are you throwing him under the bus because you disagree with him?

The venue where he criticized
Elizabeth Warren and erected
his pathetic straw man was
a 3rd-Way event.

Why is a "Democratic Socialist"
talking down financial regulations
at a 3rd-Way event?


Oh, and Barney now sits on the
board of directors at Signature Bank.

It seems curious to me

under the bus." Thanks for your response. What's going to happen to your support for Bernie when he does/says something on the campaign trail, or when he's President and you disagree with him? Will you be on DU denouncing him, throwing him under the bus? I think so.

Perhaps I needed a <snark> emoji?

The refrain "throwing them under the bus"
was intended to point out that whenever
a policy stance is criticized, the supporters
become shrill and cry out.

I don't actually believe criticism is
"throwing someone under the bus"
UNLESS, the criticism is an intentional smear.

Gutierrez, and McCaskill CLEARLY
misrepresented and attacked Bernie Sanders'
policy positions, to assist Hillary's campaign.

The snarky idea that we need a bigger bus
is intended to underscore the shrill cry
that policy criticism is the same as a smear.

Lastly, I don't believe ANYONE, is "perfect"
and I wouldn't let a great candidate slip by
because I'm not getting a pony.

Bernie and I are in VERY close accord,
yet do not share identical opinions.

I would have a beer with Bernie any day...
regardless of any of our differences.

Apparently, I missed the mark here?

friends or family, they work for us. Barney Frank was mediocre on policy, not populist hero, good at taking on Republicans, not always great on policy.

His being connnected to the Third Way would explain the frustration many Dems often felt with his policy positions.

Understand that the more deeply you hold your ideals, the more you are morally obligated to be pragmatic... Idealism without pragmatism is just a way to flatter your ego.

~ Barney Frank

if every issue is subsumed to support for one politician, there won't have anyone left to reform. You'll have written everyone out of the picture. I think you can assume that most progressive House and Senate Democrats will endorse Clinton. Endorsements are very much about allegiances, and Clinton has forged some of them over the years. They are also about proximity to power. That is why people with some power wait to see where the wind is blowing. They don't want to risk being on the wrong side of an election.

We are losing our Democracy
a dollar at a time due to polices
and laws such as Citizens United.

We are living in an oligarchy.

Neither Hillary, nor Barney Frank are willing
to fight for the majority of citizens because...
proximity to power

I'm no "Einstein", so...

but throwing everyone under the bus who doesn't support the politician you prefer isn't going to achieve reform. The problem with personality oriented politics is that they depend entirely on the success of one individual. Successful reform efforts target issues--like some fix to the role of money in politics--and work to build coalitions around that issue.

Reasonable, proactive support of actual policy changes gets things done.

It's been widely pointed out that
we cannot adequately regulate
the financial markets and the players.

The ONLY reasonable, proactive, policy
is to break them into smaller, more manageable,
institutions and give regulators the resources
and teeth they need to enforce regulations.

Sadly, some Democrats are reluctant to
bite the hand that feed their campaign coffers

Agreed, McCaskill and Gutierrez are an embarrassment.

It was a slimy thing to smear Bernie
with anti-immigration statements,
and misuse of the term "socialist"

And Barney Frank is pathetic...
attacking Elizabeth Warren and
arguing a straw man against financial regulation.

Why do those Democrats throw honest democrats
under the bus??? Proximity to power?

Actually, seems to me Barney Frank was making a legitimate point - "Even if we did Glass-Steagall, you'd still have institutions that are too big to fail." That's actually true. Especially with THIS Congress. Look how much the ACA left to be desired - even some people here still tend to hate it because it isn't perfect, didn't go far enough, didn't measure up, wasn't the public option, wasn't single-payer, wasn't this, wasn't that. So screw the whole thing, then? Or let it go through, even this imperfect and this wanting and this lacking, and consider it at least a solid foundation ON WHICH WE CAN BUILD FURTHER?

CRIMINY! It's not an all-or-nothing world. I tend to want to give Barney Frank some benefit of the doubt. Overall - through the years, he's been pretty solid. Now, I happen to think WHATEVER might at least START the conversation is good. If we bring back a Glass-Steagall type measure, at least that's a start back in the right direction (in the truest definition of the word "right" - not the bastardized hijacked version that the radical-wrong has turned it into). And maybe it won't be perfect, but at least let's get the engine started. And we're certainly not going to get anywhere near the kind of legislation we want and need - with THIS Congress. So why can't we at least try to get what we can, NOW, for the sake of at least getting the engine started?

This continued and ever-present insistence on Perfection-Or-BUST will get us nowhere in an Imperfect-Reality world. And I won't live in that bubble any more than I want to live in the Pox Noise-created bubble the bad guys who want only their own myopic white-people's-candy-world insist on living in. I'd rather get one square farther along on the game board than sit on the same square arguing - and not move at all.

Glass-Steagall is not intended to
end "too big to fail"!

It's to protect tax payers from
Wall st gambling with depositors money.

It's that simple.

Any other suggestion is a straw man argument.

Want to end "too big to fail"?
Break them up like Bell telephone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

If you don't like a particular Democrat he's Third Way".

If you don't agree with a particular premise it's a "straw man".

Barney Frank was giving a talk
at an event sponsored by
the 3rd-Way organization.

His message was that Elizabeth Warren
is wrong about reinstating glass-steagall.

Who benefits from the repeal of glass-steagall?
Wall st and fiscal conservatives.
That IS the 3rd-Way agenda.

Additionally, Barney Frank offered tepid
"support" for financial regulation in his
measured comment that regulations
"might" be necessary.


Barney Frank stated that;
"Even if we did Glass-Steagall,
you'd still have institutions that are too big to fail,"

That statement, is clearly a straw man argument.

Senator Warren nor anyone I'm aware of
is proposing that reinstating Glass-Steagall
will end too big to fail.

Lastly, Barney Frank's attack on Elizabeth Warren
is obviously intended to undermine efforts to
reign in the excesses of the financial industry.

Because the need for more regulation and
serious oversight isn't obvious enough


http://thehill.com/policy/finance/248674-barney-frank-warren-wrong-on-glass-steagall

"Third Way" simply because he spoke at a seminar at a "third-way" organization?

You know, a week or so ago President Bill Clinton attended the NAACP National Convention, so I guess that makes him a black man.

We all know about proximity to power
and the revolving door between
DeeCee and the financial sector.

As to Dodd-Frank it DID NOT
prevent Too Big To Fail, Which is
ironic in light of his dismissive attitude
towards Glass-Steagall.

One of Dodd-Frank's purposes was
explicitly to prevent Too Big To Fail.

ummm, no.

The point of this OP is that criticism
of policies is being misrepresented as
"throwing them under the bus"

If every critique is construed as such...
were gonna need a bigger bus!

Whereas, smears, and misrepresentations
are precisely "throwing them under the bus".

I'm aware of three examples of Hillary Clinton
supporters explicitly "throwing Democrats under the bus".
(Each cited above)

That is the point of this OP.

And given the unscrupulous behavior of
some, we can all look forward to similar
attacks and character assassinations
from Hillary supporters.

Time will tell if the 3rd-Way will continue
to denigrate the "Left", as Rahm Emmanuel did...
"F—ing retarded", indeed!

...he has to be "third way".

event? You KNOW what the Third Way is don't you? No self respecting Progressive Democrat would waste a minute of their time on that Wall St Think Tank. But it does explain his remarks about Elizabeth Warren. That Third Way has targeted Warren, not very effectively, but they have her on their hit list.

Do you dislike Warren and agree with the Third Way founders that she ought to quiet now, that 'enough is enough'?? She's a woman so I guess they think they CAN speak to a US Senator that way PUBLICLY since she is a woman, no?

Money talks!

Rather judgmental aren't you? "No self respecting Progressive Democrat would...."

Here we go again, WHERE DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT I "DISLIKE" WARREN or any of the rest of that stuff you wrote. Did I say any of that or it this once again your bizarre projection and deflection?

You've done this before, to me and others. I say something that you don't agree with so immediately "I dislike Warren" and "agree with the third way founders"?

To put this into your perspective, if I dislike Warren, why would I have gone to an expensive ($185/person) dinner a few weeks ago where the keynote speaker was SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN!

So, Frank goes to an event and he agrees with their ideals. I go to an event that Warren spoke at and I dislike her.

Get your projections and odd assumptions straight - at least be consistent, please!

Barney Frank is part of the problem
no longer part of the solution.

Face the facts.
He's looking out for himself...
at our expense.