the article, the author states Mr. Frank is gay. This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand so why even mention that fact. Perhaps it's time for the people to demand better journalism and less crap like this.

"the author states Mr. Frank is gay"

Good point, we never hear about "straight" congressman so-and-so.

What does his sexual orientation have to do with anything?? I don't see articles about, for example, John Kerry, the heterosexual senator from Massachusetts....

capt sez: "We disagree"

About what, Cap?

Are you saying Barney's bill is good for consumers?

What IS your position on the issue?

I'm just asking, because all you did was hammer Repubs without taking a position on Barney's bill, and that felt very much like an attempt to deflect some very justified criticism of Barney's abandonment of those who had supported him.

One of the GOP's most reliable fundraising pitches in the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections was a vision of Democrat Barney Frank as the chair of the House Financial Services Committee. The gay congressman from Massachusetts was supposed to be the devil incarnate for the credit card and banking industry.

**** GOP fundraising ****

My position on the ISSUE is Barney Frank has a bill and he also has constituents.

He has not broken any promises not is he playing a game. Some laywers are not happy? They have their own recourse.

But enough about me, have you read the bill?

Why, no, Captain, I have not.
Have you?

Being a humble science officer I find Washington DC's legalese to be illogical.

If you wish to use the posted article in the discussion Captain, why confine your examination to just the preface?
Why not go to the point of this article, which contends that Congressman Frank is promoting a bill that would appear to injure those it purports to heal, and examine that logically?

One of the GOP's most reliable fundraising pitches in the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections was a vision of Democrat Barney Frank as the chair of the House Financial Services Committee. The gay congressman from Massachusetts was supposed to be the devil incarnate for the credit card and banking industry.

**** GOP fundraising ****

My position on the ISSUE is Barney Frank has a bill and he also has constituents.

He has not broken any promises not is he playing a game. Some laywers are not happy? They have their own recourse.

We disagree on how stranger carry on civil conversation. You chose to try to paint be as the democrat defender? I take that as an insult to my personal integrity. That is why I posted that I would not defend anybody I thought was wrong. The fact that you think differently means we disagree. NBD

But enough about me, have you read the bill?

Shall we revisit when we can actually read a bill?

It is all so much meaningless blather until then.

Capt sez: "Shall we revisit when we can actually read a bill?
It is all so much meaningless blather until then."

You started it.

When you told people: "Re-read the article", it seemed that you might want to have people consider and discuss the actual content of the article (I think that's what the message board Is FOR). Now you're calling it 'meaningless blather'?

Perhaps you wanted readers to confine their consideration to the two sentences that could be used as a launcing pad to attack the Republicans for their oft stated views of Congressman Frank? The two sentences you've first referenced and then quoted directly? The author's view of the situation being definitive.

The bulk of the article, however, and it's rather obvious point, concerns the projected negative impact of the bill Congressman Frank is forwarding, and how it would remove many remedies already in place while limiting additional remedies currently in the works.
It clearly wasn't the GOP being referred to in the article's title "Beating Up On Barney Frank". It was about the beating he is taking from those who have been serving the cause of victims of predatory lending practices. It's not about what the GOP has said during campaign season (though the article makes a passing remark about it), it's about what Congressman Frank is doing during 'legislation season'.
The Scarlet Pimpernel also makes an excellent point in this discussion about how and why the lawyers DON'T "have their own recourse" as what was suggested by Congressman Frank's staffers is prohibited!
Maybe that's just the author's view of the situation, and therefore not definitive.

AnyWho, if you're so hot to READ the bill, go the Thomas Library of Congress site, (thomas . loc . gov / cgi - bin / query / z? c110: H.R.3915: [edit out the spaces]) MoJo doesn't seem to want me to link you to the Library of Congress..., and have it display 'Text of Legislation'.

Then, if you're so inclined, you can come back and explain exactly what effect it'll all have, and you'll be able to tell us if the law school professer's analysis you can find at the 'here' link in the article above is off target, and how so.