Apparently Rush Limbaugh has developed a parody song about Barney Frank called . . . Banking Queen. Because you know what makes Frank such a piss-poor bank regulator? That's right, obviously it's who he sleeps with when he's not in Congress.
If Alan Greenspan's wife had been a swimsuit model, we probably could have avoided this mess altogether.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Rush has always had a streak of "Morning Zoo" schlock jock in him...if anything, it used to be even more pronounced
Compared to what Ms. McArdle's colleague Andrew Sullivan writes about Sarah Palin (She faked her pregnancy! She was wearing a pregnancy suit! She won't release her gynecological records!), I think Rush Limbaugh is pretty classy. But of course, only media designed for people without college degrees offends Ms. McArdle.
@y81
Just to check, has your sense of personal morality evolved past "Mommy, he was doing it first"?
Didn't Barney Frank have a live-in lover who was an executive at Fannie Mae (Herb Moses)? I've even heard that Moses developed many of Fannie Mae's affordable housing initiatives while living with Frank in the 1990s. Why haven't we heard more about this? Rush may not have brought it up in a classy way (that's not his primary goal, is it?), but it seems relevant to the debate to look at the potential biases of such a key player in the mess.
your post sense no make
Ann has a point--Frank had a personal conflict of interest.
Hi -
Well, Barney Frank does have significant conflicts of interest here. He did have a lover who was working for Fannie Mae at the time when he (Franke) was involved with oversight, and he failed to mention this: conflict of interest.
Further, Frank let a previous boyfriend run a sex service out of Frank's dwelling.
I call both of these exceedingly bad judgment, and it does not reflect well on Frank's ability to make good decisions. That has a lot of relevance for his ability to judge whether what he is being told is true.
And Rush is as much an entertainer as he is a pundit. That's why he is so successful.
Barney Frank doesn't have a good record on Fannie Mae, and he has failed consistently to even understand how he has a conflict of interest in regulating a business that his boyfriend helps to run.
This is developing into the worst Congress ever. The guilty are running the show, the inmates are in charge of the asylum, the press is in winter hibernation and the Democratic majority is revoking the rules that gave more say to the minority because it's inconvenient now that the Democrats are the majority.
They richly deserve their approval rating levels. If anything, if the press were actually bothering to report the stories of conflicts of interest, fraud, deceit and outright thievery that characterize this Congress, the approval rating would have to be measured behind the decimal point, at best.
Of course, the Democratic Party is looking forward to having Al Franken as one of their own. That way the amateur clowns can take lessons from a professional.
Bleagh.
kevdog, my sense of morality has evolved to consider The Atlantic a rather disgusting publication, on which I would never spend a dime so long as Andrew Sullivan works there. I'm a consumer, and it's my money, and I'll spend it as I please. I'm also a consumer of ideas, and I will never listen to any Atlantic writer lecture on what is an acceptable level of personal abuse in political discourse, any more than I would listen to a German lecture on morality in international affairs.
"Because you know what makes Frank such a piss-poor bank regulator? That's right, obviously it's who he sleeps with when he's not in Congress."
What Ann said. Did you not know about that when you wrote this post, Megan?
By the way, what's with the "apparently"? Turn on Rush's show at noon and listen for yourself. You might find it entertaining, as even many listeners who disagree with Rush's politics do.
Meghan,
I'm gay and I say it's just funny. If you saw Frank on with Bill O'Riley you know that he can take care of himself.
Rush's comments aside, Would you say that Barney Frank is a above average, average, or poor regulator?
A personal pet peeve of mine is when one political side is trying to describe the other in terms of its lowest available member. Both sides are guilty of this. Democratic/Republican philosophy cannot be judged on the basis of some jack ass writing clearly absurd comments on some blog, or some entertainer running their mouth on the air.
After all, we shouldn't judge the Obama administration based on the rantings or Rossie O'Donnell, should we?
"the Democratic majority is revoking the rules that gave more say to the minority because it's inconvenient now that the Democrats are the majority."
Yes, a rule that was originally meant to allow quick amending of bills that is now repeatedly used by Republicans to send otherwise popular bills to die in committee because of the technical difference between "forthwith" and "promptly". Clearly that's a rule that's completely fair and simply "gives a say to a minority". Maybe that minority should try to, I don't know, win a vote on the amendment they want put in or the actual bill itself instead of resorting to such tactics?
As to the topic at hand, it's clear Rush is making fun of Barney by calling him a fag without using that specific word, not because he had a relationship with someone involved in banking. Same as the Magic Negro crap. He's playing to thinly-veiled bigotry because his listeners enjoy thinly-veiled bigotry and it gets him ratings.
Hey im black and gay and bisexual and transgendererd and poor and a woman and have one baby and the other baby i aborted and am a midget who is also disabled in my head and in my body and I love allah and Yaweh and hate god, and I am not offended by anything Rush Limbaugh says so there.
See, when I saw the title of this post, I thought it was going to be something really tasteless and deserving of censure that Rush did (like his totally unnecessary comments about McNab a few years ago).
But no, it turns out that Megan is flipping out over a mild gay joke (the horror!). Sheesh, lighten up and find a sense of humor. What's with the suffocating political correctness? Aren't you supposed to be a libertarian or something?
Besides, as one poster already pointed out here, Frank had a live-in bedfellow who was a Fannie Mae exec (and a Frankie's Fannie exec), so in fact his rampant flaming gayness isn't unrelated to his behavior vis-a-vis Fannie and Freddie.
rick:
You left out the part about no sense of humor.
I'm not sure I get the point of this post. Are you arguing that song parodies should always provide a clear, straightforward presentation of fact and not pick on easy to mock characteristics of their target or in any other way engage in juvenile, snarky or unflattering jibes?
So in your ideal world, song parodies would read much like legal briefs?
Thank god we don't live in your world.
Maybe Megan thinks Rush was exploiting the fact that his fan base, at least the fundagelical Christian component of it, has a deep seated contempt for homosexuals, and is using that to shape their opinon of Mr Frank, which isn't very classy. I hardly see how she was flipping out about it.
I'm just disturbed that Megan was listening to Rush at all.
Megan, are you saying that Andrea Mitchell is the wrong hedge fund for him to inject his liquidity into?
>>Because you know what makes Frank such a piss-poor bank regulator? That's right, obviously it's who he sleeps with when he's not in Congress.
>>Didn't Barney Frank have a live-in lover who was an executive at Fannie Mae (Herb Moses)?
So to answer your question: Yes. He, literally, was in bed with Fannie Mae.
"I will never listen ... to a German lecture on morality in international affairs." It's not often that one reads such frank racism these days.
Lighten Up, Francis
"Banking Queen" is funny. If it is not your brand of humor, try Rosie O'Donnell or Al Franken or Randi Rhodes or Julian Bond instead.
"Barack the Magic Negro" is also funny. It is a shot across the bow for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, playing off a column in the LA Times.
The McNabb issue of several years ago was a shot at the sports media, which Rush accurately described as "wanting the black guy to do well". One might note, though Rush has not done so in song yet, that the political media last year (and still) "wants the black guy to do well".
As for characterizing a party by its weakest (or funniest) members, Barney Frank wouldn't likely be the target as long as Maxine Waters remains in the House, except that Waters is not the chair of the Banking Committee.
Yes, I'm sure that the lisping, mincing voice on "Banking Queen" is a sincere statement on Frank's relationship with Herb Moses 10+ years ago and not an attempt to use cheap gay stereotypes to score points with the audience.
Did this get a link from Instapundit or something?
If everyone were "classy", how would we know it?
Ed Reid said:
"As for characterizing a party by its weakest (or funniest) members, Barney Frank wouldn't likely be the target as long as Maxine Waters remains in the House, except that Waters is not the chair of the Banking Committee."
I don't know if this was directed at me, but if it was, I did not mean characterizing a party, but rather characterizing an ideology. In other words, equating all left to the maniac screaming at the jews to return to the oven, or equating all right to the maniac with the god hates f*gs signs.
If that comment was not directed in my direction, disregard
The McNabb issue of several years ago was a shot at the sports media, which Rush accurately described as "wanting the black guy to do well".
No, Rush didn't describe it "accurately" at all. He rarely describes anything accurately..
I don't know why it bothered Rush to see a black quarterback succeeding, but that was all that the sports media--hardly a bunch of raging liberals--was reporting. That a quarterback who happened to be black was in fact a very good quarterback--back then, and now. Or did McNabb ride a media conspiracy all the way to the Super Bowl?
It was a ridiculous argument at the time anyway, since several black quarterbacks had been successful before then--including Warren Moon and Super Bowl MVP Doug Williams. Maybe they weren't really that good after all, it was all just an illusion created by the liberal sports media!
"Aren't you supposed to be a libertarian or something?"
As has been previously noted by other commenters, Megan's more of a social liberal who favors pro-business policies and smallish government rather than a hardcore libertarian in the Ayn Rand mold. Which is fine by me, as I find the latter morally bankrupt, intellectually limited, and generally tedious.
My main quibble with Megan is that has a sanctimonious attitude towards paleolibertarians who don't share her views on the joys of multiculturalism, drugs, affirmative action, open borders, or (in this case) debauched sexual practices. Failure to join Ms. McArdle in these celebrations will result in one being labeled a "repulsive racist" and, presumably, a "repulsive homophobe".
After such a resounding electoral defeat, I really don't understand why major figures on the right--a potential RNC chair and one of it's most prominent media voices--would choose to engage in jokes and mockery based on race and sexual orientation.
Is this how you expect to re-emerge from the wilderness? Is this your vision for the future? If so, as a Democrat, I can only say keep up the good work and enjoy your permanent minority status.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that somebody released a bit of political satire that made a timely and cutting critique of a powerful member of Congress. Let's say that this work brought to light issues regarding the Congressman's role in recent events, along with his judgement, honesty, ability, and fitness for the job, and undercut the political messages that this Congressman and his allies were trying to promote.
Now let's further imagine that the satirical work was a lightweight parody which also made fun of the Congressman's lifestyle, which was officially protected but still the subject of a lot of social debate and a fair amount of criticism and name-calling. Further, the source of the parody was a radio entertainer widely scorned by all the "right-thinking" people in one's social circles.
In such a hypothetical scenario, how would you bring the cutting political satire to the attention of your "right-thinking" social circle, without associating yourself with its source or its questionable humor at the expense of a protected class?
Methinks our hostess is more clever than she is credited for.
LOL
Megan, buy less Kitchen-Aid and more clues...
Compared to what Ms. McArdle's colleague Andrew Sullivan writes about Sarah Palin (She faked her pregnancy!
Classlessness aside, Sully actually had some fairly good evidence for that - and he was only applying Sarah Palin's own standards for campaign transparency. The only evidence ever put for that Trig actually was Palin's child was her say-so, and she's not exactly a credible self-reporter at this point.
Frank's Boyfriend Worked for Freddie. That's called a conflict of interest, no?
Wow. So many paleocons trying to pass themselves off as "libertarians" in this thread.
Trying to ditch the "conservative" label now that it's as good as toxic now, huh?
Tempest, meet teapot.
I think the song is in rather poor taste, but at first glance I don't think that Rush is saying that Frank's homosexuality means that he was a bad regulator. Were he shagging women, goats, or meerkats, he'd still be a poor at his job. The proprietress is implyng a connection that doesn't, at least based on the title, appear to be there.
Bean writes: "Wow. So many paleocons trying to pass themselves off as "libertarians" in this thread.
Trying to ditch the "conservative" label now that it's as good as toxic now, huh?"
Yes, so many! Me, myself, and I alone. That's at least three, isn't it?
If a homosexual can self-identify as both "gay" and "queer", I think it's only fitting to permit me to self-identify as both "paleolibertarian" and "paleoconservative". Heck, throw in "constitutionalist" for the trifecta.
I think Andrea Mitchell could probably pull off a bikini. Pretty good for a woman her age.
I haven't had the dubious pleasure of hearing the parody (although I DID hear The Capitol Steps singing "Dance McCain" to the same melody, as well as "Obama Mia!" and "Beginner Takes it All"), but I never realized Limbaugh competed on CLASS.
"I think Andrea Mitchell could probably pull off a bikini. Pretty good for a woman her age."
In the future, could you please refrain from posting from 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM EST? I usually have lunch around then.
Thanks.
Hey, Megan, Rush is on the radio. Mocking Barney Frank's lisp is the radio equivalent of an editorial cartoonist exaggerating George W. Bush's ears. How did Barney Frank become famous (prior to the GSE/CRA scandals)? He was the second (after Gerry Studds)-- and for a while (until Polis in 2008) only-- openly- gay Congressman ever! How do you get listeners to realize which otherwise unremarkable ethically-challenged left-wing Massachusetts Congressman you're taking to task over the GSE/CRA scandals? You allude to his most famous characteristic!
Rush didn't attack Barney Frank for what he does offstage. He identified Frank-- in terms Frank himself chose to emphasize starting years ago-- to criticize Frank for his official acts.
"Yes, I'm sure that the lisping, mincing voice on "Banking Queen" is a sincere statement on Frank's relationship with Herb Moses 10+ years"
Barney Frank talks in a lisping, mincing voice. Most gays I know don't but he does - so why is it wrong to copy his voice if one is parodying him. Frank has gotten a lot of mileage out of using his sexuality to cover for his incompetence and general vileness.
Ah. So much disinformation; so little time.
Re: Barney Frank's prowess as a regulator or lack thereof: it wasn't until Frank took control as chair of the house committee overseeing Fannie and Freddie, in Jan. 2007, that any legislation regarding Fannie/Freddie oversight passed the committee, with Frank being the one moving it. He then moved it through the entire house by May 2007. Prior to Jan 2007, guess who controlled the committee and which party had the power to pass just about whatever they wanted? Thasss right...the Republicans.
But let's go back further in time, to that boyfriend of Barney's. The two split in 1998; Moses had already left Freddie Mac, where his job was to fashion loan programs targeted for lower income home buyers - which is part of the mission given to Fannie and Freddie by the government, and has been for a long time.
I suppose you could call Frank's relationship with Moss a "conflict of interest" if there was any evidence that Frank had supported risky schemes on the part of Freddie that caused it to fail. Unfortunately, there's no evidence of anything of the sort. The initial problems with Freddie and Fannie that surfaced around 2002 had to do with dishonest accounting practices - NOT with any particular housing program. The Bush Administration in 2003 insisted on reforming Fannie and Freddie by moving them under Treasury oversight. Frank - and the majority of the marjority GOP committee at the time - favored putting the agencies under an independent Treasury post. Their concern was that the Bush administration would use Treasury control to erode the organization's mission to support low-income housing, so they wanted a bit more independence. The Bush administration stamped its feet and said "my way or the highway" and so, nothing got through that House committee until Barney Frank assumed the chairmanship in Jan. 2007, over three years later.
Now, for those poor deluded souls who believe that "poor people buying houses" and Fannie and Freddie caused the real estate crash - Fannie and Freddie just barely got their toes wet with subprime loans; they didn't even get into that game until several years after the Republicans failed to reform their oversight, and they only did it then because all the subprime stuff flooding the market was crowding them out. Even so, Fannie and Freddie collectively insured only 3% of subprime mortgages in 2005, and 15% in 2006. That's it - they were only in it for 2 years, and were minor players then, and even then, they held higher standards for subprime debt than did most others, accepting nothing rated below A-. Not surprising then that the default rate on Fannie & Freddie secured loans - even the subprime ones - is much lower than in the overall market.
So, to recap: 1)Fannie and Freddie didn't fail because they were forced to lend to bad credit risks, and did not cause the mortgage meltdown; 2)Fannie and Freddie were underregulated for years because the Bush administration refused to compromise with its Republican colleagues in Congress, not because minority-party congressman Barney Frank blocked it; 3)The same Barney Frank moved oversight legislation through his committee and the full house as soon as he had the power to do so - over a full year before the companies required bailout; 4)Barney Frank had, 5 years previous to any of these events (now over 10 years ago), a relationship with a man who was employed by Freddie to design mortgage programs for the agency, not to provide accounting services, which is where the problems were.
The biggest offense, as always with Limbaugh, is that he's willfully dishonest. He's lying and he knows it. He just ladles on the fag-bashing to amuse those types who won't really look any further into the facts he's alleging as long as they get their RDA of red-meat bigotry fulfilled.
If Alan Greenspan's wife had been a swimsuit model, we probably could have avoided this mess altogether.
In general, more attractive spouses/partners might lure government busybodies to spend more time in bed/hanging from chandeliers and less time in the office screwing up the country. So, in short, possibly yes.
From Billy:
Uh, I would rather see her pull on a burlap sack.
I just saw this on You-Tube. If you haven't heard the parody, this video complements it nicely. Check out the link below. Hilarious!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCEF-dNdeXo
Where do you get off, you sick little twist? Sexual? I'm not sexual with them. I'm not abusive with them, how dare you write that in your paper without knowing nothing about me, biting's not sex, it's biting! I'm not sick like that. Maybe I should come bite you, would you like that, scotty? I bet you would like that, I am right? You write about me like I'm sick. You're the sick one, you know that? Is that why you like me, scotty? Is that why? I could come bite you; you tell me how sexual it is. You humiliate me like that? You mortify me like that in front of my father? My father's father? Listen to me, smack daddy, crack daddy, little baby whack daddy, here's what's happening. You ain't never going to find them anymore. You aint never gonna see them no more. I'm sending you something right now, You take a good look at this guy, because you ain't ver going to see him no more.
Meggan, if I were to hire you as a song-writer to come up with a parody song about Senator Frank's role in the banking crisis, what sort of caricature of him would you depict? Would his gayness not shine through at all?
Can you even DO a vocal impression of him that people would recognize without lisping?
I don't find the song funny, but I don't find it offensive, either.
Heck, do a YouTube search of Abaa songs (including Dancing Queen), and you would think THEY were doing cruel parodies of gay people!
There's no there there, as far as this story is concerned.
I would have no problem with Megan critizing Rush's parody of Barney Frank but for one fact- Megan's use the word "[a]pparently" at the beginning of her post. Her word choice strongly suggests that she is criticizing Rush without having actually listened to his parody. While I generally appreciate Megan's wit and wisdom, in this instance, it appears that she is jumping to a conclusion without knowing the relevant, underlying facts.
P.S. On a totally unrelated topic, can we get an update on the Mini? It's killing me to not know whether you have gotten the car fixed and registered.
"Prior to Jan 2007, guess who controlled the committee and which party had the power to pass just about whatever they wanted?"
Controlling the committee didn't give the Republicans "the power to pass just about whatever they wanted". Guess which committee members voted in favor of reform and which voted against it? It was a straight party line vote with all Democrats on the committee voting against reform. The Republicans could have gotten it out of committee but didn't have the 60 vote margin in the Senate to get the bill passed over opposition from the Democrats.
In order to refresh your memory regarding how Democrats felt about Fannie and Freddie at the time, you should watch the YouTube videos of the 2004 House hearings. Barney Frank even said specifically that he wanted to see the GSEs take more chances, to "roll the dice", in order to make sure that more unqualified borrowers could get mortgage loans.
Regarding Fannie and Freddie's role in lowering mortgage lending standards, they moved into the subprime market aggressively in 1998. Here’s a very interesting NYT article from Sept., 1999:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
A few select quotes from the NYT article:
“Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people.”
“''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ”
“By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings. Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.”
The debate isn't whether it's obnoxious and juvenile. We all know the answer there. It's whether you consider this kind of obnoxiousness a good thing or not, and secondarily, if you feel you need to cover up if so.
Limbaugh produced this to get a rise of people. It works, so there's no point playing that game. You'll just get labeled as humorless. I think it's great if people continue to rock out to embarrassing stuff like this and Ann Coulter books and "Barack on a food stamp" and such. It keeps them busy while the adults can govern and get crap done.
y81 writes: "I'm also a consumer of ideas, and I will never listen to any Atlantic writer lecture on what is an acceptable level of personal abuse in political discourse, any more than I would listen to a German lecture on morality in international affairs."
That's funny, since you Cheneyites derive your morality from the Gestapo. I guess it's just modern Germans you despise.
Staash writes: "If a homosexual can self-identify as both "gay" and "queer", I think it's only fitting to permit me to self-identify as both "paleolibertarian" and "paleoconservative". Heck, throw in "constitutionalist" for the trifecta."
Why not add "Sailerite"? Can't you guys count that high?
So do you all have your white robes laundered for the inauguration or what?
If one banned Limbaugh making fun of Frank in the manner described, and one were consistent, then Tina Fey's impression of Sarah Palin would have to go too. Be careful what you wish for.
"So do you all have your white robes laundered for the inauguration or what?"
Considering that I voted for the guy and all...
my sense of morality has evolved to consider The Atlantic a rather disgusting publication, on which I would never spend a dime so long as Andrew Sullivan works there. I'm a consumer, and it's my money, and I'll spend it as I please. I'm also a consumer of ideas, and I will never listen to any Atlantic writer lecture on what is an acceptable level of personal abuse in political discourse, any more than I would listen to a German lecture on morality in international affairs.
okay, I give up: how did you know to come over and comment, then?
I do kind of wonder, though, why Barney Frank's bedmate is less worthy of "classy" satire than Bristol Palin's kid's dad's mother's drug issues.
Isn't the important question "was it funny", not "was it classy"?
I can't answer that question myself, not having heard it. But neither can Megan.
stop being a baby.
When are you going to start blogging about Gaza again?
I haven't heard Rush for some time, but at one time he used a different song - "My Boy Lollipop". Would that have been better?
As for Jennifer above, thanks for playing, but some of us recall what *really* happened. It's amusing to hear you complain of Rush's alleged "willful dishonesty".
Gee, Megan. Don't bust your ass blogging today, after all you took like six days off the last two weeks. WTF happened today? Did you have to move again? IMWTK.
Rush is a dufus. Sullivan also being a dufus is a lame defense. I don't get why Rush is getting so much defense here.
That said "Banking Queen" likely bothers me a bit less than "Barack the Magical Negro." Maybe that's a latent homophobia or it's that
1: I'm not sure "queen" is precisely as anachronistic or insulting as "Negro."
2: Barney Frank's actions have likely done real damage. Obama still hasn't done much of anything yet.
3: Barney Frank is in a solidly liberal state and can take care of himself. So this probably doesn't hurt him much. Obama's in a center-right or center-left nation so has to deal with some parts of rural Appalachia where his race still bothers people.
4: ABBA is just funnier than Peter, Paul, and Mary because they're so much lamer than any American folkie. Although do gay guys even really like ABBA that much? (I'm guessing it uses ABBA's "Dancing Queen" anyway)
Barney Frank isn't the "Banking Queen" because he is nowhere near young, slim, or good looking enough. I saw him on the cover of the Advocate the other day and thought, "He is nowhere near slim or good looking enough to be gay." He can't do much about that mug but for God's sake, lay off the donuts and hit the gym! Nobody wants to hit that!
Rush is NOT the voice of all conservatives. I think he is a pompous arse. Having said that, the song "Banking Queen" IS relevant, based on the conflict of interest first mentioned by Ann above.
Herb Moses and Congressman Frank were together, and Frank pushed legislation related to Moses's Fannie Mae. (10 years!)
Oh, and Barney himself was quoted saying [family life] “should be fair game for campaign discussion."
So, Mr. Frank shouldn't mind.
So you agree that any supposed conflicts of interest on the part of Barney Frank being on the committee during that time is irrelevant to the banking crisis, since the Democrats did not have the power to block proposals from getting out of the committee?
Rush Limbaugh is on my Top 10 list of people I'd like to see die a horrible death as soon as possible.
Megan,
Can you put the hidden comments up? I need to find a phone number.
Thank You
Alas, no matter what was Greenspan's wife, Limbaugh's gutter attacks would not have been stopped. The right-wing has a practice of hypocrisy and selective outrage: remember how unwed pregnancy became respectable when it happened to the daughter of the Republican vice=presidential candidate? Anyone think the same charity would have been expended toward a DEMOCRAT?
Frank's and the Democrats love of the GSE's was a disaster. The GSE's were a lynch pin of the credit bubble. Greenspan and Wall Street launched the real estate bubble with knowledge aforethought, and used the GSE's to fuel it, again, with full intent.
I always liked Barney's politics but on this he went so far off the rails I cannot forgive him. They kept talking about affordable housing right up to the very peak, when the median price was 5 times median income. Never in history had it risen above 3 times.
Without the mortgage credit bubble which really started in 92 93 the rest of the credit bubble could never have gotten near as big. Few remember or even know that the money center banks were essentially bankrupt in 91. Already stuffed to the gills in bad loans in RE and soverign debt and corporate crap. Greenspan's cure was not to let them fail but to open a Pandora's Box of new credit to reliquify the banks.
Econ 103 teaches how lending creates money. Creates it's own self reinforcing liquidty. With mortgage backed securities and all the other modern securitizations the money creation was less direct but the self reinforcing mechanism was tubo charged.
The credit bubble absolutely required an every increasing volume of new credit. The new credit to pay off old debt, Ponzi like, and to mask the ongoing losses.
Credit creation jumped the outside the banking system to the GSE's and Wall Street. This was a design and Greenspan understood it fully. Allowing a degree of denyability because the action was outside the purview of the Fed through it's member banks. Not that the member banks did not participate full bore. However they did it off balance sheet. Perhaps Greenspans greatest gift of all to the crooks.
"The right-wing has a practice of hypocrisy and selective outrage: remember how unwed pregnancy became respectable" Miande
TR: Although they were too accepting of that part of what you are saying is a matter of not knowing what you're talking about. That's not too uncommon as "ideological enemies" are generally viewed as a caricature of what they are in reality.
The right-wing is still upset about unwed pregnancy as a phenomenon/trend as it should be. However this upset doesn't/shouldn't mean condemning every unmarried girl who gets pregnant. Evangelical Christian types are generally quite sincere about things like forgiveness and "hate the sin, love the sinner." From a secular perspective that all might seem rather bizarre. From a secular perspective I don't see how there's much real value to forgiveness or separating people from their actions. So from secular logic if you say something like homosexuality or fornication are bad you're saying they're bad people. To say something else is either hypocritical or doublethink.
That likely does not describe you, but still even if you don't understand these concepts that's irrelevant. They believe these things and act accordingly.
What unmarried girls SHOULD this mean condemning, Thomas then, if not all of them?
The problem with the right-wing's level of displeasure at unwed pregnancy, since you've chosen to make that an issue, is that it seems to apply almost exclusively to teenage mothers who are poor, minorities who are not Republicans.
The case of Bristol Palin (I know, Heaven forbid ANYONE ever bring it up, even to demonstrate hypocrisy) is indicative. She and the baby's father (who doubtless would be characterized as a "baby daddy" were he black and not from Alaska) are both unwed, teenage, dropout parents.
Now ask yourself, honestly, how you think that scenario would have played, regardless of their remorse, had they been minorites? How would the Republican Evangelical Christians have approached, let alone accepted that? Now ask yourself how they approached/accepted the Bristol Palin situation.
Exactly. There's a word for this: hypocrisy.
It's the same standard we see with Mark Foley (a clearly gay man who also did drugs and had sex with a male prostitute) with regards to his marriage versus any non-Evangelical Christian who did the same thing. We can go on, and on and on.
The bottom line is that when it comes to things like unwed teenage pregancies the majority of the Republican Evangelical Christians have shown a stunning level of hypocrisy and righteousness that is not only un-Christian but fundamentally oxymoronic. Hence they lose. Time and again.
One needs only to actually CONSULT the Bible before making such sanctimonious religious judgements. "Judge not, lest ye be judged." If only the so-called Christians on the right would deal with this. Rather than judging people (especially un-wed teenage mothers) by their race, political persuasion or immediate efficacy for the Republican Party they might actually WIN something rather than constantly losing.
"If one banned Limbaugh making fun of Frank in the manner described, and one were consistent, then Tina Fey's impression of Sarah Palin would have to go too. Be careful what you wish for.
Posted by j mct | January 9, 2009 5:07 PM"
Get a clue. Fey, a feminist, wasn't making fun of Palin for being a woman, but a moron that was embarrassing women. Limbaugh, a noted bigot, tends to narrow in on the identity aspects of anyone he doesn't like who isn't a white straight Christian male. If you want to go after Frank for bad oversight, make that argument. However, go after Frank for being gay, which anyone with a modicum of human decency for the modern age will tell you, is homophobic. The fact that so many on the right in this thread don't understand this just shows the cluelessness of modern conservatism.
"Now ask yourself, honestly, how you think that scenario would have played, regardless of their remorse, had they been minorites?" John
TR: Some would be jerks about it and some wouldn't.
When I learned that black girl from the documentary "Spellbound" got pregnant I was disappointed, but then I read the whole story and I still felt good about her. From what I can tell she's a smart and good kid. Even though she never got married, so far as I know, I think she tried to do all the right things.
If it's purely abstract maybe Republicans will be jerks when they hear about a black girl being an unwed mom, but if it's made real to them I think many to most won't.
Republicans, believe it or not, are human beings. Okay the radio-hosts and campaign strategists among them kind-of just look like human beings, but the rest of the Republicans are human. They know people who've been in an odd situations and most of them are capable of feeling empathy to non-white people.
Have you been wondering who is responsible for the bank crisis and the failure of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac? Every voting age American should be required to watch this video. The video is from 2004 Congressional hearings about regulating Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. You will see Republicans pointing out problems and calling for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. You will see Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and other Democrats denying there is a problem and criticizing the regulators and Republicans for trying to prevent the upcoming crisis. If this video doesn't make you ashamed to be a member of the Democratic Party, nothing will.
Proof positive that democrats are responsible for bank crisis
Fair enough. The problem remains that elected Republican officials, from at least 1980 on, made a career out of decrying welfare queens and unwed minority mothers.
No one is arguing that Republicans are not human beings. And that many of them are compassionate.
However, despite the large number of reasonable Republicans, the fact remains much of the Party hierarchy spent the better part of two decades deriding unwed, minority teenage mothers and espousing "family vaules" that were anything but tolerant.
Furthermore the Republican Party leadership continues to have a number of deep-seated problems with racial issues, as demonstrated by Chip's "Barack the Magic Negro" tape.
The Party then faces two choices:
1) To continue to obfuscate, pretend that they did not develop an undercurrent of "blame the minority" syndrome within the higher ranks of their party and continue to keep uncovering these embarassing scandals with regards to racial attitudes when it comes to the hierarchy of their own Party in an increasingly diverse country
or
2) Quit obfuscating, quit worrying about what everyone else is doing, attempt to do a real self-assessment as a party, actively remove the remnants of the syndrome and be a politically active force again.
Examining how they spent much of the 1990s and 2000s decrying unwed, teenage minority mothers as "welfare queens" while they were suddenly willing to not only dismiss but tout a similarly unwed, drop-out teenage mother from the Meth Capital of the United States as soon as it was politically advantageous for their PArty would be a goo dfirst step.
"Limbaugh, a noted bigot, tends to narrow in on the identity aspects of anyone he doesn't like who isn't a white straight Christian male."
If I remember correctly there was a fair amount of Clinton satire on the Limbaugh show involving various voice caricatures and sex-related jibes. I'm pretty sure Clinton is white, straight, Christian, an male.
So you're disagreeing that Limbaugh is a noted bigot then?
They know people who've been in an odd situations and most of them are capable of feeling empathy to non-white people.
There's actually a substantial amount of evidence that says otherwise - that very strongly correlates right-wing views with a lack of capacity for empathy, particularly with others seen as different from oneself. See Altemeyer, Bob.
"So you're disagreeing that Limbaugh is a noted bigot then?"
He's a blowhard who has made a very good living out of preaching to the choir while bringing nothing worthwhile to the national debate, but I've never seen nor heard anything from him to indicate that he's a bigot at all.
The big one people go after him for was his McNabb comments on ESPN, but that comment was a criticism of the the sports media, not McNabb himself. And, as somebody who was following football very closely at the time, the ugly truth is that he was exactly correct. McNabb was an unremarkable quarterback in those days, who mostly won his games on the strength of being on a team with an outstanding defense. There have been plenty of great black quarterbacks over the years but it wasn't until several years later that McNabb firmly established himself as one of them.
For years, Limbaugh had a black call-screener (who he would talk to on-mic more frequently than his producer), and when he takes time off, one of his most frequent replacement hosts is a black man, a professor of economics named Walter Williams.
He may be a jackass, you would get no argument from me there, but "bigot" is a word that has meaning. You shouldn't throw it around so casually.
There's actually a substantial amount of evidence that says otherwise - that very strongly correlates right-wing views with a lack of capacity for empathy, particularly with others seen as different from oneself. See Altemeyer, Bob.
Sort of like how you collectively see conservatives, Chet?
"There's actually a substantial amount of evidence that says otherwise" Chet
TR: I'm sure I can find a substantial number of studies that say any number of weird or preposterous things. Especially in psychology or sociology, which are somewhat soft-sciences.
Granted I think a Randian Objectivist, and a few other far-right philosophies, are most appealing to people with little empathy. Maybe that skews things. Although I think the more intensely utilitarian forms of Leftist thought would also be easier to buy into if you lack empathy. Mainstream conservatism or liberalism? I doubt it matters.
Chet -
I looked up Altemeyer's characterization of "right wing authoritarianism". Tell me, how on earth do his three main criteria differentiate between right wing and left wing authoritarianism? Think about communism while reading his three criteria, and they're pretty much a perfect fit.
There's really not much difference between extreme right wing and left wing philosophies, except that communism seeks to control even more aspects of life than other approaches, and has certainly killed far, far more people in practice.
Sort of like how you collectively see conservatives, Chet?
Not at all. I have quite a bit of sympathy for conservatives, since I used to be one.
But now that I've overcome what science is revealing to be, most likely, a kind of genetic disorder, I'd like others to be as well as myself. And I'd like major American political parties to stop catering to mental illness.
Tell me, how on earth do his three main criteria differentiate between right wing and left wing authoritarianism?
Left wing what now? Altemeyer tried to study left-wing authoritarian personality type, as I recall; the problem was that he couldn't find any Americans who actually had it. The communists you refer to would be right-wing authoritarians if they lived in the United States.
Chet -
Since you seem to put a lot of weight on all this, you really ought to go back and pay more attention to the work that has been done over the last 20 or 30 years. Your recollection is wrong - subsequent research (for example Sutherland and Tannenbaum, using data from Canada) found no difference in left vs. right voting tendencies based on Altemeyer's "right wing" measure. Apparently your argument is that these authoritarians are really, truly all right wing, even though they're just as likely to actually vote left as they are to vote right?
Re "John's January 11, 2009 3:48 AM and January 11, 2009 3:48 AM posts--
While I think you could refine your point about conservatives, evangelicals, and so forth, you have a valid concern. I hope you found Thomas R (January 10, 2009 11:53 PM ) helpful. Some additional thoughts--
Conservative Christians I know did in fact criticize Palin for the evident lack of [effective?] leadership in her home, and so would not be labeled as hypocrites by you, I would think. They buy into both the Bible's call for those in authority to clear a much higher bar, even if they have "foibles," and its claim that absolutely anyone can be forgiven for the asking and trusting Jesus Christ, and go on from there, so that no person is condemned a priori.
Data in the argument-by-anecdote category: I've encountered just as much bigotry and hypocrisy from my liberal-to-left friends as from those on the right. The nasty parts/tendencies of human nature are not confined to or excluded from any political party or group. (In fact a we/they approach is bigoted from the start, it seems to me. Therefore, bigotry seems best addressed as you find it, person-by-person.)
Re "Hence they lose. Time and again." -- It seems a greater percentage of conservatives and Republicans simply resign when caught as compared with liberals and Democrats [??]. And when they do lose, they often do so because their base abandons them for their lack of moral principles (oh yes, also for lack of conservative governance).