I see that my Barney Frank article was posted and generated some discussion at Free Republic.
While I am grateful for discussion my writing generates let me offer a thought here.
There is a right way and a wrong way to criticize Barney Frank or for that matter anyone else.
In my article, I make no mention of his homosexuality. Why? Because it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
By the same principle I did not mention his Judaism either.
My article focused squarely on his handling of the economy and his inability to accept any responsibility for it. Nothing more and nothing less.
If I had used any pejoratives vis a vis Mr. Frank's homosexuality it would have diminished my argument. And if I had used such language, Mr. Frank and his supporters could simply say (with some justification) that my objections were based on who he is in private rather than what he does in public.
Besides why criticize Barney Frank for being gay when there are so many other things for which he can be criticized.
With that I hope those who post at Free Republic will take my comments in the spirit in which they are intended.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yes there is plenty to criticize, and actually, his homosexuality does come into play. The man allowed a male prostitute, which he had picked up off the street, run a prostitution ring out of his home. He then feigned ignorance to the whole ordeal and he's still in Congress. And people still vote for him, which might be the most troubling thing of all!
I don't agree. There isn't any evidence to suggest that Frank has behaved in a criminal manner nor is there evidence to suggest he has done anything illegal where it concerns the sub-prime crisis or any of other economic maladies.
The issue here is Frank's lack of competence in economics and his inability to take responsibility for his actions in his capacity as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. To ascribe his competence to his sexual orientation or for that matter his religion is simply specious and conservatives should avoid the temptation to travel down that road.
As for the fact that he is continually re-elected, you can make the argument the voters of Massachusetts 4th District are getting the representation they deserve.
I did not mean to insinuate that his homosexuality was at the root of his actions and character, but rather that even in his homosexuality, he shows what kind of a lowlife he is.
His behavior then was essentially the same: he picked up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, sheltered them from federal regulation as they were reckless in the mortgage market, and then feigned ignorance to his role in the meltdown.
You are right making slurs about his sexuality, his style of talking, and other things not related to his character and crimes do not discredit Frank and make the commenter seem petty. However, Frank himself takes no qualms in spewing that hate outwards (i.e. calling Scalia a homophone).
Well put. I appreciate the clarification.
Post a Comment