I came over here to see if anyone posted that infuriating Barney Frank piece...

[rbnyc]

Last edited Wed Jul 29, 2015, 06:12 PM - Edit history (1)

So, this pissed me off:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/why-progressives-shouldnt-support-bernie-120484.html#.VbhB0NLD-RR

I believe strongly that the most effective thing liberals and progressives can do to advance our public policy goals — on health care, immigration, financial regulation, reducing income inequality, completing the fight against anti-LGBT discrimination, protecting women’s autonomy in choices about reproduction and other critical matters on which the Democratic and Republican candidates for president will be sharply divided — is to help Clinton win our nomination early in the year.

I think we are all sick of this game. We are told again and again, support the establishment Democrat because it's our best strategy to defeat the Republicans. We are told that we are hurting our own causes if we don't do this. And we are told that our characterization of HRC as being poorly positioned to challenge corporate power is baseless and wholly without evidence, because listen to all the things she has said.

The foundation of this argument is that with a strong progressive challenger in the primaries, Clinton will have to spend too much money and align herself with too many ideas, and too many progressive positions. Let's not make her spend money and be clear about who she is. We'll wear her out for the real fight.

I think this is the real fight.

The argument in this opinion raises more serious concerns about the state of national elections than it does about the activists and citizens who are partnering with Bernie Sanders in the political revolution. We are supposed to just accept the reality that tens of millions of dollars are not enough to run an effective campaign, and that position clarity is a detriment. We are not supposed to challenge that. We are supposed to challenge ourselves and our foolish behavior, promoting the candidate who best represents us.

What I want to say most to Barney Frank in response to this piece is simply "Fuck you."

We are coming for entrenched power, and we are starting in the primaries with the Democratic Party. This is a take-over, and we will not be discouraged.

[Kali]

1. That is disappointing.

I do understand the point, but it also does not HAVE to be like that.

[ibegurpard]

2. oh yeah

There was quite a discussion on it the other day.
sad.

[rbnyc]

6. missed it...

..maybe I should have left it alone.

I just saw it on Moyers' Facebook.

[restorefreedom]

3. is this the same interview

where he said bernie was not even "remotely electable?"

3,344 meetings tomorrow with over 95,000 rsvps. and that is not counting those of us watching it individually or in small informal groups.

i used to get soooo pissed hearing stuff like this. now i am starting to tune it out. clearly something is happening, and the establishment will not be able to snuff it out.

[rbnyc]

8. I have a work event...

...so I couldn't RSVP. For every one of those 95,000, how many more committed volunteers are out there like me who have to work or were otherwise in a letter to RSVP?

[MisterP]

12. the wheels are coming off and the threats and veal pens don't work any more

[Juicy_Bellows]

4. Wonder who or what got to him?

Why say anything?

[tex-wyo-dem]

25. My sneaking suspicion is that...

Barney is bucking for a Hil cabinet position.

Hillary first tried to undermine Bernie by trotting out McCaskill...big mistake as Claire has next to zero progressive cred + she went the lowball route and reduced the Bernie bashing to name calling ("socialist!" *gasp*). Savvy progressives, of course, saw right through her canard, which ended up hurting Clinton's cause more than helped.

So, here comes Barney, with miles more progressive skins on the wall and tries to take the cerebral route and convince intelligent Bernie supporters that the smart thing to do to advance all of our important causes is to forget about an "unelectable" Sanders and put all of our support behind Clinton...unfortunately for Hil, we're seeing through this as well.

[2banon]

51. I agree with you wrt Frank's motivation/agenda. Don't agree with his "progressive" creds

His "legislative" contributions not only falls short of progressive objectives, he tends to always favor Big Money. His rationalizations are always couched in going as far as what is politically "possible" which I totally get, but it always seems he's way too willing to give the house away for a piece of lumber in exchange, just for the sake of "compromise".. and in order to get credit for passing any piece of crap no matter how totally corrupted. I personally can't stand that about him. But I think you're right and I believe that's why he's made himself available for a position in her cabinet.

[HFRN]

53. 'Barney is bucking for a Hil cabinet position. '--> BINGO nt

[tritsofme]

55. What a nonsensical thing to say. Frank is free to state his opinion

It is ridiculous to suggest that in agreeing with the vast majority of Democrats, there is something nefarious afoot.

[rbnyc]

7. +1

[Beartracks]

19. ROFL - I love your "corporations" sig line! n/t

[Fuddnik]

23. That is good, ain't it?

[rbnyc]

37. I love your sig line too. (nt)

[bvf]

9. I was really disappointed in Frank for this. n/t

[swilton]

10. Thank you for your thoughtful analysis and eloquent post

I agree with every letter that you say - I'm sick to death of hearing from the establishment Democrats who want to arrange the curtains but provide no fundamental changes....We need in this country what happened in Russia - some major restructuring 'perestroika'....enough of this aim low and go along for the moderate position, the perfect is the enemy of good enough....Well I say the good enough is the enemy of we can do better and we will!

[tech3149]

31. Just don't invite any of the boys from Harvard School of Business

to aid our restructuring. They did a bang up job of raping the Russian people while creating a new group of oligarchs.

[Scootaloo]

11. On June 25, Barney Frank joined the board of Signature Bank

Everything he says after that date needs to be taken in the context of his new role as a Part Of The Fucking Problem.

[Ed Suspicious]

13. Very interesting.

[AtomicKitten]

16. So, that's what I smell. Thanks for the heads-up on that.

[SoapBox]

20. Sold out for money.

A real disappointment but we will move on from another Corporatist.

[63splitwindow]

24. where he joins, among others:

[link:http://investor.signatureny.com/directors.cfm|

"Former United States Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato has been a member of the Board of Directors since July 2005. Senator D'Amato is the Managing Director of Park Strategies LLC, the Manhattan and Washington, D.C.-based business consulting firm he started in 1999. He also serves on the Board of Directors of CA™ (formerly Computer Associates). Senator D'Amato served as a United States Senator for New York for 18 years, from 1981 to 1999, during which time he served as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and as a member of the Senate Finance Committee."


Yep, standard but disgusting.

[Enthusiast]

39. +1!

[fbc]

14. He works for a bank now. He has thrown his reputation away for money.

[Betty Karlson]

26. Oh? That explains a LOT. n/t

[cprise]

15. 'The most effective thing... is to replay the 90s'

"Liberal" wasn't even in Hillary's lexicon the last time she was in the White House.

[Sheepshank]

17. Damn him for having an opinion

Damn him for stating out loud.

Damn damn damn....everyone loved him until they hated this latest endorsement. People may or may not love him again when he makes a stand on something they like.

It would appear that Bernie supporters are very threatened about anything and anyone that supports Hillary. Now, why would that be?

[misterhighwasted]

28. I see nothing infuriating about his statement. Opinions aren't allowed ? WTF?

Barney Frank is one of the smartest most generous & liberal Dem in the Senate. This man has stood against the hate of the RW consistantly throughout his long & loyal career.
I applaud his opinion & personal right as a Dem to support who he believes is the better candidate to lead the nation.
Thanks for giving Sec Clinton ANOTHER great endorsement.
How many Congressional endorsements does that make for MadamPOTUS to-be, Hillary Clinton?
Thanks Senator Frank. Always wise & down to earth, I'll trust his judgement on this loyal Dem endorsement.
Very Cool!



EQUAL RIGHTS are HUMAN RIGHTS
Hillary Clinton

[rbnyc]

40. Of course opinions are allowed.

And my opinion is that this opinion sucks.

And what an endorsement. "Stop bringing up points, applying pressure and asking her to be clear about her positions because you'll tire her out for the general election."

Wow.

[misterhighwasted]

49. Lol. omg..I guess we agree that everyones opinion but our own just Sucks

Another post telling the other to STOP HAVING AN OPINION! DU just gets more fun every darned day.
Woo hoo for sucky opinions, then.

Way to discuss critical Dem business.
OYE!

[rbnyc]

54. I said I think this opinion sucks...

...not all opinions. If you are going to attack my style of critical discussion, maybe do it without fallacies reasoning.

What I object to most is that it's a direct call to Sanders supporters to quit supporting what we believe in because we can't win anyway and why make Hillary spend money and move to the left?

And the whole perspective on the Sanders Campaign is through the narrow lense of how it relates to the Clinton Campaign. It reflects a sense of entitlement and privilege that bothers me quite a bit.

[misterhighwasted]

61. And ya know, that is precisely how I see Sanders fans.

Waddya know! Change the names and we AGREE.
I cannot believe this, its like I could have written the same words only replaced the names. It is exactly how I see Sanders fans.
Its like this:
...not all opinions. If you are going to attack my style of critical discussion, maybe do it without fallacies reasoning. 

What I object to most is that it's a direct call to CLINTON supporters to quit supporting what we believe in because we can't win anyway and why make SANDERS spend money and move to the left? 

And the whole perspective on the CLINTON Campaign is through the narrow lense of how it relates to the SANDERS Campaign. It reflects a sense of entitlement and privilege that bothers me quite a bit.
It bothers me a lot. But the victim mentality of Sanders fans is one entitled hot mess.

Great minds and all.

[rbnyc]

63. it's very hard to mediate when one is aligned with a position.

I'm really glad you went through that exercise.

In mediation training, I remember the most important thing we were taught was to separate issues from positions. This is much easier to do when you don't have a position yourself.

Please don't think I'm being condescending; I'm going to walk through it in an oversimplified way for my own benefit and not because I think you won't understand.

So a hypothetical couple is in a dispute because they have seemingly incomparable positions. Say, they both want to sleep on the left side of the bed. So in order for the mediator to help, s/he has to understand the issue that is satisfied by each person's attachment to their position.

You can't just say, why don't you just let your partner have the left side of the bed? Or why don't you take turns sleeping on the left side of the bed? It's not impossible to resolve the conflict that way, but probably not in the best way.

So you find out why they prefer the left side of the bed. It turns out, one person wants to be closer to the window which is on the left side and the other person really doesn't care whether it's the left side, they care whether it's the west side. So you put the bed against the opposite wall, and they can both sleep in it with their interests addressed.

We really believe in our candidates. We have completely married our positions to support these candidates with our interests. I know for me it's really hard right now to separate my interest in challenging elite power from my position to work toward the advancement of Bernie Sanders as a presidential candidate.

Seeing you say the same words with only our position words changed made me reflect on this phenomenon. So thank you.

Edit to add that this doesn't mean I'm going to stop supporting Sanders. I just want to be mindful of this when I communicate with Clinton supporters.

[Gothmog]

56. Barney Franks is a good judge of national politics

[djean111]

29. Oh please. As if any breath of criticism about Hillary is not immediately labeled HATE and BASHING.

[onecaliberal]

18. FFS Clinton was asked yes or no if she was for keystone

Her answer was if I get elected POTUS I will answer. I do NOT want another president who can't even fucking stand for anything but quid pro quo with her coporate masters.

[SheilaT]

21. This piece highlights

exactly why it is a truly terrible idea for us to decide on who the nominee is to be well over a year before the election. It seems as if last fall, a full two years ahead of it, people were pushing Hillary the Inevitable on us.

Even if Bernie does not win the nomination, which I sincerely hope he does, he is changing the dialogue, and that's very important.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. No surprise. He endorsed her the last time too.

[underthematrix]

27. Bless your heart

"We are coming for entrenched power, and we are starting in the primaries with the Democratic Party. This is a take-over, and we will not be discouraged."

It sounds like WAR on the Democratic Party. Interesting.

[rbnyc]

35. There is a non-violent civil war happening within the Democratic Party.

The People intend to win it.

[quickesst]

30. More bullshit...

"I think we are all sick of this game. We are told again and again, support the establishment Democrat because it's our best strategy to defeat the Republicans. We are told that we are hurting our own causes of we don't do this. And we are told that our characterization of HRC as being poorly positioned to challenge corporate power is baseless and wholly without evidence, because listen to all the things she has said"

Bernie's supporters tell people again and again they must vote for Bernie. No fucking difference. No one has a gun to anyone's head. Bernie's supporters have a tendency to mix the primary in with the general election in their arguments. Deceptive. I don't think anyone here is under the impression that they can change anyone's mind as far as the primary is concerned . Very few if any. If one votes third party or chooses to sit out the general election and not vote Democrat, they are indeed hurting the cause. If Bernie is the nominee, I will gladly vote for him in the general election. I will not abstain or vote third party. To do so would indeed be aiding in the election of a republican for president. That is a fact. It is the difference between many of Bernies supporters and I would guess all of Hillary's supporters. Being able to see beyond one's ego and to think of others is a virtue. Those others being the children and grandchildren who will follow us. They are not cannon fodder for our idealistic war. "I will not settle for the lesser of two evils." Bullshit! You take the best that you can get, and continue to fight for better. I for one will not take 1 step forward and 2 steps back.

[rbnyc]

33. I am talking about the primary...

...and it is Frank in this piece who is conflating primary and general election concerns saying we should give up our voice in the primaries to serve his articulation of general election strategy.

No one is talking about holding guns or forcing anyone to do anything. I just think that it's an infuriating way to support a candidate to say that we want too much proof on the issues and that we should just submit in fear of the republican machine.

[Enthusiast]

41. +1 an entire shit load.

[quickesst]

47. I could see your point...

...if you can show me anywhere someone actually said, "we(you) want too much proof on the issues and that we(you) should just submit in fear of the republican machine." No one has said that. It's just your interpretation of a statement designed to elicit a favorable response from like minded people, and a defensive response from those few, if any, Clinton supporters who can't see it for what it is. It's like someone saying Bernie's supporters are telling us that democracy is doomed unless we vote for him. No one said that, but there have been many instances where some statements could have been weakly interpreted as such. I'm confident that you would not buy that either.

[rbnyc]

60. First, I really appreciate your tone.

We probably will never agree. And I think it's great to speak passionately about issues. We will probably continue to write things that rub each other wrong. But I really appreciate being challenged in a way that is respectful to me as a person. Even if we fervently disagree on what we believe to be major points, in the grand scheme of things, we probably have a lot of values in common and are essentially on the same side.

That said, let me dig a little deeper into what irks me about Frank's opinion.

… they believe boosting Sanders’ candidacy is their only way to prevent Clinton emerging as the nominee with broad support early in the process, strengthening her position in November.

They are correct.

I know that there is a counter-argument made by some on the Democratic left that a closely contested nomination process will help our ultimate nominee — that Clinton will somehow benefit from having to spend most of her time and campaign funds between now and next summer proving her ideological purity…

So this is the first infuriating thing. The Sanders Campaign is portrayed as being only relevant in one of two ways, either as being bad for Hillary, or being good for Hillary. The Campaign is not evaluated on its own merits. The second infuriating thing is in this same section, where the dynamic of the primary is characterized as Hillary being forced to prove her “ideological purity.” This language is so reductive and dismissive. For example, Sanders supporters want pro-environmental policies, not pro-environmental rhetoric, and are concerned about Hillary’s relationship to the fossil fuel industry. We are uncomfortable with her deferment of a clear answer on Keystone. We are uncomfortable with her apparent championing of fracking oversees during her service as Secretary of State. We want to support a candidate whose position and record are clear. To reduce that to an “ideological purity” test is disingenuous; it’s an obtuse strategy to disarm progressives who mean to make a difference in the direction of our party.

I believe strongly that the most effective thing liberals and progressives can do to advance our public policy goals — on health care, immigration, financial regulation, reducing income inequality, completing the fight against anti-LGBT discrimination, protecting women’s autonomy in choices about reproduction and other critical matters on which the Democratic and Republican candidates for president will be sharply divided — is to help Clinton win our nomination early in the year.

So here, the suggestion is that Democrats can’t afford a primary process. The primaries are the (forgive me) primary mechanism for constituents to communicate to party leadership about their values and hopes for the direction of the party. But Frank says a robust primary season is an ineffective way for Democrats to be competitive for the general election. This reinforces the incorrect perception that the center is further to the right than it actually is, and is essentially a scare tactic to silence those who would challenge Democratic Party leadership who benefit from the oligarchy in much the same way as Republicans do. Certainly Hillary Clinton is closer to our values on many issues than any GOP candidate. Frank is saying, don’t try for better than that, or you could lose everything. That’s extortion.

…Without any substance, some argue that she has been insufficiently committed to economic and social reform — for example, that she is too close to Wall Street, and consequently soft on financial regulation, and unwilling to support higher taxation on the super-rich. This is wholly without basis. Well before the Sanders candidacy began to draw attention, she spoke out promptly in criticism of the appropriations rider that responded to the big banks’ wish list on derivative trading. She has spoken thoughtfully about further steps against abuses and in favor of taxing hedge funds at a fairer, i.e., higher, rate.

Frank categorically denounces all criticism of Clinton as being without basis, and to prove his point, he says that she has spoken thoughtfully. That is no basis for dismissing a host of concerns about politics as usual and the insidious nature of corporate campaign contributions and alliances.

True, not on Iraq. Having myself voted against that terrible mistake, I agree that her position on the war is a legitimate concern for those of us on the left. The question then becomes whether this was a manifestation of a general tendency to support unwise military intervention, or the case of her joining every other Democratic senator who had serious presidential ambitions in voting for a war that the Bush-Cheney administration had successfully hyped as a necessary defense against terrorism.

So, if anyone had serious presidential ambitions, they voted for war as a political maneuver, and that’s just the way things are? Enough said.

Of course it is not only possible to accept the legitimacy of Clinton’s liberal-progressive credentials and still prefer that Sanders be president, it makes sense for the most ideologically committed to hold that view. But wishful thinking is no way to win the presidency. There is not only no chance — perhaps regrettably — for Sanders to win a national election. A long primary campaign will only erode the benefit Democrats are now poised to reap from the Republicans’ free-for-all.

Maybe he will believe that there is a chance after Sanders is inaugurated. Frank goes on to say that Bernie’s status as an outsider constitutes “unwillingness to be confined by existing voter attitudes” and is an “obvious bar to winning support from the majority.’ So the thrust here is to establish that Bernie is unelectable so that supporters will realize their efforts are futile anyway and just get on board. It can be a very effective – but again, infuriating – strategy to take someone’s strength and re-frame it as a weakness. As it has been said many times, Bernie provides a place to park the anti-establishment vote, and given that most people don’t even bother to vote because they have entirely given up on the two-party system, that is an appeal to the majority, as is being borne out in massive turnouts to his events, and the historic virtual organizing meeting that will take place tonight.

[druidity33]

62. excellent rebuttal! I live in MA

He was a good Legislator on social issues, but when it came to the Financial realm unfortunately i believe he was not quite on our side. I can understand why he would be a Hillary supporter.

[quickesst]

64. Thanks for responding...

...and eloquently so. You have a very good, and well thought out grasp of politics. I on the other hand, am not so involved in the intricacies. I am a simple man who believes Clinton will be able to navigate the treacherous waters that is the republican party at this time. I believe, despite recent claims that republicans like, and respect Bernie, that if he is the nominee, or is elected to the presidency, they will come at him with everything they've got, ham-stringing him at every opportunity. It's not that Bernie is not ready for the presidency, it's that America is not ready for Bernie.
Again, let me say that if he is our nominee, I will support and vote for him. Given that he is by all accounts from his supporters, far more to the left than Hillary, I sincerely hope that he is ready for the shitstorm coming his way that will make the republican attacks on her look like a walk in the park.
And yes, I can see how Barney can grate on someone's nerves.

[rbnyc]

65. I'm so happy we can have discussions like this during the primaries.

Last edited Wed Jul 29, 2015, 10:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Without holding back, without underrepresenting our firm beliefs, we come through knowing each other better and respecting one another.

[quickesst]

66. Right back at you

Like I said before, I'm a simple guy. I tend to break things down into basics. There is a lot to be desired, and a lot to be done, but there is one thing I have a firm belief in, and that is there will be a Democrat in the White House in 2016. When all is said and done, and the smoke finally clears, all I want to hear is "I Bernie Sanders / Hillary Clinton/ Martin O'Malley etc do solemnly swear..."

[Cosmic Kitten]

32. When Barney says "our" goals, he means 3rd-Way goals

...to advance our public policy goals...

Barney wants liberals and progressives
to sit down and STFU so he can advance
"our goals"... 3rd-Way goals.

The 3rd-Way:
Socially Progressive Economically Conservative.

[rbnyc]

34. ...and "conservative" economics...

...is far from conservative. That's just code for, we can't fight corporate power, so let them keep their ground on economics and give them more...privatization, consolidation, deregulation. Third Way Democrats see that corporate power is enormous and instead of confronting it, they make themselves willing hostages in hopes of better treatment...and a cut.

[Cosmic Kitten]

36. Stockholm Syndrome???

[rbnyc]

38. I think it is something like that.

That would be a good topic for an essay.

[Enthusiast]

44. It is Stockholm Syndrome or some similar, unnamed phenomenon.

[Babel_17]

59. "Corporate society was an inevitable destiny"

Corporate society takes care of everything. And all it asks of anyone, all it's ever asked of anyone ever, is not to interfere with management decisions.

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/r/rollerball-script-transcript-james-caan.html

[Enthusiast]

42. Precisely.

[Evergreen Emerald]

43. He has a right to his opinion

We used to love him on DU. I can't keep it straight...

[Enthusiast]

45. It's a hit piece. Pure and simple.

[rbnyc]

46. I am addressing his opinion.

If my husband said this, I would say "fuck you and here's why" to my husband too. I would still love him.

I never really loved Barney Frank, but I'm sure I have agreed with him in the past and may agree with him on something again in the future. It's not all or nothing. We can look at things case by case and stay in the text.

He has a right to his opinion, and in stating it publicly, he has invited criticism, just as I have here.

So thanks for being part of the conversation.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. And it's a Primary. People have the right to support who they wish and to advocate accordingly

It's not like Hillary is lacking in support from Democrats. It is like you take very emotional offense that Frank supports her which you feel entitled to take. Because he's gay.

I support Bernie, but this is very creepy to me. Millions will vote for Hillary no matter what. It's an election. People have the right to support whom they wish. Saying you are 'infuriated' that someone has an opinion that is different from your own is a bit much for me. Infuriated? It's a democracy. You are not superior to me or Barney because we are gay people, nor is your husband. Got that?

[misterhighwasted]

50. Likewise as creepy to me that anyone supports bernie.

To me, i don't trust him. I would call him a pandrer.
He's just creepy & hardly endearing.
My opinion as I see it.
Enjoy your day.

[2banon]

52. This is just Classic Barney Frank.

He has never failed in disappointing me. and that's putting it as politely as I am able to express.

[Babel_17]

57. He's also a politician

He's on good terms with Clinton, they like each other, and the idea that as President she'll help in his comeback is going to color his perception of her.

A lot of people want their wagon hitched to her star.

This is known.

[Babel_17]

58. Lol, it does remind me of when we vote at my union

Lol, it does remind me of when we vote at my union. We used to have a guy who very much wanted to ingratiate himself with the board of our union and he'd sit in the front to shout "Second!" and "Aye!" to their proposals. When it came time to renominate our Business Manager he'd fall over himself to leap up and yell "Second!".

One year he topped himself as he stood up to appeal to us to forgo the vote and just see him appointed by acclamation, and with our great heartfelt thanks. lol

His activities were always met by groans and catcalls but this time our Business Manager himself seemed compelled to tell him to knock it off, we're going to hold nominations, and have a vote.