Great. Now I need my blood pressure medicine. Why do people bother going on this jerk's show?

I kind of hate starting the day with screaming and dramatics....but I definitely hate starting the day thinking that Bill O'Reilly is making a good point.

He is overstating his point, but it is still valid.

How the hell is this jerk still on the air?

"If you were in the private sector you'd have been fired!"

Yeah, and so would Dubya! Oh, wait... that's not the point you're trying to make, sorry.

Why is a sex offender like Barney Frank still roaming Congress....PageGate!

For anybody who has seen the F*CK IT!! WE'LL DO IT LIVE. WE'LL DO IT LIVE!!! tape... every new one of these rage filled rants is really sad.

Having a frame of reference for how insane and angry Bill O helps. It also makes me ill that this is rewarded with such a seat of power to influence people

Loud Noises!

^

The WE'LL DO IT LIIIIIIVE tape:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY

This is Exhibit A for why Democrats and progressives should just avoid appearing on this network entirely. Appearing on Bill's show as a dunking booth clown doesn't help their cause at all.

I was astounded that Obama even took his call, never mind showed up in Bill's studio.

Wow, he really is an asshole. That was the main point, right? Afterall I'm not sure I heard much in the way of considered dialog or remotely resembling discussion.

I don't know what's more disturbing, that shows like that are on the air, or that there is a demographic that actually watches, likes, and thinks of that show as news.

Better Direct Link to this idiocy:
http://tinyurl.com/OreillyIsAnAsshole

I'm a random old straight guy, but I love love love Barney Frank as a legislator and am happy to have been able to vote for him several times as my congressman.

He can stand up to this fucking blowhard idiot better than anyone. When is Keith Olbermann being interviewed by this fuckwit?

Whenever right wingers say "both parties are at fault" what they really mean is "we refuse to take responsiblity for our own stupidity".

DO NOT click on #10's link

It goes straight to FOX and has a pre-roll before the video(an advertisement that gives the site/network money for your viewing it)

Ugh, I'd never seen that show before this clip. I think I have a migraine.

Is there any way I can mail this guy a box of my own poop?

That was truly irritating. Barney Frank did alright, considering the circumstances, but really, how can you win against Bill O'Reilly? He just starts screaming and foaming at the mouth and then any possibility of an actual discussion gets thrown out the window.

Why do people watch this? Even if I were a conservative, I don't see how watching someone scream and rant would be enjoyable. And, it's certainly not informative.

The question isn't why people watch it (though it's worth pointing out that more people are watching Spongebob opposite Bill on any given night; his ratings only look "good" against other boring talking head "news analysts" which is like picking the most appealing dab of dogshit on a specific street corner), the question is why guests show up to be shouted at and made a fool of like that. Make no mistake -- Representative Frank made a fool of himself and damaged his professional and political credibility by consenting to appear on that show and network at all.

If Barney was in the private sector, he would have been promoted and given a bonus, just like the CEOs who actually ran their companies into the ground.

The right wing keeps pushing this myth that by definition, the private sector is more efficient.

If you believe that, ask yourself this question, and be honest with yourself: Is your boss an incompetent asshole?

I think all Democrats SHOULD go on Bill's show. They should tell him "Bill, I just agreed to be on your show so I could tell you what a rabid scurvy dog you are. Bye now."

Slog ate my comment. It might reappear, it might not. Re-cap: O'Reilly is an asshole, but he had a point. I admire Frank for being an openly gay member of congress but I'd admire him more if he'd admit to being wrong when he said there's no problem at Fannie/Freddie.

Is it too early for a drink. Bill just pisses a guy off.

I agree that Frank did a good job standing up for himself, but O'Reilly first thing in the morning is too much for me. I feel nauseated.

All hail to Massachusetts, the land of the free and the brave!

@14: You've heard of professional wrestling, right?

Man ... I really miss William F. Buckley.

Remember that roundtable show he used to do where he'd have, like, Cornell West and Barbara Erinreich and a bunch of other people on who he had absolutely nothing in common with and then they'd just ... ummm ... have a civilized conversation? About various issues of the day? And listen to each other's points and then respectfully disagree?

Even as a kid sitting on the living room floor playing with He-Mans while my parents watched, I remember thinking; "You are kind of creepy, Mr. Drawl-y Foppy Man, and I do not agree with what you are saying, but I respect you."

I love that this is a statement not a question, @18. You don't have to leave it open for anybody to answer, just go for it!

Is it too early for a drink.

@18. No.

if barney frank had been in charge of the finance committee for the other 12 of the last 14 years, and wasn't just one of 450 or so congressman, but was instead sec. of the treasury, the head of the fed, head of the SEC, ran an investment bank, invented new types of sercurities or derivatives, was a republican, or was the president of the united states, then MAYBE i'd be willing to assess him with blame for this clusterfuck of deregulation & defunding of regulation.

O'Reilly's ratings must be down again. He has to act out to appeal to his audience of the socially and emotionally stunted who believe grown-ups act that way. So sad...

I think they both look stupid. Bill O'Reilly may be a blowhard dufus, but Barney Frank really doesn't come across very well in this piece either.

wait, did someone say o'reilly has a point? a valid point? how on earth can you tell? all i hear is a lot of shouting from what appears to be a seriously disturbed crazyperson. that man shouldn't be on television, he should be on thorazine.

@ 4: Larry Craig. 'Nuff said.

Media has become entertainment, not solid analysis. FOX and O'Reilly are at the forefront of that, and really, the other cable shows are trying to keep up with them.

Now more than ever, we need calm, rational discussion about what our economic policy is. I think this crisis is a huge indictment of the Republican Party over the past 15 years or so; but we Dems need to prove that we understand the problems and have ready answers going forward.

I wish that the business world would divorce itself from social conservatives, so that we could at least unhinge these discussions from questions of gay rights and abortion and the war on drugs, etc.

...and, I too, miss Bill Buckley, even where I disagreed with him.

I find it really appropriate that the ad that came up on Faux was trying to scare me into buying a security system.

Barney Frank needs a speech therapist. I keep wanting him to spit out the mouthful of marbles or whatever [yeah yeah, insert joke about what a gay congressman might have in his mouth] and speak clearly.

The American people allow this foolishness, shame on the American population.

Barney Frank does deserve some infamy for the failures of the credit market. He knew that severe regulatory problems existed and even had specific issues that the preliminary economic analysis says is the cause of the subprime crisis: securitization of no- and low-doc mortgages. In English, that means that one bank would make a mortgage for people they didn't have any paperwork for, people they didn't ask any questions of, people whose earning potential was unverified. They sold these mortgages en masse (in finance world "securitized") to speculators who were betting that the housing market would expand forever and ever.

Once the housing market started to slow down, boom! those securities (bags of unknown mortgages) started failing because people stopped making payments. The result? massive foreclosures, the credit crunch, and general chaos.

Barney Frank knew of these problems. He identified them in an interview in The Banker January 1, 2008. You can pay to see it here (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-7331431_ITM) or if you're lucky enough to have Lexis Nexis.

What did the esteemed Mr. Frank do? He made a forgotten proposal. The blame for that certainly lies with Congress as a whole, but if he's so ineffective as to let the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression pass through his committee, he should be held accountable.

I heart BF. He makes the point that actual communication requires talking, listening, thinking and responding. Not necessarily in that order.

The fact that he is gay and has a speech impediment makes this even more deliciously ironic.

whoops. that interview is available with a free registration at banker.com.

http://www.thebanker.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/5576/New_rules_to_prevent_another_subprime_crisis.html

Here's Frank talking about the crisis and the kinds of regulations needed to fix up the subprime market: http://www.bu.edu/today/2008/02/12/what-caused-subprime-crisis

Now that I'm reading more, I'm starting to think Frank's analysis is alright. The proposal he's been making since late last year looks like it never got traction--but by the early economic literature I've seen on the subprime crisis, Frank's proposal may have stemmed the continued growth of the bad securities and the crisis wouldn't be so bad as it is. Why didn't it go anywhere? Or did it? Have any of its provisions been included in our lovely bailout?

I will be very happy when Bill O'Reilly dies. There I said it!

@33 and @35 I find it hard to drop this mess in Barney Franks' lap. Even acknowledging that he had an idea of what was going, I can't find that he had the power to do anything about the crisis before the Democrats regained control of the House. He seemed to act once he did. Out of power, he tried to bring attention to the issue; in power, he tried to re-install regulation to get things under control. I don't think he was ineffective. Powerless seems to be a better characterization.

Deregulation of the financial industry began under Nixon, blossomed under Reagan, and continued on as a mainstay of the Republican platform and agenda. Democrats played their parts, but to present them as equal partners in the de-regulation movement is disingenuous, to say the least.

Finally, and most important, the acknowledged cause of the current crisis is the reliance of financial institutions on credit default swaps (CDS) to cover mortgage-backed bonds. Those, reportedly, are new on the financial scene, created in 1997. Although they were new financial vehicles and unregulated, as CEO of Goldman Sachs, now Treasury Secretary Paulson no doubt knew about them. If inaction and ineffectiveness charges belong anywhere it is with him.

Frank may carry some responsibility for this mess, as all elected federal representatives do, but to paraphrase Orwell, some of them are more responsible than others. For the blame game, Frank isn't anywhere near the winners.