I’m hoping somebody can help clarify/defend Barney Frank’s role in the current economic whatever-you-call-it-today. Start with this O’Reilly interview. (Warning: It’s an O’Reilly interview! Sorry the link is such a biased site, but I didn’t feel like digging through Fox to find it. HP is just hosting Fox’s video though.)
Generally, I have always liked Barney, but not so much this week… His F&F position seems to expose him as a plain old corrupt politician. Bill is of course very much Bill in that clip, but in spite of his hatred, he has a point. Barney will not address the quote from just months ago that F&F were sound, and would improve. He did qualify that they weren’t the best investments to be had, but he still said they were sound. When confronted, he strictly focuses on that qualifier, and will not explain his logic for stating that they were “fundamentally sound” and “not in danger of going under”.
IMHO, he was in a position where he should have known that was not so at the time he made the statement. Add to that the money trail of contributions. Plus the fact that he skips right by it when confronted with the quote.
Why won’t he defend it? Has he explained his reasoning for their apparent “soundness”, from his July 08 point of view, in some other interview since F&F collapsed? Did things change so fast when they went down that nobody saw it coming only a month or two out? I find that unlikey, but I am admittedly ignorant.
Fight my ignorance? Defend Barney? Point and laugh at Bill?