In Defense Of Partisan Bickering or On Why Barney Frank Rocks

On This Week With George Stephanopoulos this morning, Sen. Jim DeMint got pummeled by Barney Frank, as Blue Texan rightfully notes. But there was more going on there than the debate between two diametrically opposed worldviews. Did you notice Google CEO Eric Schmidt attempt to shut that debate down? Now, he didn't literally shut either DeMint or Frank up but he repeatedly took Frank and DeMint to task for...arguing...on a debate show.

Take this exchange between Schmidt and Frank:

SCHMIDT: And, by the way, you guys need to get this thing fixed. What we need is very simple. We need some form of a jobs program, something that causes jobs to get created, and we need credit to get -- get going again. That's what we should be talking about as a country. And we can debate exactly how to do it, but get it going now.

FRANK: Well, excuse me. You dismissed...wait, it's called democracy, Eric. I'm sorry, but it's inevitable.

Followed later by this:

SCHMIDT: Chairman, the fact of the matter is, that if the government simply told everybody what you all were doing...and then people could track it and figure out whether it's actually working...

FRANK: But we are going to do that.

SCHMIDT: ... we could get through these classic fights that you all have.

FRANK: Well, no, I differ -- differ with you on that. Please. Let's not obviate democracy. There are legitimate different philosophical differences between Jim DeMint and myself. Please don't treat them as some sideshow.

Nice.

Now, on substance I agree with most of what Schmidt said on the show but the subtext of Schmidt's complaints here is the classic "partisan bickering is the reason nothing gets done in Washington." Yawn. Give me a break. Glad to see Barney Frank shut Schmidt down.

You see, this idea that partisan bickering is what's wrong with Washington is an invention of the Village denizens in order to perpetuate the myth that both parties are equally to blame for the last eight years and thus immunize themselves against the (accurate) charge that they enabled the real perpetrators of the disaster we're trying to dig ourselves out of: the Republican extremists who ran this country for 8 years.

In fact, the lack of debate for fear of its being labeled "partisan bickering" is one of the ills that's plagued Washington. Just think what might have been different if there had been MORE debate about the destructive post-9/11 Bush policies and if Democrats had stood up to Bush and the Republicans when they were popular rather than caving at every turn. Also, consider all those people who voted for George W. Bush or, perhaps more significantly, Ralph Nader in 2000 because "there's no difference between the two parties."

As Blue Texan observes:

The stark contrast between the two parties was on full display this morning.

Indeed.

So, while Schmidt overall clearly agreed with Frank more than DeMint on This Week, his perpetuation of the myth that Frank's and DeMint's arguing is the real problem rather than the fact that DeMint represents a failed governing philosophy and a caucus intent on obstructing rather than working with Democrats to solve America's problems is really unhelpful.

More of this please:

DEMINT: One is for the government to take it out of the private sector through taxes and then decide where it's going to go through political manipulation, as they've done in the House. The other is just to leave more money in the private sector for consumers to spend and businesses to invest.

And that's the American way. And that's -- that's the approach we're pushing. [...]

FRANK: I regret Senator DeMint saying that this is the American way. Let's -- let's just agree that we're all Americans here, Jim, and that nobody's got the American way versus presumably the non-American way.

And as far as spending versus tax cuts, I think we need to fix some highways and bridges. I never saw a tax cut fix a bridge. I never saw a tax cut give us more public transportation. The fact is, we need a mix.

We need -- and I think we've suffered from an extremism in this country in the past of relying only on private-sector activity and having too little government. It's possible to have too much government, no question. But it's possible to have too little. And some parts of this stimulus -- extending unemployment benefits, helping with food stamps -- you know, we have two purposes here. One is to stimulate the overall economy. The other is to go to the aid of some people who, through no fault of their own, have been damaged. You can't just look at the aggregates. [...]

FRANK: The largest spending bill in history is going to turn out to be the war in Iraq. And one of the things, if we're going to talk about spending, I don't -- I have a problem when we leave out that extraordinarily expensive, damaging war in Iraq, which has caused much more harm than good, in my judgment.

And I don't understand why, from some of my conservative friends, building a road, building a school, helping somebody get health care, that's -- that's wasteful spending, but that war in Iraq, which is going to cost us over $1 trillion before we're through -- yes, I wish we hadn't have done that. We'd have been in a lot better shape fiscally. [...]

FRANK: I also disagree that we're taking money, quote, "out of the economy" if we improve public transportation, if we improve highways. That's your concept. You're taking money out of the economy if you make sure a bridge doesn't fall down.

Tags: Barney Frank, jim demint, This Week (all tags)

Comments

40 Comments

Yup, Barney Rocked

I never saw a tax cut fix a bridge. I never saw a tax cut give us more public transportation.

Bloody brilliant. I love it.

by Charles Lemos 2009-02-01 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Yup, Barney Rocked

The frightening thing is that DeMint would probably reply that the solution is to privatize the roads and bridges. The city of Chicago recently sold the right to charge for parking on public streets to a private company. Numerous small towns are selling developers the right to establish covenants with the force of law over things such as parking on public streets, and the size and appearance of fences and bushes. These are not condos or town houses with common elements but private fee simple single family houses. The extremes of Republicanism and the corporate state and being accepted by democrats such as the Mayor and City Council of Chicago. Along with this come charter schools which are essentially private schools with public funding that can do away with fussy regulation like equal opportunity and accommodation of the handicapped.

by antiHyde 2009-02-01 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Yup, Barney Rocked

He would reply like that in private company, BUT he would never do it in public, and there is the rub. I think the regressives KNOW that their position is fundamentally radical, and that if there was an open airing of what the objective is in their ideology (Hence regressivism.Aside: Check out regressiveantidote.net) they would be laughed off the public stage. The regressives NEED obfuscation and conversational deflection, because their ideology is fundamenatally anti-thetical to democracy.

by onlinesavant 2009-02-02 07:22AM | 0 recs
Good show.

I really need to give up on MTP and focus on This Week from now on.

There are very few political figures who will go out of their way to stand up for partisan arguments.  Of course, none of the talking heads do it.  To not fetishize bipartisanship is the foulest of sins within the Beltway.

I remember when Richardson tried to pull this BS during the primaries as a way of seeming above it all.  Too bad Frank wasn't there to shut him down then too.

by enr37 2009-02-01 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Good show.

I have TiVo, so it catches both, but after MtP ran late today, I reordered my Season Pass. This Week wins.

by vcalzone 2009-02-01 05:02PM | 0 recs
All I can say is

"Tell it!"

by bruh3 2009-02-01 03:41PM | 0 recs
Barney Frank is not afraid of debate because he

knows it is a way to persuade others as well, and that a full debate, does not obscure, it can clarify any subject.

Barney Frank gets that in his core.

by merbex 2009-02-01 04:07PM | 0 recs
I agree with your main point. Democracy thrives

when people's representatives actually fervently argue and debate their positions before taking a decision on a majority vote. That's the nature of democracy which to some seems as partisan bickering. The partisanship is a necessary part of a thriving democracy....

by louisprandtl 2009-02-01 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: In Defense Of Partisan Bickering or On Why Bar

Barney Frank is a mental midget next to Eric Schmidt.

by JimR 2009-02-01 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: In Defense Of Partisan Bickering or On Why Bar

And you must be a straw man!

by cxfornier 2009-02-01 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: In Defense Of Partisan Bickering or On Why Bar

You don't need a brain to figure that out. Just listen to them.

by JimR 2009-02-01 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: In Defense Of Partisan Bickering or On Why Bar

I have no idea how that makes his point wrong. If IQ were a sign of what's right, then most of the GOP would not be in office.

by bruh3 2009-02-01 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: In Defense Of Partisan Bickering or On Why Bar

IMO that applies to all politicians.

by JimR 2009-02-01 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: In Defense Of Partisan Bickering or On Why Bar

true- our politics appeals to those believe in no knowing.

by bruh3 2009-02-01 07:04PM | 0 recs
The mental midget on that panel

is Demint...

And a raging homophobe at that.

Truly an examplery Republican loony.

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-01 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The mental midget on that panel

I'll give you that.

by JimR 2009-02-02 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Meanwhile

A couple of weeks ago you claimed you were from Queens.

by bruh3 2009-02-01 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes I am

That you are probably a liar since your story changes week to week depending on what progressive you are attacking. Your agenda is to promote quite clearly conservatism. THus, why you keep saying obviously untrue things like NY'ers sitting around hating Frank, but not knowing that NY'ers had an issue over race with Mark Green. Both things are out of character for someone from NYC not to know that he is not speaking the truth.

by bruh3 2009-02-01 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes I am

What a dismissive, obnoxious and arrogant thing to say.

by vcalzone 2009-02-01 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes I am

Yes, because when someone lies on here we should simply pretend they are telling the truth. This is not the first time he's made some exaggerated statement about NY'ers. If you want to believe him, that's your choice. But it's also my choice to call him out on the fact that not only I, but another poster corrected him a prior claim wherein he claimed to speak for NY'ers, and he continued to pretend that the racial issue was not a factor. He aslo recently did the same with Gillibrand regarding the perception of immigration groups, in which he claimed they had no problems with Gillibrand. I linked to muliptle sources disproving his assertion. So, no I do not believe him in these posts anymore in which he deems to speak for New Yorkers.

by bruh3 2009-02-01 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes I am

I have never for a second thought he spoke for all New York, and I have never thought that he claimed to.

YOU'RE doing that, but he hasn't been. And frankly, outside of New York, he's absolutely right. Frank has a very bad reputation, but I suspect he really doesn't give a shit whether people like him, and good for him, because that's why he is an effective leader.

But please remember that the approval rating of Congress is in the 30s. That includes an awful lot of Democrats.

by vcalzone 2009-02-02 01:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes I am

You have never for a second thought he was speaking for Ny'ers although he's making that point above and consistenlyt made it through out. Now he's claiming he speaks for queens. When I point out demographically he's wrong, I misunderstood him there to, and he's only speaking for certain white conseervative leaning neighborhood in queens. So what you understand, and what he says is changing each time I call him on it. Like I said, he's being dishonest in the postings because he has an agenda against more progressive democrats. I get it, but it'st still not truth in advertising to mislead and misdirect.

by bruh3 2009-02-02 07:01AM | 0 recs
I think you are extropolating to this?

Like I said, he's being dishonest in the postings because he has an agenda against more progressive democrats.

Anyone agree with that, especially knowing Nrafters posting backround here?

I think you are really over reaching with that assumption....

It assumes intention, and that is not clear either from any of the posts on this thread OR any history I have seen from Nrafter here.

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-02 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I think you are extropolating to this?

I can understand bruh3's reaction.  It's a bit over the top to say he is living in bizarro world because all the Democrats he knows back home hate Frank- especially after he acknowledges coming from Ozone Park.  Why would it seem bizarre to him?  This is one of the more conservative sections of the city (you'd pretty much have to go to Staten Island for similar views).  It should not seem bizarre at all to him (hell, Frank's also gay, which wouldn't help him at all in this neighborhood.  There is a perhaps subtle implication in his statement- that Democrats generally hate Frank.  I think that is what bruh3 is responding to.  I, too, come from a conservative working class community.  I do not find it bizarre that people in my old neighborhood hold the views that they do.  And I find nrafter's statement odd, given the facts.  And it leads me to wonder, what was his/her intention in making that statement?  I think bruh3's reaction is certainly reasonable, all things considered.

by orestes 2009-02-02 09:03AM | 0 recs
I don't understand what's wrong in nrafter

saying that the World he lives in, is a "bizzarro" World because folks he know do not like Barney Frank...am I missing something here?

by louisprandtl 2009-02-02 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't understand what's wrong in nrafter

I think it's a matter of perception.  My point was merely that I think bruh3's perception of the comment at issue was understandable- especially given the back and forth between them in response to the comment.  

by orestes 2009-02-03 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: You are the problem

That's a very limited subset of the party though.

You didn't know that New Yorkers have a problem with Mark Green's racial politics?  Would it surprise you if I told you that he'll never win an elected office again because of it?  Just curious.

by Jess81 2009-02-01 08:38PM | 0 recs
Green

I am ashamed to say I did not know this re:Green.  I am going to do reading now, thanks.

by tammanycall 2009-02-01 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually I did know that

You are lying again. Steve M had to correct you because he read you say the same thing as I did.

by bruh3 2009-02-02 06:57AM | 0 recs
To be honest when somebody is brazenly

appealing directly to his/her racial group to support him/her, that person is indulging in racial/ethnic politics. Unfortunately Sharpton, Ferrer et al, all have indulged in some form of racial/ethnic politics in a part of their career.

by louisprandtl 2009-02-02 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: You are the problem

Provide a link regarding your claims about how they "feel about Frank." Easy task considering your certainty.

by bruh3 2009-02-01 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Go to Queens

I don't need to go to Queens to ask them. I am pretty much assured they will say 'Who?"

For those of you here who don't get this guys agenda, this is the demographic make up of Queens, NY:

"According to the 2005-2007 American Community Survey Estimates, the city's population was 45.8% White (31.0% non-Hispanic White alone), 20.3% Black or African American (18.4% non-Hispanic Black or African American alone), 0.8% American Indian and Alaska Native, 21.7% Asian, 0.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 13.4% from some other race and 1.9% from two or more races. 26.2% of the tOtal population were Hispanic or Latino of any race. "

Whoever you are talking about- they are not most of Queens NY, much less New York. I still find it interesting you did not know about Mark Green given the demographics of Queens alone.

by bruh3 2009-02-01 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: You know

Yes, I get you are now changing the subject. by your definition, we can look at any neighborhood int eh country to undrstand generally what a significant section of that part of the country thinks. Apparently we need to look at specifically republican leaning white neighborhoods, for example, in ny to find out how ny'ers view Frank. I am getting you loud and clear on the issue of race just to name one subject.

by bruh3 2009-02-02 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: What the fuck do you

Provide a link. I am not the one claiming to speak for New Yorkers. You are.

by bruh3 2009-02-01 08:48PM | 0 recs
I'm related to Barney Frank

Seriously. He's my grandmother's second cousin and his mother and my great grandmother were close back in Bayonne, NJ. His sister is Ann Lewis, by the way.

by elrod 2009-02-01 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Meanwhile

Barney is arrogant but he is really good in a debate and is generally right.  I love him!

However, a lot of his colleagues can't stand him b/c if he thinks you are an idiot he basically ignores you.  I would probably share his opinion on most of his colleagues he looks down on but it is not exactly the best way to win friends or influence people.

by jmnyc 2009-02-01 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: In Defense Of Partisan Bickering

In defense of Schmidt, I have worked in politics and in business and he is very typical.  People in business don't get what political debate is about and chalk it up to a lot of useless arguing over silly things.  Part of it is in the business world generally you have your debates, a decision is made and everyone gets on the train or if don't agree you leave the organization. Partisanship is really a foreign concept to them.

by jmnyc 2009-02-01 07:22PM | 0 recs
This comment makes more sense than this blog post

The politicians arguing in public feels foreign to him, because that's not how it's done in his field.  Frank attempts to tell him that this is democracy [public relations?], but anyone who comes from a non-gossipy company would have a hard time understanding that.  

And as a personal observation I think Schmidt is vocalizing what a lot of Americans will be saying in a week or two.  Which is:  what is the problem?  I hope Congress has a better answer than "democracy".  

by tammanycall 2009-02-01 08:50PM | 0 recs
Tax Cuts and No Regulation

That's the brilliant, innovative plan DeMint brought to the table. He added absolutely nothing to the discourse. Are these people brain dead?

The fourth member of this round table that isn't getting much attention is Fred Smith, CEO of FedEx. I thought he made a couple of good points, especially on the topic of financial institutions being treated more favoriably than industrial ones. Barney agreed with much of what Fred had to say.

by Bob Miller 2009-02-02 02:34AM | 0 recs
Fire Barney Frank in 2010

Frank was one of the dudes who was supposed to be providing oversight of the banking industry.  Instead he was just taking their cash and looking the other way like everyone else before him.  Fire him, and fire anyone who failed to do their job leading up to this mess.   Frank, and others (Shumer, Dodd), are as guilty as Bush.  

by RichardFlatts 2009-02-02 08:08AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------