Barney Frank (of all people) hawking that nasty meme that "GOP is helping Bernie"

[99th_Monkey]

right now on MSNBC. Tweety was lapping it up.

[cocainecowboy]

1. Silver spoon in his mouth helping another fellow 1%

[dsc]

2. No he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth

not even close.

Frank was born Barnett Frank[5] in Bayonne, New Jersey, one of four children of Elsie (née Golush) and Samuel Frank. His family was Jewish, and his grandparents had immigrated from Poland and Russia.[6] Frank’s father ran a Jersey City truck stop—a place Frank has described as “totally corrupt”—and when Frank was 6 or 7, served a year in prison for refusing to testify to a grand jury against Frank’s uncle.[7] Frank was educated at Harvard College, where he resided in Matthews Hall his first year and then in Kirkland House and Winthrop House. He graduated in 1962. One of his roommates was Hastings Wyman of Aiken, South Carolina, later a political consultant who in 1978 began publishing The Southern Political Report. When Wyman invited Frank to visit in Aiken in the early 1960s, Frank made a point of drinking from the since-abolished "colored-only" water fountain then available to African Americans.[8]

Frank’s undergraduate studies were interrupted by the death of his father, and Frank took a year off to help resolve the family’s affairs prior to his graduation.[7] In 1964, he was a volunteer in Mississippi during Freedom Summer.[9] He taught undergraduates at Harvard while studying for a PhD in Government, but left in 1968 before having completed the degree, to become Boston mayor Kevin White’s Chief Assistant, a position he held for three years. He then served for a year as Administrative Assistant to Congressman Michael J. Harrington. Frank later graduated from Harvard Law School, in 1977, where he was once a student of Henry Kissinger,[10] while serving as Massachusetts State Representative

end of quote

I don't think too many kids who are born with silver spoons in their mouths have dads who went to jail.

[Ken Burch]

3. If he's backing the Wall Street candidate, Barney's forgotten all that. n/t.

[Sancho]

4. Barney is one of the smartest progressives ever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank

Here's his article in Politico:


Why Progressives Shouldn’t Support Bernie
Wishful thinking won’t win the White House.

As skillful a controversialist as Bill Kristol is, he couldn’t help grinning. When we were discussing the 2016 campaign on “Morning Joe” last month, he expressed strong admiration for Bernie Sanders and pretended disbelief that I was not supporting him for president. But the strategically driven discipline he brought to the task of lavishly praising a man whose views he usually derides did not extend to control of his facial muscles.

I believe strongly that the most effective thing liberals and progressives can do to advance our public policy goals — on health care, immigration, financial regulation, reducing income inequality, completing the fight against anti-LGBT discrimination, protecting women’s autonomy in choices about reproduction and other critical matters on which the Democratic and Republican candidates for president will be sharply divided — is to help Clinton win our nomination early in the year. That way, she can focus on what we know will be a tough job: combating the flood of post-Citizens United right-wing money, in an atmosphere in which public skepticism about the effectiveness of public policy is high.

Decades ago, Sanders made a principled choice to play a valuable part in our politics — the outsider within the system. He defied the uniquely American aversion to the word “socialism.” We are, after all, the only Western democracy in which no self-identified socialist party has ever played a significant governmental role. While voting with the Democrats to organize first the House and then the Senate, he made clear he did so as a regrettable necessity, not a preference, and cited his nonmembership in the party as an indication of his political integrity. Substantively, he has consistently, forcefully and cogently made the case for a larger federal government role in improving both the fairness and the quality of life in our country, refusing to soft-pedal in the face of declining support for this view in public opinion.
His very unwillingness to be confined by existing voter attitudes, as part of a long-term strategy to change them, is both a very valuable contribution to the democratic dialogue and an obvious bar to winning support from the majority of these very voters in the near term.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/why-progressives-shouldnt-support-bernie-120484.html#ixzz3gr5GCWjm

[99th_Monkey]

7. If you think it's "smart" to sell-out to the 1%, then I might agree.

It may be profitable, to wallow in wealth and privilege, while deriding
a man who's acting like a REAL Democrat, when they're rare as hens teeth.

[beam me up scottie]

8. +1

There's a word for politicians like that, it begins with "W".

[Scootaloo]

59. "Weasel"?

[Sancho]

11. Really? You don't know a real Democrat when you see one...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank

Frank also said that the Republican-led Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 and removed the wall between commercial and investment banks, contributed to the financial meltdown.[49]

Frank has been involved in mortgage foreclosure bailout issues.[51] In 2008 Frank supported passage of the American Housing Rescue & Foreclosure Prevention Act, intended to protect thousands of homeowners from foreclosure.[18] This law, H.R. 3221, is considered one of the most important and complex issues on which he worked.[18][52] In an August 2007 op-ed piece in Financial Times, Frank wrote, "In the debate between those who believe in essentially unregulated markets and others who hold that reasonable regulation diminishes market excesses without inhibiting their basic function, the subprime situation unfortunately provides ammunition for the latter view."[53] Frank was also instrumental in the passage of H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, a measure that drew praise from editorial boards and consumer advocates.[54][55][56] In 2007. Frank co-sponsored legislation to reform the Section 202 refinancing program, which is for affordable housing for the elderly, and Section 811 disabled programs.[57] Frank has been a chief advocate of the National Housing Trust Fund,[7] which was created as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and was the first affordable housing program to be enacted by the Congress since 1990.[58]

[99th_Monkey]

23. I used to respect Barney.

But his swan song -- Dodd/Frank -- was toothless, and 'too big to fail' is still alive and well:

Because failure can strike a financial institution like a lightning bolt (especially one significantly involved in trading), the insolvency resolution provisions of the Dodd-Frank legislation cannot be the complete answer. These provisions can forestall panic among banks if one or more becomes troubled; and it certainly helps to restore order after a failure by providing sensible options. But interbank panics can be as uncontrollable and difficult to predict as an earthquake.

The inescapable truth is that the best way to address TBTF is by curbing risky behavior, principally trading. The financial sector will resist this by defending every trench and employing every tactic. Given the enormous trading volumes and the scope of derivatives traded, the opportunity to generate unbelievable profit is simply too large to abandon. Superior information technology, market intelligence and liquidity (as well as several less savory practices available to Wall Street) constitute advantages with which most market participants cannot compete. Trading is like printing money for these institutions, until they inevitably make a mistake and lose even more in one fell swoop.

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/still-too-big-fail-crisis-works

And we're seeing how Barney is now using his notoriety to make sure "too big to fail" lives on.

[Sancho]

24. I realize that lots of folks are committed to reform by breaking up the banks...

and that debate is complex. Barney probably has as good a handle as anyone on the problems. I posted quotes from Barney on this thread already.

I've posted before, and I suppose I don't want to debate it again: breaking up US banks won't help unless there are international actions. One difference from the times of G-S is the growth of international banking. D-F was an attempt at a repair at the time, but chances are that Barney, Hillary, Warren, and Obama would all see economic problems caused by banks differently than a few years ago.

Breaking up US banks would do nothing. Closing tax loopholes might help. Most big banks are not in the US, and most influential money is not in the US. The US can't "break up" international banks, and without Congress cannot change the possibility of "influence".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks

1 China Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
2 China China Construction Bank Corporation
3 United Kingdom HSBC Holdings
4 China Agricultural Bank of China
5 United States JPMorgan Chase & Co.
6 France BNP Paribas
7 China Bank of China
8 Japan Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group
9 France Crédit Agricole Group
10 United Kingdom Barclays PLC
11 United States Bank of America
12 Germany Deutsche Bank
13 United States Citigroup Inc
14 Japan Japan Post Bank
15 United States Wells Fargo
16 Japan Mizuho Financial Group
17 United Kingdom Royal Bank of Scotland Group
18 China China Development Bank
19 France Société Générale
20 Spain Banco Santander

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/wealthy-stashing-offshore_n_3179139.html

Global Super-Rich Stashing Up To $32 Trillion Offshore, Masking True Scale Of Inequality: Study

The global super-rich are stashing trillions of dollars offshore with the help of some of the world's biggest banks, putting billions of dollars out of the taxman’s reach and masking wealth inequality's true heights.

Wealthy people were hiding between $21 and $32 trillion in offshore jurisdictions around the world as of 2012, according to a 2012 study from the Tax Justice Network, an organization which aims to promote tax transparency. The study, highlighted by a recent Bloomberg News report, found that more than $12 trillion of that money was managed by 50 international banks, many of which received bailouts during the financial crisis, according to James Henry, the study’s author.

“There’s a lot more missing wealth in the world than we had known about from previous estimates,” Henry told The Huffington Post. “The real scandal is not all these individual scandals but the fact that world’s policy makers who know about this stuff, have basically done nothing.”

[dreamnightwind]

45. Lets see, you're also opposed

to a financial transaction tax. Is there any Wall Street reform that you support? You seem to be a Wall Street Democrat, which I wish was an oxymoron.

[Sancho]

48. Are you watching CSPAN today about Dodd-Frank (2/3rds implemented)?

Last edited Sat Jul 25, 2015, 08:01 AM - Edit history (1)

I think regulation is fine. Warren obviously has some good ideas.

I also agree with taxation that moves investors to long term strategies.

We all think the FEC should have better enforcement.

I'd love to see the US Congress do a better job working internationally to deal with all the hidden money.

Even the hotshot economists don't agree on all the final implementation of D-F.

SOLVING THE "TOO BIG TO FAIL" PROBLEM: RESOLUTION AUTHORITY VS. CHAPTER 14

On June 20, 2012, Davis Polk lawyers Randall Guynn and John Douglas spoke on a teleforum entitled, “Solving the ‘Too Big to Fail’ Problem: Resolution Authority vs. Chapter 14.” The event was hosted by The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies’ Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group, and explores the Too Big to Fail problem in the post-Dodd-Frank era.

http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/solving-the-too-big-to-fail-problem-resolution-authority-vs-chapter-14-podcast

Edited to add link to CSPAN conversation on 5th anniversary of Dodd-Frank

http://www.c-span.org/video/?327191-3/washington-journal-roundtable-doddfrank-financial-law

[dreamnightwind]

49. No I missed that

Question re your posts about reining in the large U.S. banks not being a solution because of the large international banks: One of the problems caused by too-big-to-fail U.S. banks is that they are backed up by the U.S. treasury should they fail. That's not the case with the international banks, am I correct?

[Sancho]

51. Sort of...but that's a problem...

some of these banks get bailed out by governments. For example, some US banks were heavily into the Greece problems, and Europe is essentially bailing out the same US bad guys!

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/greece-crisis-banks-greedy/398603/
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/1/greek-bailout-money-went-to-banks-not-greece.html

I think the governments are aware of the issue (Obama, Merkel, etc.), but I don't know if the solutions are clear. I suspect there's more watch dogging going on where tracking money is becoming more common with all the large governments. That's how they catch manipulation. Unfortunately, the big hits are still usually whistleblowers.

Regulatory failure is the gorilla in the room! Warren is correct on that, and Hillary has put it in her economic plan. Who knows what Congress would pass. Even then, you'd have to get international cooperation to track and enforce any rules.

The Volcker Rule is just now taking effect. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcker_Rule ). Already, over the last few years hundreds of new companies have started as part of divestment, but it's hard to say how they will be regulated internationally. In theory, this will separate some of the problems of speculation, but it's still not clear if regulations will be enforced.

Now, we're also seeing currency manipulation by China and Japan - and future trade agreements will eventually have to address it. There's lots of resistance to anything that's not "free market - floating currency", so some countries take advantage of it. Sooner or later it's going to keep coming up.

[dreamnightwind]

54. Not sure that answered my question or went to my point

The TBTF U.S. banks are backed by the U.S. Treasury.

I'm aware that some U.S. money was given to foreign banks due to so-called systemic risk in the '07 collapse, but for the most part, it's the U.S. banks which are too large to fail that our government will basically prop up at all costs to the taxpayer. That's an argument in favor of breaking up the TBTF U.S banks, it's something we can do regardless of the size of international banks.

[Sancho]

55. I guess the question is unwinding the international banks...

let's say that Goldman Sachs "failed", and for some reason they "needed" a bailout to keep us from another 2008 meltdown. I'm not sure if that would happen exactly the same way under D-F, but this is hypothetical and simplistic.

Let's say lots of the money and bank was spread to London, Hong Kong, and Samoa. The US would be like Europe - bailing out investments and speculation and securities that might be located and regulated in other countries. How would the US break up Goldman, force them to sell or move or reveal assets that were overseas, or even prevent them from lying about overseas holdings? Even an audit would be difficult or impossible. It's like getting access to Swiss bank accounts. Without a whistleblower or something it's almost impossible. ( http://www.cnbc.com/2014/12/16/why-this-swiss-bank-whistleblower-cant-leave-us.html, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Birkenfeld ).

Why bail out the US bank and watch the money flow to tax havens in the Caribbean? Big banks are still able to be throttled by US law, but make bad investments overseas!

The US government needs regulation and enforcement which is really complex and not finished in D-F. Fully implementing D-F, increasing enforcement AND getting international cooperative agreements are all necessary to put the genie back in the bottle.

[dreamnightwind]

57. No, you break them up before the next crisis

and then, since they are no longer too big to fail, you let them fail. Nothing to bail out, here or abroad. They are taking the risks, and the profits from those risks (though I wish we had separated the banking from the investment/speculative parts of the banks and only backed up the banking part), they should go down if they can't mitigate their high-risk behavior.

You seem to be saying it would be too complex to break them up, that our federal regulators wouldn't be able to understand things well enough to do it. There might be some instances of that being the case, but I don't find that argument credible, it sounds like an excuse to not break them up to me.

I appreciate you advocating public banking. Bernie Sanders is probably the leading advocate for this in the Senate, he wants to use the U.S. Post Office to conduct simple low-risk community service type banking, hopefully the idea can gain some traction.

[Sancho]

58. D-F is already breaking up some parts of the banks...

so that has been happening for the last 5 years. Some of the speculative parts are already being separated by law. D-F is not even fully implemented yet, and Congress has not finished creating all the regulations yet.

I think that it is too complex in this sense. If you have banks "broken up" and one fails and you let it go under - what would that do? A banking crisis like Greece but in the US? You end up with another bailout. It's not too complex if you have international cooperation.

To prevent another crisis you need to have regulations and enforce them. That cannot work unless you have international agreements and transparency on the regulatory controls. It would be impossible to have isolation of US economies. The next big crisis may be like the Libor scandal ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal ) or international commodities ( http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/lawsuit-adds-to-concern-over-china-commodities-fraud/?_r=0 ). Some manipulation out of US regulation is the original cause, but the US taxpayer gets the bill.

Nothing in breaking up US banks would prevent the international problems or keep the US from having to bail them out (just like Europe cannot really let Greek banks fail). I don't care if you break up banks or don't. I simply think it won't do any good to break them up until the regulatory issues include the international sectors.

[Sancho]

56. another modification..

I don't have any problem with making banks split into diverse areas: traditional banking, investments, insurance, etc.

I don't think it will work to simply "break up the banks" unless we address the international banking issues and also do a better job of enforcement. The banks may appears to diversify in the US, but still be linked internationally and also still speculating.

Frankly, it's never come up but I'd like to see a "public banking system" where Post Offices or something were available and run like Credit Unions as non-profit, highly regulated banks for main-street folks (checking, savings, loans, IRA's).

Also, like the person on CSPAN said - you get an inspection when you buy a house to ensure the house is sound and the title is clear. Why not have an "expert" certify that your mortgage is a good one and that you understand the terms? In other words, for the average consumer we almost need a way to get an expert to oversee loans, or some kind of certification about the everyday transactions we do now. That doesn't exist in today's system. None of the candidates has mentioned protection for mainstream people other than the new consumer agency created by D-F.

[Trajan]

12. You know, Sancho? ... You have some excellent posts

Very thoughtful and well presented ...

I am still not convinced ... I like Barney, but he is on the wrong side of history on this one ...

[Sancho]

14. Maybe...I watched the interview and read the article...

I think his brief description of "social economies" versus "regulated capitalism" is very complex, but he makes a good point. I won't get into the whole history of Bernie's development of his economics, but in my view he often is worrisome. I've posted a few times about the Robin Hood tax as an example.

I think Barney is honest when he says that there's a difference:

"Of course Republicans recognize that at its most vigorous, a debate between Clinton and Sanders on how — not whether — to toughen financial regulation or diminish income inequality will fall decibels short of the fundamental arguments between Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush on immigration, Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul on military intervention, Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee against many others on how sharply to press against same-sex marriage, and Donald Trump and all of the others on the role of rational discussion in politics. But they believe boosting Sanders’ candidacy is their only way to prevent Clinton emerging as the nominee with broad support early in the process, strengthening her position in November."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/why-progressives-shouldnt-support-bernie-120484.html#ixzz3grCHEJ4V

[MannyGoldstein]

16. My former Congressman is only socially progressive. nt

[Sancho]

17. I doubt it's possible to find a "perfect" progressive...

it's been hard to get to the issues lately, because there's too much emotional tripe.

Rather than rehash Barney's career, it's probably reasonable to consider that there are some in the GOP who see Hillary as a much tougher opponent and would prefer to face Bernie (I know, I know - that will get all the troops up in arms because they imagine a "revolution&quot . Barney is making a good point worth consideration.

Just like a lot of Democrats relish the idea that Donald Trump as an independent candidate might do a Nader-number on the GOP.

I don't hate Bernie or Martin even though I don't think they are the best candidates.

[thesquanderer]

65. Good article supprting HRC, but also reinforces a HRC negative

Barney Franks makes some great points in that piece... but the bottom line appears to be that the HRC candidacy is inevitable, which makes supporting someone else unproductive. That sense of inevitiability, that it's "her turn" or that she otherwise deserves to be virtually appointed, is itself a turn-off to many.

[ibegurpard]

5. if the GOP is helping Bernie

They may end up regretting it.

[99th_Monkey]

38. Thats what the Politicus report on a new poll suggests. Wouldn't be 1st time GOP shoots self in foot

Bernie Sanders Has More Support Than Every 2016 Republican Candidate In New Pollhttp://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/29/bernie-sanders-support-2016-republican-presidential-candidate-poll.html

[thesquanderer]

64. That "new" poll has a misleading headline

First, that poll is from May.

Second (like a lot of Easley's stuff), the headline is a bit out of whack with the facts. Yes, Sanders may have polled better among Dems than any Repub candidate polled among Dems, but the Repub vote is split many more ways. Therefore, you cannot actually conclude (from that data) that the headline is true in any meaningful sense.

[Control-Z]

6. Ted Cruz tingles for Bernie.

He's practically campaigning for him.

[okasha]

27. Of course he does.

Current polls show Hillary beating all the Republican candidates.

The also show all the Republicans other than Trump shellacking Sanders.

Of course they want the candidate they can beat.

[Control-Z]

37. Well, yeah, that's what I was saying.

I was trying to be more subtle, or obnoxious. Not really sure which. Lol. I try to stay out of the primaries' drama, for the most part.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. Guess they'll have to start campaigning for Webb once Bernie starts beating them in the polls too.nt

[frylock]

29. Because conservatives have been waiting over 20 years for the opportunity to vote against Sanders..

please. And Cruz isn't going to get a sniff at the GE.

[Control-Z]

39. You are, of course, correct.

I thought my input would be better understood. I was wrong. And that is one more reason I should stay out of this forum.

[LiberalAndProud]

9. I don't worry about these silly ideas. In fact they may be helpful.

I recall the Rush Limbaugh stealth campaign of 2008 in which he encouraged his listeners to vote for Obama. And I remember how that turned out for them.


Go Bernie!

[Snotcicles]

10. How else can he get on TV? nt

[HappyMe]

13. Thanks for your concern, Bernie.

[Divernan]

28. Do you mean "Barney" not "Bernie"?

[mikehiggins]

15. Sanders and the right wing (aka NRA)

Is should be remembered that the NRA supported Sanders' early run for Congress. According to some of those involved, they wanted to punish the incumbent and figured there was no way Sanders could hold onto the post after the first two year term.

Seems like the NRA is just as stupid and shortsighted as many of us suspect.

If Cruz and the boyz want to get votes for Bernie good for them. There isn't one of the Clown Car Candidates that'll stand a chance in a head-to-head contest, even with the Koch billions in their pockets.

Just my opinion, of course. Barney Frank has done a lot of good both in and out of office and he has earned the right to say what he thinks even if many of us disagree with him.

Tweetie, on the other hand, is a jerk.

[Sancho]

20. We agree on Tweetie...

as bad as MSNBC is sometimes, it's the only network left to watch.

[CentralMass]

18. Follow the money. Barny's earning a buck...

[dreamnightwind]

46. Either that, or he wants a spot in a Clinton administration - eom

[BainsBane]

19. Ted Cruz was on Hardball talking about how great Sanders was

Clearly they have an interest in seeing Hillary's popularity decline. They can read polls. They know she is much harder to beat than Sanders.

[LiberalAndProud]

21. Ted Cruz is so smart.

A blast from the past ...

http://www.usnews.com/news/campaign-2008/articles/2008/05/02/gop-prefers-to-face-obama-rather-than-clinton

[beam me up scottie]

25. Nothing like recycling old memes and using them against Bernie.

New ones are expensive, you know.

[frylock]

30. oops

[99th_Monkey]

32. Actually it's not all that clear. polls differ

Bernie Sanders Has More Support Than Every 2016 Republican Candidate In New Poll
By Jason Easleymore from Jason Easley * Friday, May, 29th, 2015 * Politicus

According to the latest polling, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) presidential campaign has more support than the campaign of media favorites Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and every other Republican candidate.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/29/bernie-sanders-support-2016-republican-presidential-candidate-poll.html

[BainsBane]

41. One poll does not constitute proof

and while you as a Sanders supporter have an interest in putting certain polls in the most favorable light, the GOP is more concerned with winning the election.

[99th_Monkey]

42. Tell me something I don't know

I had already just said "Polls differ" ... that is all.

[moobu2]

22. Barney's right.

Bernie's a massive loser in the general, but I dont think we have to worry about that..

[frylock]

31. There's only one proven loser participating in the Democratic primary thus far.

[SusanCalvin]

43. May look that way now.

Things can change.

[Zorra]

26. He's hallucinatiing. nt

[Gman]

33. As if the BLM debacle wasn't bad enough

Now progressives throw Barney Franks under the bus.

And now, stick a fork in Sanders. He's done. Done in by his own supporters.

[LiberalAndProud]

34. Who threw him under the bus?

He supported Hillary in 2008 and he supports her now. Gotta respect that, but I don't have to agree. As for your fork, it's far too early for that.

[TheKentuckian]

40. Identify this time I was a fan of Frank's economics.

[snot]

36. I burn bright for Bernie; but the GOP funded McGovern, and I have to wonder.

Just hope they give him a LOT of money, and misunderestimate his chances of actually winning!

[DemocraticWing]

44. I like Barney Frank, but he's wrong

I'm sure it'll all blow over when Bernie gets the nomination though.

[99th_Monkey]

47. I do too. Always have

vut this was kind of ab eye-opening development.

Barney isn't just quietly supporting Hillary here, he's solidly siding
with the Bush/Clinton Dynasty/Oligarchy, i.ei the 1%

[DanTex]

50. It's not a "nasty meme", it's a verifiable fact. The GOP wants to help Bernie,

not only because they would love nothing more than running against him, but mainly because they think he can weaken Hillary and maker her easier to beat in the GE.

[Scootaloo]

61. Tell me about the moon landing n/t

[DanTex]

62. Hmm...

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/helping_sanders_stop_hillary.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420262/republicans-should-help-bernie-sanders-weaken-hillary-myra-adams
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/24/chris_matthews_calls_out_ted_cruz_for_surge_in_right_wing_support_of_bernie_sanders_i_know_what_youre_up_to/

[Scootaloo]

63. No, no. Moon landing, DanTex.

[GoneFishin]

52. I like Barney. But he nor anyone else is telling me to vote for another Wall Street corporatist

who places money and power above all.

In this case, Barney is on the wrong side.

Tweety is the ultimate insider political suckup.

[Scootaloo]

60. Whaaat? So soon after joining the board of Signature Bank? Say it ain't so!

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20150617/BLOGS02/150619877/barney-frank-joins-signature-bank-board