Barney Frank does want Kerry's Senate seat.

"A month ago, or a few weeks ago, I said I wasn’t interested... It was kind of like you’re about to graduate, and they said: 'You gotta go to summer school.' But [the fiscal cliff deal] now means that February, March and April are going to be among the most important months in American financial history.... “I’ve told the governor I would now like, frankly, to do that...."

Barney Frank — giving a commencement speech — makes a "hoodie" joke.

At the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, giving an honorary degree to a black man:

“You know, when you get an honorary degree they give these,” Frank said, tugging at the hood on his commencement gown, “and Hubie, I think you now got a hoodie you can wear and no one will shoot at you.”

The crowd did not laugh. They gasped. Later, Frank attempted to explain: “I have used the ‘hoodie’ line to ridicule the notion that a hooded sweatshirt is somehow sinister.”

"The one thing that's being tamped down here is, we're losing characters... The place needs character, and characters."

"When I got here, you had Jim Traficant, you had Barney, and then Dennis came..." says Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio), a nine-term veteran, reflecting on Kucinich's loss yesterday in a primary "in a newly drawn district against his once-close ally, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)."

Well... does Joe the Plumber count as a character? Actually, he "almost lost his House bid to an obscure auctioneer named Steve Kraus — when the dust settled, Wurzelbacher escaped with a narrow 51 to 48 percent victory."

The era of Barney Frank...

... is over.

"A vote of not much confidence in Nancy Pelosi."

Dana Milbank highlights the negativity:

The first rebuke of Pelosi by her colleagues came Tuesday, when Democratic dissidents forced a six-hour caucus meeting to vent their frustrations. The next blow came Wednesday, when the dissidents forced a secret ballot on whether to postpone a vote on Pelosi - and then won a larger-than-expected 68 votes. That essentially meant a vote of no-confidence in Pelosi by 35 percent of the incoming Democratic caucus.

And in yet another rebuke of the fallen speaker, 43 Democrats voted for her symbolic challenger, moderate Heath Shuler (N.C.) - even though few regarded Shuler as a qualified candidate and only a couple dozen of Shuler's colleagues in the moderate Blue Dog Coalition could vote....

[A]s the closed-door session dragged on, the soon-to-be-minority lawmakers grew restless. Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.), taking a break from the proceedings, told reporters that his colleagues were delayed because "they're having trouble spelling 'Murkowski' "...

LOL.

The face of the Democratic Party puts on a brave face:



"They know her will! Most important, they know her heart! And that was what was felt today: the heartfelt feeling of this caucus behind this great leader!"

I love that quote, from Rep. John Larson. Will, I mean HEART. Heart! Heart! Heart! That's so deeply symbolic of everything the House Democrats have been up to these last few years.

Instapundit says "this sort of thing should happen more often"... but should it?

"Barney Frank gets a high-altitude haranguing on health care. Two women ophthalmologists, whom Frank’s partner, Jim Ready, dismissed as 'bitchy; — which really set them off. Frank got an earful. As far as I’m concerned, these guys shouldn’t be able to go anywhere without getting an earful. Luckily for Ready he’s the partner of a gay Democrat, because if he were a Republican that remark would have been sexist."

At the linked article, I see that "high-altitude" signifies that Frank was riding in an airplane at the time. It wasn't a political event, just normal transportation, and Frank was initially polite and said that he didn't like to talk on planes. He wanted to read. The women kept talking louder and louder to intrude on Frank anyway, which is pretty unfair to the other passengers on the plane. The "bitchy" remark, which sounds apt, was nevertheless stupid and impolitic, and it stirred things up, again to the detriment of other passengers.

"No one was calming things down and people were standing up shouting," said Brooke Sexton, who was seated seven rows behind Barney....

You really cannot have this kind of environment on an airplane.

"The women had been drinking, and they were crying and shouting," Sexton said. "They were clearly the antagonizers, and Mr. Frank was kind of minding his own business."...

So "this sort of thing should happen more often"? I think not.

ADDED: "Mr. Frank was kind of minding his own business." An obvious rejoinder: It's not his business. It's the people's business. But I'm sticking to my position: It's an airplane.

"I'm easy. I'm strongly inclined to vote for the thing, even though I don't like the health care tax thing."

The Thing.



You said it was dead, and now it's back.

Barney Frank "wouldn't recognize most plants."

He's "not a great outdoorsman."

"Ralph gets to luxuriate in the purity of his irrelevance."

Brilliant slam of Ralph Nader, by Barney Frank. Meanwhile, the internet is abuzz with that other quotable word-string: "We are trying on every front to increase the role of government."

"ACORN Sues Hidden-Camera Filmmakers, Breitbart.com. It should be fun to do discovery on this one."

Glenn Reynolds is pretty sure ACORN is falling into a trap.

Yes, it's almost as if the real point of the videos was to provoke a lawsuit that would open ACORN to the legal intrusions of discovery. And of course, Giles and O'Keefe will get even more publicity, and it shouldn't be hard for them to attract aggressive legal counsel and a hefty litigation fund.

And here's Barney Frank on O'Reilly today:

"On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

Barney Frank answers a question:



ADDED:

"You want me to talk about it or do you want to yell?" he asked over and over when interrupted while trying to answer. Continued shouting brought a sterner rebuke.

"Disruption never helps your cause," he said more than once. "It just looks like you're afraid to have rational discussion."...

"What's the matter with you all?" he said. "I don't know if you get angrier when I answer the questions, or when you don't think I do."

Ha ha. I love hearing Frank voice his confusion about whether people are accepting his answers as serious efforts at fully answering the questions. He doesn't know if they hate his actual answers or if they know he's not really answering. I'm guessing he knows he's not fully answering, and he knows they hate his partial answers, and he's trying to calculate whether giving full answers would get a better result. On the one hand, they'd be full answers, but on the other hand, they'd be there presenting a big target for the crowd's contempt.

Barney Frank called Justice Scalia a "homophobe." If that "inflamed you, think hard about why Frank chose to portray Scalia the way he did."

I have an op-ed this morning in the Chicago Tribune. Read it! Conclusion:

I suspect Frank would like to soften us up for future judicial nominations. Back in 2007, Barack Obama told us about "the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges": "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled or old."

If Obama delivers nominees who've demonstrated their heart and empathy by reaching outcomes that accord with liberal political preferences, will liberals forget that we need to test the soundness of their legal reasoning? If Frank succeeds in getting people to believe that judicial opinions are the kind wishes of good hearts, we will rubber-stamp these seemingly good people.

If we do that, we will have forgotten what law is, and our rights will depend on the continued beneficence of the judges we've empowered.

IN THE EMAIL: "You are a radical and a rascal and you should be on the Bill O'Reilly show."

Harry Reid just called Chief Justice John Roberts a liar.

"Roberts didn’t tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was. But we’re stuck with those two young men, and we’ll try to change by having some moderates in the federal courts system as time goes on — I think that will happen."

***

1. Senator Reid, you need to quote the transcript of Roberts's confirmation hearings. What, exactly, are the lies you are talking about? I want citations, so I can check your assertion that Roberts was deceptive. Until I see the relevant quoates, my position is that you, Senator Reid, are the liar.

2. Apparently, the judges whose opinions track your political positions are, in your book, the "moderates." That is the lesson I think you are trying to teach people. It is a lesson that undermines the integrity of law. It goes right along with Barney Frank's recent, despicable assertion that Justice Scalia is a homophobe.

3. We're stuck with Harry Reid.

IN THE COMMENTS: Chip Ahoy said:

This post moves me to open Photoshop like a force of nature asserting itself as it does in Fargo, inexorably, ineluctably, unrelentingly, compellingly. Goth Reid:

Barney Frank: Justice Scalia "makes it very clear that he's angry, frankly, about the existence of gay people."

"If you read his opinion [in Lawrence v. Texas], he thinks it's a good idea for two consenting adults who happen to be gay to be locked up because he is so disapproving of gay people."

Well, Barney, I have read that opinion many times, and I know that you are either lying about having read it, lying about what Scalia wrote, or an embarrassingly incompetent reader. Here is the key passage:

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts–or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them–than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,”... and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.

That's plain old deference to the democratic process and a resistance to creative interpretation of constitutional text. There is nothing — absolutely nothing — to support the proposition that Scalia thinks it's a good idea to lock up gay people. It's the usual notion that judges shouldn't be basing their decisions on whether they think a statute is a good idea or not. It's the same point made by Justice Thomas (who, Frank says, is not a homophobe):

I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 1.

A smiling John McCain crushed under Palin's high-heeled shoe.

Nice illustration by Barry Blitt (the artist who did the famous Michelle-and-Barack New Yorker cover).

The accompanying column, by Frank Rich, is not Palin-friendly:

But the debate’s most telling passage arrived when Biden welled up in recounting his days as a single father after his first wife and one of his children were killed in a car crash. Palin’s perky response — she immediately started selling McCain as a “consummate maverick” again — was as emotionally disconnected as Michael Dukakis’s notoriously cerebral answer to the hypothetical 1988 debate question about his wife being “raped and murdered.” If, as some feel, Obama is cool, Palin is ice cold. She didn’t even acknowledge Biden’s devastating personal history.

The bitch! Hey, wait, does that mean she's cerebral now?

... She has more testosterone than anyone else at the top of her party.

And a guy.

Palin is an antidote to the whiny Republican image that [Barney] Frank nailed.

Frank's column is full of sexual imagery, but I think that one was unintentional. (And, by the way, the Blitt illustration is arguably sexual.)

You have to wonder how long it will be before [Republicans] plead with [McCain] to think of his health, get out of the way and pull the ultimate stunt of flipping the ticket. Palin, we can be certain, wouldn’t even blink.

Bill O'Reilly tries to work his gruesome magic on Barney Frank.

Frank is really good at standing his ground. O'Reilly had to keep ratcheting up, but it didn't work. He even resorted to accusing Frank of being less manly than -- of all people -- Cox.

Our leaders "have failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority."

Says David Brooks.

So they not only fail to lead, they fail to look like they are leading. Clowns on all sides.

George W. Bush is completely out of juice, having squandered his influence with Republicans as well as Democrats. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is a smart moneyman, but an inept legislator. He was told time and time again that House Republicans would not support his bill, and his response was to get down on bended knee before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

House leaders of both parties got wrapped up in their own negotiations, but did it occur to any of them that it might be hard to pass a bill fairly described as a bailout to Wall Street? Was the media darling Barney Frank too busy to notice the 95 Democrats who opposed his bill? Pelosi’s fiery speech at the crucial moment didn’t actually kill this bill, but did she have to act like a Democratic fund-raiser at the most important moment of her career?

And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists...

"No solution to a problem can be more elegant than the problem itself."

"We are dealing with a very difficult problem. Given the dimensions of the problem, I believe we have done a good job. It includes genuine compromises."

Barney Frank, in praise of the financial bailout deal, spouts some abstract political philosophy. I'm glad they've settled it, if they've settled it, and I hope it works.

But is it true that complicated problems require complicated solutions? Is it true that compromises are the mark of a good plan?

Okay. I'm up for it tonight. I'm live-blogging Hillary Night at the Democratic Convention.

6:50 Central Time: My resolve jells.

7:15: I'm watching PBS tonight. C-SPAN last night. PBS has HD + longer coverage than the networks. (I don't have CNN HD.) The introductory material is about how last night somehow had to be soft-focus on Michelle and Teddy. But tonight, we'll have "red meat." Yes, I'm hoping for more excitement tonight.

7:24: A home-care worker is reading a script so robotically that it's kind of ironically human (and nice). Who would feel natural in that situation? Obama spent the day with her once, working at her job, to prove whatever that proves. The sound of talking in the hall almost drowns her out. Now, another working woman. This seems to be a parade of working women — in bright-colored suits that seem to be a tribute to Hillary's many suits.

7:28: That last woman had such a harsh voice. Now, with a deeper voice, it's Governor Janet Napolitano. The bright color for her bright-colored suit of the night is red. She's doing a nice job of laying into John McCain, but I feel these nagging feminist pains. Why is this woman — and why is Hillary — stuck on some special woman's night?

7:53: A man is talking. How is this happening? I rewind to see Jim MacNeil saying, "There's a Republican. Yes, a Republican." He's totally puzzled. It's the mayor of Fairbanks, Alaska, Jim Whitaker. Ooh, isn't he embarrassed to be relegated to Women's Night? He seems completely unfamiliar with his speech as he begins "We are Americans first" and pauses so you can tell he's thinking: American's first what? He goes on about energy. He explains why he's here: "to endorse Barack Obamas." That's not a typo. He says Barack Obamas.

8:04: Governor Kathleen Sebelius. John IMs, "I love her symphonies." Her bright-colored suit of the night is the reddest of all possible reds. She's out redding Napolitano. Against the bright blue background, it's like a psychedelic poster from 1968. It's searing my eyeballs. Yet her voice is so insanely flat. She speaks as if she's alone in a room memorizing the speech.The din of conversation in the hall is overwhelming. She's reciting words that were written to ravage John McCain, but with her delivery, it's quite comic. Well, there are actually punchlines all over the place, but I don't know if they'd make me laugh if she had a comic touch. It's funnier this way. But no one is listening.

8:16: Man, is this boring. Bring on the Hillary.

8:31: Lilly Ledbetter. She's surprised and "umbled." Great southern accent with a robotic but somehow impassioned delivery. She was the plaintiff in an important recent sex discrimination case, which she lost because she filed the lawsuit outside of the statutory limitations period. As she puts it, "Our Court sided with big business." But what she should say, to be honest, is: "Our Court declined to rewrite the statute to be fair to me." She goes on to blame the Senate for voting down the amendment that would make it possible to sue if you don't know about the discrimination when it first takes place, but then she says that Barack Obama as President will solve the problem: "As President, he has promised to appoint Justices who will enforce laws that protect everyday people." That doesn't really add up. But she's doing a good job of making us feel that the Democrats will protect the rights of working people.

8:41: The keynote speaker, the former governor of Virginia, Mark Warner. His theme is the future. Technology and economic development are important. He's trying to pump us up about that general idea. It's not at all clear that it has much to do with Obama. He says it doesn't matter if good ideas come from Democrats or Republicans. Now, he's boasting about the things he achieved as governor of Virginia, and it just makes me think about how Obama has no record at all of achievements like that.

9:15: Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachussetts. I'm getting nothing out of this. Reach for tomorrow... "Government is simply the name we use for the things we choose to do together." That's a quote from Barney Frank. Sorry. I detest sentimentality about government. I want more critical thinking and humility.

9:39: Here's the film about Hillary Clinton. It's mainly about the notion that women can achieve. She wanted to be an astronaut. She "dared to reach up." Her mother told her you can be anything you want. Lots of nice, smiley pictures, but it's generic pro-woman material. Let all women feel great. (But she lost!)

9:41: Chelsea Clinton looks gorgeous, with big hair and (finally!) a dark, skirted suit. She introduces her "hero" and her mother, Hillary Clinton. Hillary's dressed in bright orange. We see Bill, glowing and clapping and licking his lips and sticking his tongue out — in a somewhat reptilian way. Now, he's mouthing "I love you" over and over. Hillary is honored to be here, and the crowd goes wild.

10:00: Somewhere in there, Hillary said that she supports Barack Obama, but for the most part, it felt like another one of her campaign speeches. Anecdotes. Lists of problems, principles, and policies. We kept seeing closeups of Michelle Obama, who seemed to be closely monitoring the her husband's wily old opponent. And Hillary didn't do anything wrong, but did she help Barack Obama? She did say, addressing her supporters, "Were you in it just for me?" She answers that they must have supported her because they supported what she believed in and wanted to achieve. And therefore, we need to a Democrat in the White House. She says Obama's name a few times, but it seems to me as if it's just something that follows by reason of the desire to have a Democrat in the White House.

10: 30: And I'm not really sure exactly how she ended it, because I'm one of the viewers who used a DVR to record the show, and she spilled over into the next hour. They should have taken that into account.

"Is America ready for a President with a lisp?"

I got to this via James Taranto, who calls this a "homophobic line of attack":

It is unimaginable that a mainstream network would give this sort of treatment to, say, Barney Frank or John Edwards. We're not going to feign outrage again; the truth is that we find this all sort of amusing. But it is a reminder of just what a sham left-wing political correctness is. People who claim to oppose "homophobia" or other forms of prejudice often turn out merely to want a monopoly on it.

I guess he sort of has a point. But it seems to me Mo Rocca is mostly making fun of himself. Also he says nothing about homosexuality, and other political figure with a lisp he refers to is Winston Churchill — who, like Giuliani, is quite macho.