The Post is also reporting that another Congressman, Bill Taylor (D-OH), who sits on the House Defense Committee, arranged for his girlfriend to get a job as undersecretary of Defense in charge of budgeting and procurement at the Pentagon, which Taylor's committee oversees. Taylor says he has no intention of resigning and sees no conflict of interest.
If you think these kinds of transgressions should result in these Congressmen forfeiting their public office, you might want to send a message to them urging them to resign.
Both of these gentlemen can be reached at the below address:
Congressman Barney Frank
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
"What are you sending it to me for?"
11 comments:
Barney Frank has a good point Gary. He's not the one you seem to think "they" have the goods on.
Siarlys,
He must be the one because the two names I mentioned don't exist.
Or didn't you get that?
I did assume that you were presenting news as news, rather than making it up William Randolph Hearst style.
If you are trying to parody Barney Frank, he is quite unlikely to have a girlfriend.
I think you missed the point (again). Had it been a hetero Republican pol, don't you think there would have been an uproar?
Of course it was a parody of Frank.
So why didn't I see anything in the front pages about Frank the last several days? Is the entire Mainstream Media, from Fox News to the New York Times, covering it up? Or is it several years old news that you dredged up for a dull day?
I guess if Siarlys doesn't see it then it doesn't exist. I guess nobody told him about this story. These links should help.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43789
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/26/rep-frank-admits-helping-ex-lover-land-job-fannie-mae/
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1340677
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/barney-frank-helped-domestic-partner-find-work-at-fannie-mae.php
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/573604/201105271832/Barneys-Benefits.htm
There are a couple of hundred more links to news stories and commentaries I could supply on this but maybe Barney Frank (according to Siarlys) is getting falsely accused. First, Siarlys wrote" He's not the one you seem to think "they" have the goods on" and then he wrote the entire mainstream media is covering it up(!)
You would think that by now Siarlys would be too embarrassed to write anything here.
.
You have yet to show the intellectual rigor that would inspire any sense of embarrassment in me, Miggie. It is true that I don't watch much TV. When I learn of something first on Fousesquawk, I assume that Gary is telling a good deal of the truth, and not much else -- in this I am often disappointed.
Most of your proffered links are to dubious preaching-to-the-choir sites, but since I've insisted that Fox News is as much part of the "Mainstream Media" as MSNBC, maybe more so, I took a look.
I'm not impressed with anyone digging up a twenty year old story -- just like I wasn't impressed with someone in 2000 digging up that George W. Bush had a drunk driving arrest 20 years earlier.
The facts Fox presents fall far short of those Gary insinuated. Further, Frank is correct that there was no law or ethical regulation against what he did. Should there be? Maybe we should provide that a member of congress may not be asked for, nor provide, a recommendation on the job application of anyone who is related by blood, marriage, or sexual entanglement. But, there was no such regulation.
The man applied for a job, the congress rep was asked for an opinion, and gave it. Big deal.
How about running a house of prostituion in Wash DC? Last I checked, that was illegal.
Siarlys, since you say you don't watch much TV, you must not read very many newspapers or magazines either if you weren't aware of this scandal. If you don't like the links I supplied there are hundreds of others you could check out yourself. But you would rather quibble with the evidence supplied for you went you were completely unaware of it to begin with.
Being uninformed, you fell for the parody and rushed to Barney Frank's defense. He is, in fact, they one they have the goods on.
.
What goods? I read your link Miggie. While you huff and puff about my denigrating your links, you haven't said anything to rehabilitate the significance of the one I did watch, and found wanting.
The "goods" I was referring to were those that were in your very first post on this thread.
The rest of your remarks are so obtuse as to be incomprehensible. Why don't you at least try to write clearly?
Post a Comment