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

"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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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)

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

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 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."

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

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."

Is it too early for a drink.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.