Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2009
Barney Frank throws us under the bus. Lauds incest brief. Says language was appropriate.
by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/17/2009 08:31:00 PM
Well, it seems a trip to the Oval Office is all openly gay congressman Barney Frank needs to stab his community in the back. After criticizing the DOJ's anti-gay DOMA brief this morning, Frank did a 180 this evening and lauded the brief, which invoked incest and pedophilia. Frank now thinks the brief is just super.
Frank claims that he gave a newspaper reporter his negative opinion of the brief without actually having read it.
Did you catch that? Barney Frank, our senior gay elected representative, and a lawyer himself, claims that he was giving legal opinions on a legal brief that he hadn't even read. At least Joe and I, who are also lawyers, read the brief before commenting on it. How many other issues has Barney opined on about which he's been knowingly willfully ignorant? (Of course, I don't believe Frank for a minute - he read the brief, but the president got him to recant.)
I am simply astounded. Even more astounding is that Barney's release sounds as if it were written by the White House. Their talking points are all through it, including the bizarre notion that somehow Obama would be as bad as George Bush if he opposed DOMA in court. (Repeating the lie that presidents never oppose existing legislation in court.) Joe and I already debunked that lie with the example of four court cases in which Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr. all opposed existing law. And what's more, we published an essay by former senior Clinton White House official Richard Socarides explaining exactly how the president goes about telling the DOJ to oppose existing law in court. It's not debatable, it's what actually happens in the Oval office, and it's not illegal - it's a fact. The NYT editorial page agreed.
...
Pretty damned mad. Both at administration and Congressional 'spokesmen':
AMERICAblog News| A great nation deserves the truth: Barney Frank throws us under the bus. Lauds incest brief. Says language was appropriate.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2009
Barney Frank throws us under the bus. Lauds incest brief. Says language was appropriate.
by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/17/2009 08:31:00 PM
Well, it seems a trip to the Oval Office is all openly gay congressman Barney Frank needs to stab his community in the back. After criticizing the DOJ's anti-gay DOMA brief this morning, Frank did a 180 this evening and lauded the brief, which invoked incest and pedophilia. Frank now thinks the brief is just super.
Frank claims that he gave a newspaper reporter his negative opinion of the brief without actually having read it.
Did you catch that? Barney Frank, our senior gay elected representative, and a lawyer himself, claims that he was giving legal opinions on a legal brief that he hadn't even read. At least Joe and I, who are also lawyers, read the brief before commenting on it. How many other issues has Barney opined on about which he's been knowingly willfully ignorant? (Of course, I don't believe Frank for a minute - he read the brief, but the president got him to recant.)
I am simply astounded. Even more astounding is that Barney's release sounds as if it were written by the White House. Their talking points are all through it, including the bizarre notion that somehow Obama would be as bad as George Bush if he opposed DOMA in court. (Repeating the lie that presidents never oppose existing legislation in court.) Joe and I already debunked that lie with the example of four court cases in which Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr. all opposed existing law. And what's more, we published an essay by former senior Clinton White House official Richard Socarides explaining exactly how the president goes about telling the DOJ to oppose existing law in court. It's not debatable, it's what actually happens in the Oval office, and it's not illegal - it's a fact. The NYT editorial page agreed.
...
Who's interest group?
