Media continue to advance falsehoods about Frank's exchange with Harvard student
SUMMARY: Media figures continued to misrepresent an exchange between Rep. Barney Frank and a Harvard student, falsely claiming that Frank refused to answer the student's question about how much responsibility Frank takes for the current financial crisis.
During the April 8 edition of his Fox News program, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) "will not take any responsibility" for the financial crisis. He made the statement after airing cropped video of Frank's exchange with Harvard University student Joel Pollak, who asked Frank during an event at the Harvard School of Government, "[H]ow much, if any, responsibility do you think you bear" for the financial crisis? Similarly, on the April 9 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough claimed, "[H]ow sad is it that this young man was trying to get a leader to say, 'Yes, I bear some responsibility,' and [Frank] wouldn't answer that question." During the same Morning Joe segment, MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle asserted: "But the idea that Barney, you know, seemed to be so thin-skinned in that brief appearance that we just saw, that clip there, and refused basically to say, 'Yeah, we're all responsible.' " Moreover, after Fox News' Fox & Friends aired a portion of the exchange on April 9, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed that "Frank yelled at the kid, rather than answer the question." Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin also claimed that "an honest politician" might have said, "[Y]eah, I do bear some responsibility." But contrary to their claims, Frank did provide a substantive response, which none of them mentioned or aired.
O'Reilly, Scarborough, and Fox & Friends all played edited clips of the exchange between Frank and Pollak, but none of them noted that, during the event, Frank said, "The answer is, yes, I do take responsibility for something." Frank later added that after filing "a bill in 2006, when I was still in the minority, to say hedge funds should be registered," in 2007, he "was approached by people who said, 'No. No. You can't do too much regulation,' and I backed off. I wish I hadn't." Frank also noted that he did, in fact, work on legislation to deal with mortgage lending, stating that in 2007, his committee passed restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and on subprime lending.
Kilmeade also stated, "I was astounded that they labeled this kid a conservative. How do you even know this Harvard kid's a conservative?" In fact, during a portion of the exchange not included in the clip Fox & Friends aired, Pollak said to Frank, "I happen to think of myself as a conservative."
On April 8, Scarborough and Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy similarly falsely claimed that Frank would not give an answer to Pollak's question, a falsehood also advanced by Fox News host Sean Hannity.
From Frank's comments:
FRANK: Look, you're entitled to be critical, but I am entitled to answer. The answer is, yes, I do take responsibility for something. In 2006, the Republican-appointed chairman of the SEC, who was forced out by George Bush because he was too much of a regulator, Bill Donaldson, tried to get control of -- tried to make hedge funds register. The courts overturned him. They were right, because he was bending the statute. He was right on public policy, wrong on the law.
I immediately filed a bill in 2006, when I was still in the minority, to say hedge funds should be registered. In 2007, I was approached by people who said, "No. No. You can't do too much regulation," and I backed off. I wish I hadn't.
But as far as your question, that the subprime thing happened on my watch, I think it's fair to ask: What is it you think I should have done? In -- you said, well, I was critical of a stimulus bill a year later, but that didn't cause the subprime crisis. My criticism of the stimulus bill? I mean, people said, "Oh my God, he's being critical. Let's default." I mean, I don't understand.
The point -- excuse me. Here is what happened on my watch. I became chairman on January 31 -- and this is the right-wing attack on liberals to try and stop regulation that you are repeating -- on January 31, I became the chairman. On March 28, the committee passed a very tough Fannie/Freddie bill, which the Bush administration liked. Later that year, in November, we passed a bill to restrict subprime lending. Because we did the subprime lending restriction, Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, did what Alan Greenspan refused to do, and said, "OK, I'll do that."
So, I do want to ask you, when you suggest that I should apologize for something or take responsibility, what is it you think I should have done that I didn't do?
POLLAK: Well, after spending the entire speech blaming conservatives -- I happen to think of myself as a conservative, and I rent, and I think of myself as someone who cares about poor people -- I'm just interested in whether you think you have any responsibility for this.
FRANK: Well, I've answered the question. Sir, I think you're not being fully honest with us. You clearly are implying that I do. And I'm asking you -- I have given you my record. Now what is it you think I should have done that I didn't do? What are you implying I left undone?
From the April 9 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: Yesterday, we had the student on -- the Harvard student that confronted Barney Frank. Do you have -- do we have the clip, Willie --
GEIST: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: -- of that confrontation --
GEIST: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: -- and then this young man's response.
GEIST: Yeah, let me --
SCARBOROUGH: Take us though that.
GEIST: Let's set it up here. I know you had the young man on your radio show yesterday. But first, for people who didn't see it, the exchange -- this actually happened on Monday at Harvard University -- a young student there, or a law student actually at Harvard, confronting Congressman Barney Frank about whether or not he takes blame, or how much blame he takes for the current financial crisis. Here's that exchange.
[begin video clip]
FRANK: What is it you think I should have done beginning in January 31 of 2007 -- which is when I became chairman -- that I didn't do?
POLLAK: Well, first of all, you pushed a stimulus bill through Congress that included several positions -- provisions that you later attacked as profoundly wasteful and so on --
FRANK: Who did? Not me.
POLLAK: -- like the AIG bonuses.
FRANK: But you're talking about the subprime crisis, then you're talking about a bill in 2008 or --
POLLAK: And in 2008, in October, you accused critics of the stimulus plan of being racist and so on.
FRANK: No. Excuse me --
POLLAK: I'm still waiting -- I'm still waiting for a very simple answer to a question.
FRANK: And I'm waiting for -- I'm waiting for you to tell me what you think I should have done. I didn't say you were racist.
POLLAK: No. You're a public representative. I'm a student. I'm asking you how --
FRANK: Oh, so which allows you to say things that you don't back up.
POLLAK: I'm asking you --
[...]
FRANK: You've made an accusation that is wholly inaccurate. I --
POLLAK: I didn't accuse you of anything. I'm asking how much responsibility, if any --
FRANK: Sure.
POLLAK: You can say none. That's fine.
FRANK: You -- I think you're being disingenuous, to be honest with you, when you say you haven't made an accusation. You said it happened on my watch. Rarely -- I've never heard anybody say, "Good for you, it happened on your watch." That's accusatory. You're entitled.
[...]
FRANK: This is an example of the right-wing's effort, frankly, to try and change the subject --
UNIDENTIFIED STUDENT: Stop labeling him.
FRANK: -- from getting regulation.
UNIDENTIFIED STUDENT: Stop labeling him. Just answer the question.
FRANK: I -- no, I am labeling -- I think labels are important. And I think there's a systematic right-wing attack to try and divert the blame for their deregulation.
[end video clip]
POLLAK [audio clip]: When I heard his speech and I heard the way he was responding to other questions, I was just amazed by the way in which he seemed to blame everyone else for the financial crisis. And I don't think he bears sole responsibility for it at all, but it just struck me that he wasn't taking any responsibility. And I thought that the man who's going to be responsible for redesigning our nation's financial system should at least admit to what he's taken part in so that he can fix it in the future.
GEIST: So there you have it. That's the student named Joel Pollak. Joe, you had him on the radio show. We just heard there. What were your impressions of the guy?
SCARBOROUGH: Well, he actually was a -- he was a Democratic leader on campus last year --
GEIST: A Democratic leader.
SCARBOROUGH: -- and he just said -- yeah. He said he was just disappointed. Mike, we had talked about this before. We're not blaming everything on Barney. It's everybody's fault, but how sad is it that this young man was trying to get a leader to say, "Yes, I bear some responsibility," and he wouldn't answer that question. And not only that, he attacked him as a right-wing stooge --
BARNICLE: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: -- and then said, attacking him and labeling him is important.
BARNICLE: Look, very few people know as much about the status of the financial crisis that we're in and how we got into it than Barney Frank. I would stack him up in terms of intellect against Ben Bernanke or anyone in Washington dealing with this crisis. But the idea that Barney, you know, seemed to be so thin-skinned in that brief appearance that we just saw, that clip there, and refused basically to say, "Yeah, we're all responsible; all of us played a part in where we are today," is disappointing to say the least.
From the April 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
[begin video clip]
POLLAK: I'm still waiting for a very simple answer to a question.
FRANK: And I'm waiting for -- I'm waiting for you to tell me what you think I should have done. I didn't say you were racist.
POLLAK: No. You're a public representative. I'm a student. I'm asking you how --
FRANK: Oh, so which allows you to say things that you don't back up.
POLLAK: I'm asking -- it does -- it does allow me to ask you a question. I'm waiting for you to explain --
FRANK: OK. I'll give you the answer.
POLLAK: -- how much, if any, responsibility do you think you bear?
FRANK: Well, I will take this. First of all, you are a student. Students are entitled to full constitutional freedom of speech under the First Amendment. You've made an accusation that is wholly inaccurate. I --
POLLAK: I didn't accuse you of anything. I'm asking how much responsibility, if any --
FRANK: Sure.
POLLAK: You can say none. That's fine.
[end video clip]
DOOCY: All right.
KILMEADE: Right. Why didn't he answer that? Barney Frank was clearly off his game.
DOOCY: And the kid who threw him off his game was a Harvard student by the name of Joel Pollak, and he had some great questions, didn't he, Fox News contributor and conservative blogger Michelle Malkin -- joining us live from Denver.
MALKIN: I thought he did. I -- and my hat's off to him. In fact, anyone who believes in an honest exchange of ideas and civil discourse on a college campus should take their hats off to this student. And you saw how unflappable he was and how unrattled he was, compared to Barney Frank, who had a chip on his shoulder the size of a sequoia tree.
You know, an honest politician who is more introspective about his true responsibility for this crisis might have said, "You know, that is a really good question. Hardly anybody in the mainstream media has ever asked me about that. And now that I think about it, yeah, I do bear some responsibility" --
KILMEADE: Right.
MALKIN: -- "for it."
KILMEADE: And what I found also is when you're in a controversial situation, a lot -- the people -- he should embrace an opportunity to define himself because his name is brought up whether he wants it to or not. But in particular, that question was so obviously -- Barney Frank yelled at the kid, rather than answer the question. And I was astounded that they labeled this kid a conservative. How do you even know this Harvard kid's a conservative? He just asked the question: What responsibility do you have?
MALKIN: Exactly right. And there was a student behind him, who Joel identified as his girlfriend, who actually had the courage to stand up to Barney Frank, as well, and said, "Wait a minute. Why do you keep throwing those labels around?" And this is what happens. When you challenge liberal authority, you're automatically labeled a right-winger.
This has nothing to do with partisan purposes. This has to do with holding these politicians accountable --
DOOCY: Sure.
MALKIN: -- for their words. And it was Barney Frank himself who said at a house hearing in 1993 -- 2003 that, quote, "I do not see a crisis." He did not see it coming. Mr. all-omniscient, omniscient, omniscient, and all-powerful Barney Frank, who has no trouble badgering and bullying everyone else for not foreseeing what was coming, didn't see it himself.
DOOCY: Yeah. And because the mainstream media, Michelle, would never ask that question of him, that kid up in Harvard was as close as we're going to get to try and get an answer, and he just stonewalled him.
From the April 8 edition of Fox News' O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Even in liberal precincts like Harvard University, disenchantment is setting in. A few days ago, Congressman Barney Frank spoke at the Kennedy School of Government and was challenged by a student who asked him exactly what I asked Frank. What is your responsibility in the economic decline?
[begin video clip]
FRANK: What is it you think I should have done beginning in January 31 of 2007 -- which is when I became chairman -- that I didn't do?
POLLAK: Well, first of all, you pushed a stimulus bill through Congress that included several positions -- provisions that you later attacked as profoundly wasteful and so on --
FRANK: Who did? Not me.
POLLAK: -- like the AIG bonuses.
FRANK: But you're talking about the subprime crisis, then you're talking about a bill in 2008 or --
POLLAK: And in 2008, in October, you accused critics of the stimulus plan of being racist and so on.
FRANK: No. Excuse me --
POLLAK: I'm still waiting -- I'm still waiting for a very simple answer to a question.
FRANK: And I'm waiting for -- I'm waiting for you to tell me what you think I should have done. I didn't say you were racist.
POLLAK: No. You're a public representative. I'm a student. I'm asking you how --
FRANK: Oh, so which allows you to say things that you don't back up.
[...]
POLLAK: I didn't accuse you of anything. I'm asking how much responsibility, if any --
FRANK: Sure.
POLLAK: You can say none. That's fine.
FRANK: You -- I think you're being disingenuous, to be honest with you, when you say you haven't made an accusation. You said it happened on my watch.
[end video clip]
O'REILLY: And it did. So, here's the problem: Barney Frank and most of the other politicians simply will not take any responsibility when things go wrong, and the folks are sick of it. We still don't know who was responsible when Iraq went south.
Look, governing is a tough business. Mistakes are going to be made. But when our leaders fail to admit their misjudgments and blame the other party, it gets nauseating. I mean, are you not tired of hearing the Obama crew blame the Bush crew for everything that's going wrong now?
The truth is that Barney Frank made big mistakes. So did Senator Chris Dodd [D-CT], President George Bush, former SEC boss Chris Cox, and many other big shots in Washington.
"is (sic) was GEORGE BUSH who wanted to extend home ownership at all costs to minorities and low-income families."
And Democrats supported this very much. But when Sen. McCain and other Republicans wanted to look into how Fannie and Freddie were being handled, Frank said it would hurt poor people.
Frank's reaction was a shame. The guy asked a simple question, and Frank got all defensive. Then Frank pulled the "professor's ploy" on the guy by turning a question back to him. (Sadly, the kid fell for it at first.)
If a Republican ever treated a voter like this, the media would be up in arms demanding an apology.
MM's claim that there is "conservative misinformation" here is a laugh.
Frank should have addressed the period before 2006 when he was opposing Fannie reform. Frank's efforts were like closing the barn door after the cow has left.
and mmfa continues to defend Barney Frank's condescending slap in the face to this student simply because he is a Democrat. If a Republican had behaved like this to any constituent, or the media, mmfa would be all over it.
WHAT ARE YOU TWO BABBLING ABOUT?! They said he refused to answer, and that's a lie. He gave an answer, and even expressed regret. If a republican EVER expressed regret, then they wouldn't be half as repugnant as the arrogant blowhards that they've become!!!
his answer may have satisfied you, and I guess it satisfies mmfa. But to act like it's conservative misinformation if someone disagrees or feels like Frank did not answer fully is ridiculous. It did not satisfy me, and most imporantly it didnt' satisfy the questioner who was asking it, but along comes mmfa and says shut up, don't bother the good Congressman anymore with this and if you do you are "advancing falsehoods", pathetic. anytime a Democrat is questioned the damage control begins here.
The misinformation is that they say Frank didn't answer the question at all, not that he didn't "fully" answer. Once again you deflect to attempt to make another outright lie from FOX seem reasonable. Fail.
And saying that he didn't "fully" answer the question isn't even accurate. HE. ANSWERED. IT. Just because [someone] doesn't like the answer is no reason to same that he didn't give one, or that he give a d full one, or that he didn;t give a satisfactcory one.
Wow. So he didn't admit to causing the whole mess. You think it's possible that because he didn't?
Frank said what responsibility he had. That's not consistent with saying that he wouldn't answer the question.
SCARBOROUGH: -- and he just said -- yeah. He said he was just disappointed. Mike, we had talked about this before. We're not blaming everything on Barney. It's everybody's fault, but how sad is it that this young man was trying to get a leader to say, "Yes, I bear some responsibility," and he wouldn't answer that question. And not only that, he attacked him as a right-wing stooge --
I feel a Joe the Plumber redux coming.
And read what Rep Davis of Alabama has to say http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122342293714213269.html
I don't get it, FL. Is it that you do not like Frank or that you blame him for the economy?
Reminds me of other cons that claim global warming is a farce not because of the facts but because they simply do not like Al Gore.
What I dislike about Frank is that to this very day he denies any responsibility what so ever for the financial mess, so does Dodd , Pelosi, Waters and others. Your video correctly points out some responsibility towards Bush and to his credit he has admitted he shares in the responsibility. So has Greenspan. How do you account for the statements of Clinton and Davis for example if the dems were not blocking reform. People here watch the cspan clips and still deny the involvement of the dems, they don't want to truth , they don't care about the truth. Look at Franks reaction to that students question, his respectful question. Frank was defensive right from the start, as I have said before, " a guilty conscience needs no accuser" He is a liar.
Not true. he admitted that be backed down, and admits that he regrest doing so. What's more, HIS WAS NOT THE MAJORITY PARTY!!! This FACT seems to keep eluding your lot. He was in the MONORITY at a time when the 'Pub majority rode rough shod over them. He couldn't have done ANYTHING anyway! By the time they were back in power (and DID do SOMETHING) it was too late. That's not THIER FAULT.
That is an inaccurate comment, the reps had a smaller majority then the dems enjoy now and couldn't get anything thru without dem support. Did you watch Barney opposing reform? Did you listen to what Clinton said, and rep Davis. Why would they be acknowledging that dems blocked reforn if it didn't happen. Don't you believe your own eyes and ears.
Frank is in the HOUSE, where everything is passed by simple majority. The Republicans had no need of his support, and he had no ability to block any regulatory legislation if the Republicans had introduced any (which they never did).
In the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, (you know... where Frank has spent his entire federal career?) ANY majority is enough to pass legislation. THAT. IS. A. FACT. 50.1% is ALL YOU NEED. You may be thinking of the SENATE, where you need 60%, but FRANK is not, and has never been, part of that governing body. Whatever Clinton or Davis said does not change what has been our constitional legislative model for almost two and a half centuries. Even if Frank argued against it (which so far you have not proven) that is irrelevant because you don't need a BIG majority in the HOUSE, just a MAJORITY. Your whole counter is completely irrelevant.
Again: Why do you make it so easy?
What you fail to recognize are the realities of our lawmaking process. Lawmakers, be them dems or reps do not want to bring bills up for votes unless they feel they have a shot at getting them passed. And in the senate, they were consistently blocked by Dodd and the rest of the dems. In the house there were some measures that made some headway but without the senate , they went nowhere. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/30/video-where-was-dodd-during-the-fannie-mae-collapse/
Why don't you try and make your own cogent arguments, instead of appealing to authority by using clips that don't even support your position?
It's just typical conservative GOP bandwaggon jumping here ... See, right-wingers do not like Frank, Reid, Pelosi and Obama. So all things related to them get the Fox News and Morning Joe microscope. You know, things like, what airplane they fly on, mass transit to Las Vegas, name calling (Barney Fag), etc. etc. YAWN!
WHy dont' you actually listen to Frank's blameshifting, "attack the questioner position", and general defensive bluster and stop defering to what MMFA tells you to think.
THis is like the guy who's lost flying in a helicopter so he drops down near the groudn to ask someone where he was. the answer was "you're in a helicopter". Frank answered the same way. lots of blather, and nothing pertinent to the problem or the situation. Must be a democrat thing.
exactly, the low standards that many have here for their Democrats is astounding. But since they live on parsing street and have come to read many of the items here as nothing more than parsing exercises to attack those they disagree with politically, they have come to accept that as norm from their politicians too. As long as they dodge, and bob and parse, well, they have answered the question, what's the problem?
You attacking someone for parsing is IRONIC. Look it up.
Speaking of parsing , I love how the dems are "parsing " Obama's bow to the Saudis.
At least Obama didn't grope anyone or try to exit the room through a locked door.
Didn't GW waive to Stevie Wonder too?
I don't believe so. I wouldn't think that to be a big deal anyway, since just about everyone is capable of that sort of thing. We're used to relying on visual cues, so that's the mode we naturally operate in.
I heard he did . .. I don't think it a big deal either, but still it would be funny. . .. It''d be funny if anyone did it .. . just as it was hilarious when he tried exiting through the locked door . .
I checked on Snopes.com and they don't buy it. It would be funny, but I wouldn't put it in the "Bush is an idiot" file, like I did with the Merkel shoulder-rub incident.
Bush did make a wise crack to a journalist during a Rose Garden news conference who was wearing sun glasses, something along the lines of "Is it too bright out here for ya?"
Turns out the journalist was blind.
I think "parsing" applies to the written or spoken word, not gestures. That was a pretty lame attempt at a segue into something completely off-topic in any event.
Well, you may be right about that, both statements in fact. But since MMFA will not bring it up I thought maybe it would be a good topic.
If you say so. Personally, I really am not sure it signifies anything besides customary respect.
By the way, I don't mind things being off-topic in general, but I think they should either be alerted (like with something new) or have at least some sort of tangential relevance to the disuccsion.
To answer your last question: CONSERVATIVES.
They are the problem. CONSERVATIVES who would rather scapegoat entites that either were involved at all, or didn;t have the power to either fix or ruin ANYTHING at the time. CONSERVATIVES who still can't admit that their own legislation, and their own vapid, vacant and bakrupt philosophy is to blame. CONSERVATIVES who simply will not accept FACTS, and who want ut to forget the last 16 years just because peace and prosperity have such a strong liberal bias and disaster, war and recession have such a conservative leaning lately.
CONSERVATIVES who hate everything America stands for, outside of their own loony imaginations. What it actually stands for in REALITY - another entity with a well-established liberal bias.
The Con Media said he WOULDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THIS. IS. ABSOLUTELY. FALSE.
We can debate about the styrength of his answer, and what we think about his responsibility, but it patently absurd to claim that he gave no asnwer if we are debating HIS ANSWER. It rises to CONSERVATIVE MISINFOMATION EXTORDINAIRE when you say that he "wouldn't" rather that he "didn't" answer it. All that really means in that he "wouldn't" give the answer [conservatives] were looking for. That couldn't possibly be because your hypothesis (that he's directly responsible for this mess) is utterly absurd, could it? Naaaaah. SHame on me for even suggesting that your lot might actually be wrong.
And "blameshifting"?! Are you JOKING? What do you call what every republican currently scampering back to the cover of their respective rocks is doing? What do you call blaming something that had been building for years while YOUR PARTY was in the majority on the party that came to power a few weeks before it all finally blew up? That's blameshifting on a Hall-of-Fame, Major League level, my friend.
Why you (and your lot) always make it so easy?
You see MissDee it depends on what the defintion of "is" is!!! They have a great teacher that showed them the way.
good point. ever since Clinton made that the playbook liberals live by they have found it's value in dissecting every word and playing word games to distract. it's an art form done around here by a select few all the time. It's not about accountability or holding politicians responsible, it's see if you can get them off their game so you can run around them, parse, and score. they may fool some, but not all of us.
Won't fool jimmy again!
And another thing - the rethugs deserved that "is is" answer. It was a political witch hunt. And that is not the "playbook". Fail yet again.
I always thought a "witch hunt" was all about looking for something that did not exist. Seems like the incident to which the "is" reference is all about has been admitted to as being true by all parties concerned. So no, not a witch hunt.
James, I like the new Slogan for MMFA and their lemmings - Parse and Score!!
Now you're parsing "witch hunt". Hypocrite.
let's clear it up around here. Anytime a liberal politician is questioned and is not given the consideration of a softball, it is a witch hunt.
That's a generalization. And a lie. Coming from you, that's par for the course, jimmy.
What proof do you offer to say it is a lie?
It's not a lie, it may be a little exaggerated hyperbole, but it is done here all the time where "cons" are concerned. Liberals are always a little touchy when their own tactics are tossed back at them, that's all. they think they own these boards and like to bluster their muscle collectively once in awhile, it's no big whoop.
When jimmy says "Anytime". That's a lie. Now if he'd have said "Sometimes", then he'd have been in the clear.
James, that is correct.
Fog, wow took you a while, but knew you would not let me down, always have to call someone a name. I do not thing there is a thread anywhere on MM, which you have refrained from name-calling.
There's a difference between telling the truth and calling someone a name. When someone's post is filled with hypocrisy, well, that person is a hypocrite.
Pretty simple, don't ya think?
Fog below is the definition of - Hypocrite (Webster)
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Could you please exlain how Wordly was being a "Hypocirte" based on the above termology. I did not see Wordly putting on a false appearance, or acting in contradiction but using the words "withch hunt"
Unless you could explain with the above definition, then you were name calling.
Can't believe I'm saying this...
but you're right this time. I confused Worldly with jimmy. My mistake.
it depends on what the defintion of "is" is!!!
Complete with three exclamation points.
I wonder how many people who raise that have any clue what they are talking about or what the context was. Since I expect the answer is "very few," let me enlighten you:
I don't recall the exact words, but what happened was that during a deposition Clinton was being asked about a past event but a question was asked using the present tense, i.e., "is" as opposed to "was." That can be confusing, obviously, and the answer hinged on whether he was being asked about that past event or the present.
Which means that, in context, the answer "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" was entirely reasonable.
I'd say "so let's give that a rest" except that from experience I know that expecting conservatives to abandon what they imagine to be a killer slammer, even if it's built on a misunderstanding or even a complete fiction, is a waste of time.
Speaking of cogent arguments, in the transcript from Bill O I failed to see any comment by Bill that Barney did nto answer the queston. Can you help us out there? Then there is that long piece by Fox and Friends and I am having trouble seeing a clear and unambiguous statement that Barney did not answer the original question.
Kilmeade:"...Barney Frank yelled at the kid, rather than answer the question."
That's pretty clear.
O'Reilly:"So, here's the problem: Barney Frank and most of the other politicians simply will not take any responsibility when things go wrong, and the folks are sick of it."
O'Reilly didn't say that Frank didn't answer the question, but it's still inconsistent with what Frank actually said.
He never answered the question.
"The answer is, yes, I do take responsibility for something. In 2006, the Republican-appointed chairman of the SEC, who was forced out by George Bush because he was too much of a regulator, Bill Donaldson, tried to get control of -- tried to make hedge funds register. The courts overturned him. They were right, because he was bending the statute. He was right on public policy, wrong on the law...I immediately filed a bill in 2006, when I was still in the minority, to say hedge funds should be registered. In 2007, I was approached by people who said, "No. No. You can't do too much regulation," and I backed off. I wish I hadn't."
How is that not an answer?
Neither did you:
From the ACORN thread a couple days ago -
When someone embezzles money from a company, is the company responsible?
Embezzling from a Company you work for is different from representing a company that has hired you. I did not answer the question because it is unrelated to ACRON. If ACRON is paying an employee to represent them as a group, and if that employee does something illegal or harms someone while representing that company, yes the company is held liable. Much like when Carol Browner was working for the EPA, charges were brought up on racial and sexual discrimination, it was the government that was held responsible for Carol Browner's actions not her personally. Yes, she was reprimanded as an employee, but the government had to pay the $600,000 that was awarded to Coleman Adebayo, not Carol Browner herself. I hope that answers your question.
http://www.adversity.net/fed_stats/fednews_EPA_stories1.htm
Your saying that Franks said the following "The answer is, yes, I do take responsibility for something" Something, is not a anwer to his question, but he asked if he takes any responsibility of house crisis. That question was not aswered.
Why should the premise that he was responsible for the housing crisis be accepted until that premise can be explained? If someone asks you a question that's unfair, then you don't give it a simple answer. You explain your problem with the question.
Barbantio, what was unfair about the question? "You explain your problem with the question." No you don't you answer the question.
That is what he does, he always diverts the topic at hand into some left field area where he can argue semantics or the mechanics of a quesiton and or parse his way to avoid a direct answer. No wonder he is defending Frank, he operates the same way. And he thinks he is smart when he does that, he isn't. lol
No, you explain your problem with the question. Come on. You wouldn't answer a loaded question with a simple answer, and you know it.
If the question is supposed to make any sense, then it presumes that Frank did something wrong. Frank is perfectly within his rights to ask what Pollak was referring to. Answer me this:If Pollak doesn't have any idea what he was talking about, then is it a legitimate question, or is it a partisan attack?
mark, see his response below. What did I tell you?
Don't you love those defending this from Frank? They want to divert the attention away from Frank's nonanswer and shirking his responsibility to a "something", and focus on the mechanics of the questioner. Put the ball back in his court for being an unfair question, which is so damn ridiculous it's hysterical How is asking "Well, after spending the entire speech blaming conservatives -- I happen to think of myself as a conservative, and I rent, and I think of myself as someone who cares about poor people -- I'm just interested in whether you think you have any responsibility for this", an unfair question? It is a simple direct question following Frank's nonanswer who then called the student dishonest.
of course he didn't. those he say he did are satisfied with that tepid admission of ok, something, i wish i hadn't backed off. that is no answer, and that is the point. and he made every effort to make the questioner look bad so even that little morsel of irresponsibility would come off as patronizing, which is what it was. his answer did not satisfy many, that is the point. If it satisfied liberals here, good for them.
What I find interesting about this is that even Pollak said that if the answer was "none" then that would be fine. Bearing that in mind, how can anyone rationalize the argument that Frank's argument has to satisfy anybody? Obviously a "none" answer wouldn't satisfy conservatives either, but it would have answered the question.
But, he knows he is responsible for some of the mess, if he were to answer "none" Frank knows that the press opps, (press would never do that) Those on the right would continue to show that he bears some of the responsibility.
exactly. Frank is a politician and knows how to go right near the edge but never risk falling off. Spin and sophistry is what this is, the one thing most people truly despise about our elected leaders, and here is mmfa enabling and encouraging it, unbelievable. and the liberals defending it.
James much like Fog, the question was so dumb it really did not need to be answered, but since he presisted the answer is above.
I read the exhange, Fog's question was ridiculous.
Embezzling from a Company you work for is different from representing a company that has hired you.
It is? Let me get this straight, since you and jimmy think my questions are so dumb. Working for a company is different than representing a company that hired you? Doesn't both cases make you an employee?
(Hint - the answer is yes, it does)
You basically know nothing or which you post.
And your EPA example was a CIVIL case. Apples/oranges.
Fog, you asked about embezzling, when you as an employee (sure you never really worked for anyone, you must be a politician) and you steal from the company yes, you get arrested and that is embezzling. If the same employee did not embezzled but instead went out and did some illegal while representing that company (I am under the impression you understand what representing is) then the company is held liable for the employees’ actions. When ACORN hires someone to wear their red t-shirts and do work, if that red shirt person does something illegal, yes ACRON can be help responsible for that person actions. When the Catholic priest was breaking the law, was it the priest that paid the money to the families or the Church? Answer Church, because that priest was representing the church. I know this is hard for you to grasp, so pick up the phone and call a free legal help line, I am sure they can explain this simple example to you. Civil or Criminal does not matter the Federal Government was held liable for Carol Browner actions, that is why they had to pay the 600K. Since the Government paid the money show that a employer is responsible for a employees actions when that employee represents the company.
Fog, just stop, the more you type on this subject the more you show yourself as a person ignorant of the law.
Only when the church knew that the priests were bad and they continued to allow them access to the kids did the church get found liable. Only if ACORN condoned and accepted the voter registrations knowing that that they were illegitimate would they be liable.
I know this simple stuff is hard for YOU to grasp.
So let's quit the do loop of did he or didn't he answer and all the media falsehood claims and get to the core of the issue.
By the mere fact that the student asked the question several times over is clear evidence that the person asking the question did not believe he had received an answer. No media interpretation needed. If he had believed he received an answer he would have moved on.
So what sort of weight are you supposed to give that? Why are we supposed to assume that the questioner's dissatisfaction is significant, as opposed to the person just wanting a different answer?
One man's perception is that person's reality. The student did not believe he had received an answer. So the press reporting that BArney did not answer is not obviously "false".
So would there be such an uproar over did he or didn't he if the media had said that clearly Barney did not answer to the satisfaction of the questioner? The real story is that someone actually dared to ask Barney a tough question.
Your argument is getting dumber. By that logic, you can answer a simple "yes or no" question either way, and then if the person keeps asking then it's your fault. Their "reality" says so.
So would there be such an uproar over did he or didn't he if the media had said that clearly Barney did not answer to the satisfaction of the questioner?
No, because that's one person's subjective viewpoint. You have no way of knowing whether that dissatisfaction is based on reasonable judgment or personal bias.
If the question had been answered with a simple yes or no and the person kept asking the question it would then be clear to the viewer. But Barney's answer was not clear - just said i take responsibility for something then launches into a tirade against teh Republicans never ever bring even an ounce of clarity to the discussion. Barney Rubble brought this on himself.
Reading all the transcripts and watching all the videos of Barney reminds of a person I once worked for. HE had a sign on his desk for all to see that said -
Rule 1. Barney is always right.
Rule 2. SHould it be found that Barney might have been wrong refer back to Rule 1 before speaking.
and I love this whopper "You have no way of knowing whether that dissatisfaction is based on reasonable judgment or personal bias". newflash, we do know where mmfa fits into that little declaration, don't we - personal bias.
You're not disputing my point, so you're not explaining how it's a "whopper".
The issue is the questioner's bias, not MMfA's.
Oh, so now it's about the viewer. So much for the relevance of whether the questioner thinks the question was answered or not.
The question was about if he took responsibility for some of the financial crisis or not. He said he took responsibility for something, which you admit, so that is clear. I'm not sure how you imagine the rest of Frank's reaction changes that.
If it is so clear explain to me what it was that Barney took resposnibility for? What is the something he talks about? He may only have taken responsibility for being there and fiddling while Rome burned!
There's a link under the summary that says "Read more". Maybe you should try that.
yep, why didn't he give a direct answer? Because politicians don't know how to that, they aren't trained that way. They wrap it up in all sorts of packages to avoid a direct response. If he had just said "none", fine, but he knew he couldn't do that so he was eventually cornered and had to say something, so his stall tactics allowed to say "I wish I hadn't", what kind of responsibility or answer is that, it isn't. And just so the student would get a little lesson of his own in what happens to you when you press politicians, Frank gave him a little payback slap for being too out of bounds. Frank is a joke.
Thanks as always, Jimmy Obvious.
The core of the issue is the media misleading their viewers about what Frank said.
The issue isn't whether or not the student got the answer he wanted. That's irrelevant to this topic.
Barney Frank did not answer the question, it was a yes or no answer. He made himself look even worse by getting mad over such a simple question. And how did O'Reilly misrepresent that exchange? Barney never answered. It was another funny barney moment, history will not treat barney well on this subject.
And Barney doesn't have to answer to or explain his behavior or votes to you, JamesB, Miss DEE or anyone else who does not live in Massachusetts Fourth Congressional District.
As the Chairman of the House Banking he sure does.
Frank isn't being questioned about some local issue within his district, this is about his role in this mess that affects all of us. To say he isn't accountable to every single American for that is ridiculous.
Like it or not, he's accountable to those who elected him. His position as chairman came about because of his seniority which again is the fault of the voters of the Massachusetts Fourth Congressional District.
So why do they go on CNN or other national media outlets then? They should only do local media then.
When did he become Chairman?
Barney was in his district being asked a question by a individual that lives within that district. What Barney just showed is how he and many other individuals in Washington feel they are above being questioned. Dem or Rep, they feel once they get to Washington, they do not answer to us, the individuals in their districts. Barney is also the Chairman of the House Banking, so again, he as the Chairman should answer to any questions related to that committee from anyone in the public.
absolutely. How anyone could say he doens't owe someone outside of his district an honest answer concerning his duties that extend to legislation affecting all of us is just ridiculous. Anyone that lets politicians off the hook that easily are the reason we get politicians who thumb their noses at us except when they whoring for votes. They don't like tough questions and do every thing they can to avoid them. So when one does get through like this student, the liberal media goes nuts and whips into full damage control. Good for those who want to see them held accountable.
When did Frank become Chairman? Why is he the only one being held accountable?
he's the topic of this thread and the person to whom the question was asked by the student.
So what did Frank do?
Rep. Barney Frank "answered" that Harvard Student's questions completely, but the Republicans "did NOT" want his answers put out there to the public. So, the Republicans mudded the waters (so to speak) which clouded Rep. Frank's answers and made the Harvard Student a helpless victim. The Republicans then fed this to the Media who just gobbled it up and ran with this misleading news story. Rep. Frank was really the victim here, not that disrespectful Harvard Student, and the Media should have known better.
"Rep. Frank was really the victim here"
Incredible
That is pretty comical
No, IncredLiberal!
what doesn't this guy get that even when ya do your best in a bad situation ya swallow your pride and say - i'm sorry. i do bare responsibility for this situation. i did all i could but this was bigger than the what we could affect. i'm sorry that the situation happened, i do feel as CHAIRMAN OF THE BANKING COMMITTEE whether i singled handed brought about the downfall, or was unable to see it coming or do anything to stop it, i will take responsibiity for it and i will be doing my very best to ensure that we recover and grow stronger because of it. - there. why can't anyone just say that?
i guess my ability to "be the bigger person" so to speak comes from a catholic school upbringing. everything is my fault. whether it is or sin't, you're the one holding the phone, you fix it. you take responsibility and make it better in anyway you know how.
coaches don't go blaming members of the team. THEY lost. he is responsible for all fumbles.
Too bad you didn't learn how to read, spell, or use punctuation in catholic school. Try reading the whole article before you comment.
He never answered the question. It's really that simple.
Try reading it again!
I think Frank's answer was is some ways not the best because it came off as overly confrontational. However, I understand his frustration: For months, he's been the target of right-wing attacks which essentially try to blame him for the credit crisis by the bizarre claim that when he was in the minority he somehow personally blocked any and all attempts to pass effective regulations.
(In addition to it being really strange almost to the point of creepy to hear the "The Market is God" crew try to dodge responsibility for their own disastrous failings by blaming others for not regulating enough, I notice Frank's time in the majority, when he was in a position to actually get things done, doesn't get brought up in these claims.)
And yes, the student was spouting right-wing talking points, the exact same sort of arguments that have been all over the conservative media and blogs. Frank was entirely correct that these are the sort of claims being made to distract attention and divert blame from those actually responsible, which would be the greedhead bankers and their right-wing, anti-regulation, enablers.
Blaming Barney Frank is like going to someone who peed in the ocean and demanding they "accept some responsibility" for the rise in sea levels.
Finally, something I think it important: If you want to get a much better sense of the exchange and Frank's comments, use the link in the item at "From Franks's comments" rather than watching the video from Scarborough on the main page.
The Question asked of Frank even if answered to the student's satisfaction would not be very useful. The banks made bad loans out of greed, and engaged in fraudulent behavior by abandoning their fiduciary responsibility. IndyMac specialized in giving out subprime loans to unqualified borrowers. The loans were securitized in an illegal manner and were rated criminally by rating agencies. The investment houses(aig, Lehman,et al.) guaranteed these securites which exaberrated the problem further.
Let's move on and ask legitimate questions such as why are we not prosecuting, those who were responsible(Which isn,t Frank since the CRA clearly states loans should be based on the borrower's ability to repay). The CRA has attempted to end illegal denials of loans based on where someone lives rather than the ability to pay.
From the New York Times in September of 2003"
"New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae"
"From Frank's comments:
FRANK: Look, you're entitled to be critical, but I am entitled to answer. The answer is, yes, I do take responsibility for something."
"I immediately filed a bill in 2006, when I was still in the minority, to say hedge funds should be registered. In 2007, I was approached by people who said, "No. No. You can't do too much regulation," and I backed off. I wish I hadn't."
From what I can gather this is all Rep. Frank is willing to admit to in what he was responsible for in the current economic mess. To be fair, I don't know what comments were made by Mr. Frank or the student prior to MMFA's account. But if Mr. Frank had just said something like, "Yes, we in Congress over the last eight years are to blame along with Wall Street and the Administration" it would have completely diffused the situation or forced the student to ask more direct questions against the congressman. As it is, Rep. Frank got too defensive early on and the situation deteriorated. Of course he's responsible - along with the others mentioned above. Why is this so hard to admit to?
had just said something like, "Yes, we in Congress over the last eight years are to blame along with"
When I first saw this item, I thought Frank screwed up but the more I looked at the videos the more on his side I became.
He couldn't answer the way you suggest for two reasons: One, he was asked about his personal responsibility in a question involving how the crisis happened "on your watch." If he'd given that kind of general answer, he'd still be accused by the same people of dodging the question.
More importantly, another part of his answer noted that this is an attempt to distract attention from the real guilty parties - as I would add, have you seen anyone going around, asking of GOPpers what their personal level of responsbility for the credit crisis is? It's an attempt not so much to shift blame as to spread it around so thinly that ultimately, with so many people sharing the blame, no one is to blame and the crisis, well, it just kind of happened.
(Compare the Bush adminstration's defense to its bogus claims of WMDs in Iraq: "Everybody thought Saddam had them." Well, no, not everybody thought that and those that did, did so largely because that's what we told them, but the point is that to the extent that you can convince people that "everybody thought that," the less guilty you are for thinking that yourself. When all are to blame, none are to blame.)
For Frank to have answered as you suggest, as if all in Congress were equally at fault and as if there is no difference between majority and minority status (and as if the real blame did not lie with the greed of the financial industry), would have been to buy into that false argument. That, he was not prepared to do. And rightly so.
Uhhhh, you can read above what hand that he personally had with the financial crisis that we are now up to our necks in.
what hand that he personally had
If you mean the Freddie/Fannie bill he voted against, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know how bogus that argument is. First is the nonsense that as the member of the minority party he could have blocked passage of the bill.
Second and perhaps more important, he voted for that bill in committee but voted against it on the floor because a manager's amendment (which are supposed to be wholly non-controversial ones dealing with last-minute details) changed the bill in such a way that it would restrict the availability of funding for low-income housing.
(Interestingly, one of his complaints was that due to the manager's amendments, faith-based groups would be unable to secure funding for constructing such housing because doing so was not their "primary purpose." He wanted that changed to "a primary purpose," that is, they'd be eligible if one of their primary purposes, as opposed to their only one, was constructing such housing. That move failed.)
If, on the other hand, you mean his statement that he regretted backing off on legislation to register hedge funds, that undermines the argument that he didn't answer the question, doesn't it?
I agree that he was being singled out for personal responsibility with the question, but Congressman Frank could have ameliorated the confrontation by saying that Congress as an institution was partly to blame - and he would have been correct. But he didn't bother going there. There were and are other members of Congress (both houses) that were and are on financial or banking committees. Collectively they were asleep at the wheel, incompetent or corrupt. This also applies to the Bush administration, investment firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, banks and a host of others. They are all the guilty parties, not just one or two. When one side singles out one person or group for total responsibility it's just smoke and mirrors. All sides are pointing the finger to everyone else but themselves - wrong answer. Actions might have been taken but weren't; agendas on both sides of the aisle kept sanity at bay. The student obviously had an agenda and he could have been more polite in the exchange but Congressman Frank let it get under his skin and lashed back when he really didn't need to.
As for Bush and the WMDs - no arguments there. Everyone would rather cover up than 'fess up, and this financial mess is no different. Thank you for the reply.
by saying that Congress as an institution was partly to blame
My point was that he couldn't answer that way without embracing the meme that "we're all to blame" in a way that spreads that blame so thinly that no one can be held responsible. (Which, again, is the whole purpose of the campaign against Frank, Dodd, and a few others: to shift the burden of guilt off the truly guilty parties.)
He wasn't willing to do that and to be honest, neither am I. Yes, there were a number of people who perhaps should have seen this coming, who were, as you say, asleep at the wheel. But no matter how true it may be in a narrow technical sense that lots of people were to blame, the fact is that some were a hell of a lot more to blame than others, and guilty be acts of commission rather than omission. And those were, as I said in a comment further up, the greedhead bankers and their right-wing, anti-regulation, enablers.
We shouldn't be so concerned with being "fair" ("Lots of people are to blame.") that we lose sight of being accurate ("A very small number of those bear virtually all the blame.").
"some were a hell of a lot more to blame than others, and guilty be acts of commission rather than omission. And those were, as I said in a comment further up, the greedhead bankers and their right-wing, anti-regulation, enablers."
I'd like to be both fair and accurate as who is to blame, but since no one is really coming to the plate and saying, "My action or inaction in this area helped contribute to the financial mess we're in", it's ending up being a free-for-all in the blame department. They are all trying to cover their own backsides while taxpayer dollars are being used to bail out people and institutions that should just fail or go into bankruptcy while throwing those who broke the law in jail . That would be the biggest deterrent available. Let the market weed out the bad performers; others will eventually take their place and will (hopefully) be more responsible with other investor's money.
As for regulation, there are plenty of rules on the books for banks and investment firms, yet those instistutions always seem to find a way around them. How much regulation do you think is appropriate? And the rules that do exist may not be fully enforced. The circumstances that contribuetd to the Great Depression were apparently fixed, yet we had a major tumble in 1987 because of different circumstances and in 2008 for yet another set of circumstances. Money (and those who manage it) always finds a way to circumvent existing rules; everything is fine until it all comes tumbling down. Then it's finger-pointing time and everyone gets self-righteous about how irresponsible or greedy the others were. Same old same old. There are "enablers" on both sides of the aisle in Congress. Thanks for the reply.
I saw where he says he takes responsibility for something, but he never states what he is responsible for. I don't see what the people in his congressional district see in him.