A Harvard student has the temerity to ask a simple question of a Congressional representative.
He learns what all of us must learn in time: The politician will answer the question he wishes you had asked, while bullying you for daring to ask the question that you did.
It’s Harvard, so the bullying is of course much appreciated by the crowd. On style points, no doubt.
Ugh, I couldn’t even listen to the whole thing. My retort would have been “and when C-Span captured you and Maxine Waters shouting down the Bush admin. representative that asked for more regulation of Fannie and Freddie…”
A “good citizen” will not believe their lying eyes but rather your rhetoric?
It is interesting to note that C-Span has now eclipsed our print media. Nothing like showing the videos of what actually happened, kind of hard to refute no matter how much political spin you put on it.
Barney Frank is an evil and odious man.
They shoulda named that purple thing for kiddies something besides Barney. Gives the kiddies the wrong idea.
Our Founding Fathers roll in their graves as this “public” official uses the most obfuscatory language possible in an effort to belittle and demean his questioner. Barney Frank – initials BF – hmmm, I can think of something else that comes to mind in his case.
What would cause our Founding Fathers despair would be to see that this display of arrogance and disdain would have absolute no effect on Rep. Fwank’s re-election. Most of them had at least some trust in the electorate, but things like this would cause them to re-evaluate that.
A Harvard student has the temerity to ask a simple question of a Congressional representative his superior.
There. Fixed it. At least from Bahney Fwank’s perspective.
Do you think Mr. Fwank is checking to see if the student has received any gov’t financial aid that could enable government supression and control ~:)?
The best part: he’s my congresscritter, and he’s run unopposed pretty much every election that I’ve lived here.
I need a hug.
PaulinBarneyFrankistan/
That and a case or two of whatever your favorite beverage is….hugs just wouldn’t cut it for me were I living in Frankistan.
I saw an interview with the kid on Fox where he explained that, as an undergrad he was so to the left that he thought President Clinton was too far to the right. He evolved into considering himself a conservative based on his treatment by fellow leftists anytime he would question any assumption or position the various political groups held. By contrast he observed that conservatives would, in general, listen to questions and, you know, answer them.
Stereotypes get formed based on observed patterns. While some on the left will listen to questions and answer based on their beliefs (I’ve seen it done on this forum) one would have to be incapable of analysis to not discern the overwhelming tendency to dismiss and attack any question of the left by anyone of any persuasion.
The kid just asked, “what responsibility, if any…” did he think the Congressman had.
I’m still waiting for an answer but believe Iran will give up nukes, denounce terrorism, and invite the Catholic Church to build a Cathedral in Tehran before I get one.
And the biggest shame of it is that the Congressman feels absolutely no regret for acting like the ass his action prove him to be.
Hell, OldT6Flyer, exhibiting ABSOLUTELY no sense of shame is an ABSOLUTE personality pre-requisite before those guys in Barny Frank’s leftist fraternity will even allow you to rush, let alone extend an offer to pledge…
Like Babs, I couldn’t watch the whole thing. Then again, that’s not just Franks. I can’t stand watching any politician talk themselves in circles to avoid responsibility for their actions.
Which means I don’t watch many political videos, especially these days.
I once wrote a poem about this phenomenom… politicians and questions. It was after watching the senior senator from this same state give us all a verbal grand tour of the federal government’s inner workings after being asked a simple yes/no question.
I’ll try to post a link to the poem here:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2231/2037895548_5b5cede337.jpg
>Founding Fathers… Most of them had at least some trust in the electorate…
I woul argue that they had relatively little, which is how we got our bicameral legislative structure. The House, directly elected for two-year terms, was intended to be very responsive to the electorate. The Senate, with six year terms and election by state legislatures, was supposed to be more reflective–its relative insulation from public opinion was a way to check what many Founders feared would be “mob rule.”
The 17th Amendment did away with that and made the Senate just as sensitive to fast-changing public opinion as the House.