Barney Frank Defends the "Fights of the 90's"
Barney Frank writes in the Huffington Post that he's concerned about a central theme of Obama's campaign: "I am referring to his denigration of 'the Washington battles of the 1990's' and, usually implicitly but sometimes explicitly, of those who fought them."
Frank adds: "It would have been nice in the nineties not to have had to fight to defend a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and I would be very happy if that fight ended tomorrow. I was troubled when Newt Gingrich and his right wing band took over Congress after the election of 1994 and sought to put an end to programs to deal with continuing racial discrimination and the resulting inequality, and I am even more distressed that we have to continue to fight that battle against a Republican party largely opposed to all of these efforts -- consider the Bush Justice Department and its role in dealing with people's right to vote. As a gay man, additionally, I would have been delighted in the nineties if our conservative opponents had been willing to recognize our rights to be treated fairly under the law, and I would have saved a lot of time, as recently as this past year, if there was not continued strong right wing opposition to the 'radical' position that people should not be denied jobs because of their fundamental nature, or that hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity should be treated less seriously than those based on racial or religious prejudice. These are three of the major fights in which I was engaged in the nineties, and I literally do not understand what Senator Obama means when he says that he does not want to keep fighting them."
More AFTER THE JUMP...
Though partisan fighting is certainly not something to celebrate, Frank argues that had the "the fights of the nineties" not been fought, it would have spelled disaster for the Democratic party:
"I agree that it would have been better not to have had to fight over some of the issues that occupied us in the nineties. But there would have been only one way to avoid them -- and that would have been to give up. More importantly, the only way I can think of to avoid "refighting the same fights we had in the 1990's", to quote Senator Obama, is to let our opponents win these fights without a struggle."
More at the Huffington Post...
Obama couldn't give a rat's ass about gay rights. He'll sacrifice us to maintain his middle ground.
Posted by: Mike | Jan 9, 2008 5:01:32 PM
Party Hacks for Hill!
Posted by: 24play | Jan 9, 2008 5:04:04 PM
Thank you, Barney.
Posted by: kurt | Jan 9, 2008 5:04:16 PM
Barney Frank rocks!
Posted by: David | Jan 9, 2008 5:14:00 PM
Not one of them cares about gay rights,racial equality, old folks rights, sick people rights, poor kids rights or sheesh, even human basic rights, at least not any of them who can win. They are all liars and, will pander to whoever it takes to get a vote and the power that goes along with it.
Love you Barney, but, a little to late to start calling out the hypocrites in your neck of DC on both sides of the so called aisle.
Guess that makes me a cynic of all these guys and gals in DC.
Posted by: Sebastian | Jan 9, 2008 5:15:52 PM
He needs to be questioned. He has this 'message of hope' and 'message of change' but what EXACTLY is he proposing? He needs to be under the same microscope that Hillary is under.
Until he is, I can't just vote for someone because he gives a good speech. If you can, that's a little scary. Then again, people 'supposedly' voted for a man who can't form a coherent sentence. So to each his/her own.
Posted by: StillUndecided | Jan 9, 2008 5:16:07 PM
ah! barney frank... a cry (of reason) in the darkness. the gods love you.
SEBASTIAN, people like you are so wearisome. you must suck the oxygen out of every room you enter.
Posted by: nic | Jan 9, 2008 5:31:33 PM
Claiming Obama has no proposals is just a tired pro-Clinton talking point—and a baldfaced lie.
Whether you're talking gay issues, health care reform, or foreign policy, Obama has positions that are as thoroughly formed and have been as well publicized as Clinton's. They're up on his Web site and they've been discussed repeatedly in the debates. If at this point, you're unaware of what the man's positions are, perhaps you should do a little Googling.
Disagreeing with Obama on any number of points is perfectly reasonable. In fact it invites informed debate, which is welcome. Claiming he hasn't taken any positions besides being in favor of change is disingenuous and reprehensible.
And the inspiration factor is less about giving a good speech than it is about having a thoughtful, respectful, and inquisitive nature—not to mention a surplus of integrity that is unique among candidates in this race. The man is not afraid to take unpopular stands in front of unfriendly audiences, including mentioning gay issues in front of largely black and religious crowds.
Love Barney, but there's no way in hell he actually believes for a minute that those are the "Washington battles of the 90s " to which Obama is referring. He's clearly referring to the intense hyper-partisanship of the 90s that would likely be reinvigorated by a Clinton restoration.
Posted by: 24play | Jan 9, 2008 5:38:17 PM
Obama, Obama, Obama. At first I really like him. Now, I wish I could like him but I can't. All he talks about is hope, change, blah, blah, blah. Unfortunately, he does little to tell us how he's going to get there. Sure, he can talk about it, but the reality is that you have a lot of Washington red tape to cut before anything gets done. That's why Hillary gets my confidence. She's been there, done that and as much as we know she calculates and plays a heavy behind the scenes at least I know she'll do what needs to be done to make real changes that we need.
Sure Obama has a clean record and it's hard to fault him. That's because HE HASN'T DONE ANYTHING! No experience. Just a lot of talk and a couple years in the Senate.
Posted by: Damien Tilden | Jan 9, 2008 5:39:24 PM
I would adjust what Sebastian said by saying that many people, in their personal lives, really do care about GLBT equality. Unfortunately, that sentiment doesn't inform their actions as legislators. It just goes to show ya that 95% of straight people, when push comes to shove, will shove our interests right under the bus. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is how quickly that usually happens.
Posted by: Brian | Jan 9, 2008 5:40:06 PM
Obama, if he were to win, will prove a profound disappointment...it's all beautiful, erudite, empty rhetoric...
Posted by: kile Ozier | Jan 9, 2008 5:40:53 PM
Stillundecided- I am tired of hearing people echo Bill Clinton's remarks. Obama's record has been scrutinized way more than Hillary's over the past year (maybe that is because she has been in the public eye for 20 years). I know much more about his parents than the media has ever looked at hillary's conservative upbringing. CNN has interviewed Obama's grandmother several times over the past week.
Try paying attention to the news, reading a political column, or at least reading a book. Try to learn about what Obama proposes! Because he isn't going to walk into your house and explain his stance on everything for you.
I hate the fact that most gays support Hillary. Hillary voted for DOMA (look it up) and refused (in 2007!) to answer whether she thought homosexuality is immoral. (source, near the end of: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/03/senator_clinton.html) She is a social conservative, personally apposes abortion (though doesn't want to ban it), and believes "national security is more important than human rights."
Posted by: nate | Jan 9, 2008 5:41:57 PM
Frank is in Hillary's corner, so of course he has questions about Obama. Hillary told him to! Ask Hillary about her stand on gay right and marriage and see her clam up. Obama isn't saying these issues aren't important, he's just trying to represent something different then the same entrenched politicians,like Frank, who I think sense that they may not be on the inside ranks like they would in a Clinton administration.
Hillary can't win on a national level. If she's the nominee, then I'll vote for her all the way, but she won't win unless the repubs go with someone like Huckabee. Vote Edwards or Obama, or hell draft Al Gore back in the race before we throw this one out too.
Posted by: north_star | Jan 9, 2008 6:04:16 PM
Those of us long skeptical of what's actually behind the glowing halo and pretty words of the candidate gay African-American writer David Ehrenstein calls "The Magic Negro," appreciate his and Frank's demanding more than rhetoric, particularly rhetoric than doesn't hold up when rationally deconstructed.
Previous examples include Obama's confusion of the difference between churches denying gays the word "marriage" and its denial by the State, and his call for repeal of the meaningless states portion of DOMA while still insisting everything related to same-gender relationships should be left to the states to decide.
Don't forget his attempt to drown the cries of shock and outrage over his keeping gospel singer homophobe Donnie McClurkin on his campaign stage (even after being begged to drop him) with soggy words about some kind of big tent where homos and homohaters are equally welcome.
That Pollyannish attitude was further demonstrated in a follow-up statement (released only to gay press, by the way) in which he wrote, "There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community. We will not secure full equality for all LGBT Americans until we learn how to address that deep disagreement and move beyond it."
I guess this is his variation on "agree to disagree," but how the hell is one supposed to "secure full equality for all LGBT Americans" (which, in his mind does not include marriage equality) without doing more than simply noting the opposition of those in positions of power who deny it to us and "moving on"?
Is that how an Obama Administration would deal with Islamic terrorists? The Oil/Gas Industry? HMOs that allow their patients to die from lack of treatment? "Greetings Guy With A Bomb In His Backpack. We know you disagree with us; but let's just move on."
Have we discovered the long lost fifth Teletubby—"Oba"? "Big hug! Uh-oh!"
Posted by: Thomas | Jan 9, 2008 6:05:24 PM
Actually, Nate, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996. Hillary was not in the Senate at that point as she was elected in 2000. Bill Clinton, however, signed that piece of crap.
Posted by: David | Jan 9, 2008 6:13:53 PM
Thomas,
You really don't understand the difference between "address that deep disagreement and move beyond it" and "noting the opposition and moving on"?
If not, I'd say your evaluation of any politician's positions is suspect at best.
Posted by: 24play | Jan 9, 2008 6:13:59 PM
There is no one who can unite, motivate and excite voters like Hillary can. The problem is the voters she motivates are Republicans who PRAY that Dem's are dumb enough to nominate her: she'll get out the wingnut rightwing vote faster than anyone else can. Obama might not be perfect but he is inspiring lots of people who were tired of politics as usual. It's time for a change.
Posted by: matt | Jan 9, 2008 6:22:05 PM
NATE,
gimme a f**kin' break. hillary's past has been revealed already. it is no secret that her parents were repugs.
perhaps you may want to heed your own admonishment, "Try paying attention to the news, reading a political column, or at least reading a book."
if you had any sense of the political, you might understand why hillary supported DOMA. the alternative would have been a constitutional ammendment prohibiting gay marriage alltogether. an amendment is much harder to undo than an act of congress.
i have to say, dude, that i personally oppose abortion too, but i will die defending a woman's right to choose. do you think about things in other than a most superficial level?
you need to wise up. our futures are in the balance.
Posted by: nic | Jan 9, 2008 6:29:50 PM
I understand the fights Obama was refering to as those of the right wing attack dogs against Bill and Hill. Maybe I'm wrong but I think Barney is the one who's way off. I agree with you wholeheartedly Matt except I'm sure americans are stupid enough to watch that train come and run them right over. Surefire way to get all those red factions to come together again this election season. Dems are so stupid...
Posted by: Jersey | Jan 9, 2008 6:38:53 PM
Oh and btw, I'm no huge fan of Obama (McClurkin) and don't think he'll do anything particularly good for gays but he won't lose in the general against the repub like I feel Clinton will. That's all.
Posted by: Jersey | Jan 9, 2008 6:48:22 PM
THOMAS,
are you a different incarnation of leland? your writing style and insight are reminiscent. it's nice to read an opinion formed out of complete thoughts. bless you.
Posted by: nic | Jan 9, 2008 6:48:47 PM
I am tired of the bickering between Obama and Hillary as I am of their followers.
Obama is no empty suit and as others have mentioned, there's no excuse for not knowing the issues when his stand on issues and his record is available to all.
I am also pained and bored of hearing "Hillary can't win" and nonsense like it. She's been hearing that through two Senate victories and heard it again as recently as yesterday. STFU already. She is smart and capable.
I am voting for Hillary but I like all the Democratic candidates across the board (actually, Edwards is starting to grate on me, but still a good choice). I and you will never agree with one candidate 100% on every issue. If you do, you were probably a Bush -supporting Republican who walked lockstep with him for the past 7 years.
All I know is I can admire different candidates and still support one. I also know that whomever wins th nomination will score my vote in November. I will not be one of the childish assholes who puts their candidate's fortune over the good of the country and any GOP candidate is bad for this country. Even their best, arguably McCain, blows.
Posted by: Marco | Jan 9, 2008 7:24:25 PM
Yeah yeah yeah...Obama's questioning our fights, therefore he doesn't represent real Democratic values, blah blah blah.
Nonsense.
Frank's Hillary's agent in this. Make no mistake, Hillary's firmly from the "FUCK THEM" branch of the Democratic party. I can understand that impulse, hell, I have it myself. But when Obama talks about not repeating the 90's, he's talking about the hyper-partisanism of that decade. Yes, there were good fights fought in that decade. But when you think of Bill Clinton's term, what do you think of? It's scandal, it's impeachment, it's the birth of Fox News and the swelling bile of Rush, Coulter, et al. It ain't the fights Barney's talking about. And there is NO DOUBT that this would return should Hillary Clinton manage to swindle her way back into the White House. NO DOUBT that this would return if the Democrats were foolish enough to elect her. The way to beat the Republicans is the same way to beat terrorists. You don't beat them by becoming LIKE them (i.e. a Democrat version of Swift Boating and a D-version of Ann Coulter), you beat them by becoming BETTER than them. Obama's better than the Republicans, because he's able to completely dismiss and neutralize the stupid crap (e.g., that fecal "he's a secret MUSLIM!" nonsense) and show it up, calmly and clearly, why that kind of stuff is not only wrong, it's beneath what America can and should be.
If Hillary gets the nomination, it's another spin of the partisan wheel. Another way to bring in the Hannitys and Coulters and all the other completely nasty tricks that we've all wanted to bring to a close. Would Obama have to deal with that too? Sure he would. But he'd beat them all, because he'd shift the entire playing field. He's an American candidate, not just a Democratic one. We need unity to address the issues the country faces. Hillary Clinton CAN NOT DELIVER UNITY. She can only deliver more civil war.
Obama 08. The real America is back in business.
Posted by: Christopher | Jan 9, 2008 7:30:23 PM
I've been disappointed in both Obama and Edwards, but I'll vote for either one of them. However, I'll eat a ground glass encrusted partially-used urinal cookie with a nice glass of anti-freeze before I'll vote to return a Clinton OR a Bush to the White House.
As far as Barney is concerned, he is lifetime politician whose first and only concern is power... preferably his own. The irony is that his last name is so misleading for a profoundly deceitful hack.
Posted by: Larry McD | Jan 9, 2008 7:33:03 PM
I've been disappointed in both Obama and Edwards, but I'll vote for either one of them. However, I'll eat a ground glass encrusted partially-used urinal cookie with a nice glass of anti-freeze before I'll vote to return a Clinton OR a Bush to the White House.
As far as Barney is concerned, he is lifetime politician whose first and only concern is power... preferably his own. The irony is that his last name is so misleading for a profoundly deceitful hack.
Posted by: Larry McD | Jan 9, 2008 7:34:04 PM