Outraged, you’ve backed off from the bold face fonts and All-Caps, thanks.
But, from your 3rd paragraph on, you’ve conjured up an army of straw men to attack.
You’ve misrepresented my positions so wildly,
a detailed rebuttal will serve no purpose, we’re not going to agree on anything here.

I’ll just let my comments on this thread and elsewhere stand as written.
I’m afraid I cannot help you further.

Re: oddsox

Your comment: “True to your username, and as evidenced by your All-Cap rants, what you’re experiencing is a bad case of cognitive dissonance.
The cure is to read, listen and watch information from a wider variety of sources.”

This is not the case. It was you who invoked Franklin Raines into the discussion. When your accusations were shown to be false, you attempted skew the point by directing attention away from the obviously false right wing conspiracy sources you quoted.

Everyone knows that corruption exists in Washington, I disagree vehemently with you that it is both parties to the same extent, which appears to be your talking point of choice in this discussion.

I do not now, nor I have I ever claimed that there aren’t Democrats who’ve been corrupted. This does not mean however that the whole of them is corrupted, which is your position. You are claiming they are one and the same, I see no evidence of that.

From what I have read, seen and investigated it appears that the whole of the Republican Party has been completely corrupted (this has been born out by their own members especially those in high governmental positions), this is not the case however, regarding the Democratic Party.

Lumping everyone together requires that all are GUILTY of colluding with the same corrupt influences, however the evidence doesn’t support this. (i.e. Elizabeth Warren, Dennis Kuchinich, Alan Grayson, Russ Feingold….etc) OTOH, all the evidence suggests that the whole of the Republican Party has been corrupted.

Outraged:
On this thread and the other w/Dionne’s column, I’ve cited unedited CSPAN video, and articles published in the New York Times, Huffington Post, Seattle Times and Business Week. 

And, on the other thread, I’ve invited you to do some broad google searches on Chris Dodd (Countrywide) & Maxine Waters (OneUnited Bank) and choose your favorite non-right wing news sources. 
You haven’t done that, have you?

True to your username, and as evidenced by your All-Cap rants, what you’re experiencing is a bad case of cognitive dissonance.
The cure is to read, listen and watch information from a wider variety of sources.

Re: Azcat85

Your comment: “Quoting Wiki is ridiculous”

While occasionally there are errors in Wiki, by and
large it is accurate. If you can find NON-RIGHT WING
sources which refute what Wiki has. Feel free.

All Wiki sources and claims can be refuted and they are
then reviewed. For the most part Wiki has been very
accurate.

Quoting Wiki is ridiculous. You may as well quote the bum on the street. Wiki is
uncontrolled and open to edit from anyone.  How authoritarian is an open source? 
Seems like bias in authorship is entirely possible.

You are referring to 2005 with your Frank
clip and AT THAT TIME IT WAS TRUE. (they were specifically speaking of the loans I’ve highlighted below) Which why I linked
to the Wikipedia article. You’re beating a dead
horse, imagining trumped up right wing conspiracies as if they are valid.

From Wiki:
“Whether the GSEs (Government-Sponsored
Enterprises) caused or greatly contributed to the
financial crisis of 2008 is controversial. A few try
to minimize their role. [15] The Financial Crisis
Inquiry Commission (FCIC) completed its analysis [16]
of the financial crisis and found that the GSE’s
“contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary
cause.” (That was only the majority report, and there
was strong dissent.) The FCIC found that the GSE’s
were late to the subprime lending game, entering the
market in a substantial way in 2005. The GSE’s
followed rather than lead the race to purchase
subprime loan securities. The GSE’s increased
their involvement in the subprime securitization
market because they were significantly losing market
share and were feeling less relevant in the mortgage
lending marketplace. In accordance with the mission
of Fannie Mae to enable home ownership by a greater
proportion of the population, Franklin Raines,
while Chairman and CEO, began a pilot program in 1999
to issue bank loans to individuals with low to
moderate income, and to ease credit requirements on
loans that Fannie Mae purchased from banks.
Raines promoted the program saying that it would
allow consumers who were “a notch below what our
current underwriting has required” to get home loans.
The move was intended in part to increase the number
of minority and low income home owners.[17]
The Investor’s Business Daily editorial staff has
noted that the expansion of easy credit to home
buyers with a lesser ability to pay them back was one
of the major contributing factors to the subprime
mortgage crisis.[18]
While the Fannie Mae pilot program described above
sought to expand housing opportunities for under-
served consumers, these loans did not result in major
losses and performed significantly better than
private label subprime loans.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines

Me thinks YOU are in denial or have the type of
conspiratorial mindset the RIGHT WING LOVES. I see nothing here that is questionable. If you find some information, from a TRUSTED SOURCE (not the right wing) I’ll consider it. So far, NO.

@Outraged,
We both know Anthony Weiner and Barney Frank aren’t the same people nor are their circumstances the same.
As you wrote in another context, “time will tell,” but my money is on Maddow and O’Donnell avoiding any in-depth studies on Frank’s connection to wrongdoing at Fannie Mae. 
Please let me know if that changes.

The quoted comments in the Huffington Post article are from a Republican Senator. 
To her credit, the reporter, Jennifer Bendery, elaborates a little and added some clarification after the quote.

Here’s an unedited clip of Barney Frank in 2005 speaking from the House floor.  No mention of Franklin Raines here, but you can see Frank missing the mark on the housing bubble and calling for increased home ownership.  Later, Frank said it was increased rental housing he favored, but that was clearly not the case. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE

Now google “Franklin Raines Fannie Mae” and see the “right-wing smear jobs” carried in conservative bastions like the Seattle Times, Businessweek and the NY Times.
(along with a Slate article in his defense.)

“these assets are so riskless that the capital for holding them should be under 2%” 
—Franklin Raines
(This equates to a leverage ratio of over 50-1)

This YouTube piece is edited and obviously pieced together by someone with a Right-wing agenda, but the CSPAN clips within are whole—not edited.
Barney Frank at 4:54 and 6:00, Maxine Waters at 5:08.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Outraged, how’s the water?
Methinks you are swimming in de Nile with blinders on.

Re: oddsox

Your comment:“You’ll never see a Lawrence O’Donnell
or a Rachel Maddow digging into anything that might
cast a shadow on their buddy, Barney.”

That is not the case, more right wing inuendo and
accusation. Apparently you missed the Anthony Weiner
scandal!

Re: oddsox
Your link gives the comments OF RIGHT WINGERS. Of
course they’ll make inuendo regarding Fannie and
Freddie.  Fannie and Freddie are the corps worst
nightmare hence their constant cry for “reform” which
in their speak is DISMANTLE.

Your original accusation was regarding Franklin
Raines and now you’ve moved on to broadening the
smear. Don’t you think that if Raines was truly
suspect that during the Bush years they would have
FOUND OUT! C’mon… let’s not forget who was running
the show then, CHENEY.

As for any wrongdoing (if any of those you accuse are
guilty) I’m confident time will tell. With all the
lies, inuendo and accusations from the RIGHT WING, I
simply put NO STOCK IN ANYTHING THEY SAY. Period.

Additionally, as for your comment regarding “unedited
CSPAN clips” this also is not the case. In SEVERAL
sites around the net it was shown to be edited, made
by some Glen Beck affliated Breitbart crony. So NO, I
don’t believe the video, AT ALL.

Additionally, it was never proven Raines did anything wrong, so for anyone to back him up and claim it to be RIGHT WING SMEAR is perfectly legit.

“Everything I found was from a right wing news source. I find this highly suspect as far as its truth-worthiness.”
—Outraged

First, kudos to Jennifer Bendery at the Huffington Post for at least touching upon the issue http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-republicans-barney-frank_n_1119540.html

But you’re correct overall, Outraged—that’s part of the problem, and part of my point. 
You’ll never see a Lawrence O’Donnell or a Rachel Maddow digging into anything that might cast a shadow on their buddy, Barney. 

So, yes, that largely leaves Fox News and YouTube posters with obvious right-wing sympathies. (I’ll spare you the links, you know where to find them)

At the same time, when you see unedited CSPAN clips from the House Chamber showing Frank, Waters, Gregory Meeks, Artur Davis, etc defending Franklin Raines and Fannie Mae, it raises the usual questions:

What did they know? 
When did they know it? 
And, because of their high-rankings and priviledged positons, I would also ask of Frank & Chris Dodd
“What and when SHOULD you have known?”

And, of course, a hard look at the various money trails might be revealing.

It’s widely reported that Frank retired because of advancing age and redistricting. 
And that may be.
But he looks very fit and he’s battled through redistricting before. 
So it could also be that Barney’s feeling some heat.

Now that’s total speculation on my part.
But do you think it’s all contrived and far-fetched?
If you do, take a google at “Chris Dodd Countrywide” and take your pick of newssources.

There’s a lot of smoke out there.

Re: oddsox

Personally, I don’t see the scandal you see. I wasn’t
familiar with the issue so I checked around the net
for what I could find. Everything I found was from a
right wing news source. I find this highly suspect as
far as its truth-worthiness.

Experience dictates that the right INVENTS scandals
and then they dog the issue to death hoping for
calamity. From what I could find everything turned
out to be allegation after allegation trumped up,
twisted and thin. Considering the source of the allegations I find it difficult to lend them any credence at all.

The only source I found (aside from Wiki) was this article from Slate a source I would more likely trust than some right wing Glen Beck sponsored video or Murdoch tirade.

“The subcommittee collared Raines after Fannie Mae’s regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (or OFHEO), published a 211-page diatribe citing a litany of sins: “pervasive and willful” earnings manipulation, lax controls, perverse incentives, unjust bonuses. The press pounced, likening Fannie Mae to Enron, calling for Raines’ head. The Securities and Exchange Commission launched an inquiry, the Justice Department a criminal investigation.
After years of scandals, such proceedings would hardly merit mention, except that Fannie Mae is no ordinary company and Raines no ordinary CEO. Created during the Depression to promote mortgage issuance and home ownership, Fannie is now, by one measure, the fourth-largest company in the country. It is also a “government-sponsored enterprise,” and, as such, enjoys special privileges that most companies don’t have. (Read more about this in ” Moneybox”.) This cushy status antagonizes Fannie’s competitors, who argue, probably justifiably, that the advantage is unfair. Fannie doesn’t help matters by paying its executives fat bonuses and hiding behind the universal appeal of its mission, declaring itself “in the American Dream business,” and bludgeoning critics as “anti-housing.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/10/fannie_mae_ceo_franklin_raines.single.html

Wiki itself didn’t seem to settle the matter, but left the impression that it was highly controversial and that the right wing attempted to put the blame of sub-prime mortgages at Fannie on Raines. But this wasn’t the case since Raines was not in charge of Fannie during the years it became involved in the sub-prime mess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines

Smear campaigns are just one of the many services the Right Wings offers, so I find the matter less than controversial.

@Outranged, on Barney Frank:
Thanks for sharing Rachel Maddow’s tribute to Frank.
Especially poignant are Frank’s remarks about inertia now being on the side of the Democrats. 
Say what you will about Frank, he’s a savvy fellow with a keen sense for politics.

Unfortunately, whatever good Barney Frank did in over 30 years as a congressman is dwarfed by the good he COULD have and SHOULD have done to avert the housing market crash from his knowledgeable position as House Finance Services Committee Chairman. 
His would have been a strong, confident and credible voice, a voice whose advice might have been heeded, in contrast to GW Bush’s, whose warnings about Fannie Mae’s fundamental flaws were both timely and correct, but weak, and thus ignored.

Instead, Frank chose to agressively (a kind choice of adverbs) defend the practices of Fannie Mae while Franklin Raines and his cronies were busily looting it (and us).

At 6:16 Maddow say’s “...he (Frank) will be remembered as the Finance Committee Chairman when Wall Street blew up…” 

This is the only hint of Frank’s colossal misjudgement during the entire interview, or in Dionne’s article or in the TruthDig comments before this one.

Of course, Dionne and Maddow, like so many others in the mainstream media, are in “tribute” mode right now.
Perhaps later a brighter light will be shined on Frank’s career. 

But I’m not holding my breath.
Retirement makes it likely that Barney Frank (like Chris Dodd, his counterpart in the Senate), will never have to answer for his folly.

Sic Transit Hubris.

I grew up in Newton Mass, Barney used to be at my elementary school on election day waiting to shake hands with voters, this was a long long long time ago, he should have been stopped in his tracks by terms limits many terms ago like all of these “the art or science of government” guys. Generally a nice guy but in no way should he have been up on the hill for so long, there is no value in it.

re: Radoslaw Sikorski’s “I fear German power less than I am beginning to fear German inactivity.”

The inactivity he should be fearing is that of the Euro-weaklings (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy)in implementing needed fiscal responsibility.

Time is all that’s been purchased by this US Fed-led bailout. 
Speaking of Time, here’s another view on the topic:
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/11/30/why-the-lastest-euro-bank-bailout-is-bullish-for-america/#disqus_thread

The ballyhooed US strength is only relative to Euro-weakness.

Hate being a “don’t bettor” here, but my money is on the Euro-wimps doing nothing and we’re all in the same mess again come Feb 2013.

Let’s wait and see.

well, i am not so sure that radoslav= either letter-lover or glory-happy,
had said anything significant or enlightening.
in fact, the fewer jobs, the less buying/money/[ab]using in greece, italy,
spain, ireland, balkans the better for all bears and me.
i said “me”, because thus far i am the only person who is right now, as
far as i know, standing up for bears, wolves, squirrels; i.e., the weakest
beings among us.

the people in the lands i mentioned r waisting resources as if we have
another spare planet and which wld eventually grow [they must think] to
10 spare planets for people who’d inhabit the earth 100k + y from now.

let them go back to land. plant fig, cherry, olive trees; till the vinograds;
grow vegetables, etc.
and stop buying/selling arms; bring back soldiers from afgh’n; stop
supporting israel; burn ?all books; u know, do s’mthing useful for a
change—instead of protesting and belly aching. 
so, i hope chermany stays passive and also stops selling weapons, cars
etc.
btw, there has been some changes in germany since ww2: all germans
can now say “germany” instead chermany. sorry, that’s about all that
changed! tnx

PAYING FOR PROFLIGACY

EJD: But this will be understandably unpopular with German voters, who think they are being asked to pay for the mistakes of other countries.

Yes, but as I must say often here in France: Europe begins where, in Lille or Strasbourg or Menton? Very, very often even some French do not understand the underpinning communality of the European adventure. (Even the Brits still remain skeptic - so no one should be surprised by some of the journalistic reporting issuing from that country* as regards the European Union.)

Meaning that the EU is like a family that shares both its joys and tribulations - and at present most certainly the latter.

The EU of today has a long historical time-line. Have a look at it here.

Europe’s consolidation began just after WW2 and it is not over yet. Throughout that 60-year period it has brought both peace and prosperity to Europeans unprecedented in their history.

Now it’s time to Pay the Piper for a mistake of profligacy that the Germans themselves foresaw - bred by countries not as rigorous in their domestic management as are Germany. Financial rigor, as in any family, is a highly variable attribute amongst its members.

In fact, both taxation and debt were amongst the very last items on the EU’s consolidation agenda.

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

Despite the high unemployment in Europe, the economic machinery is still chugging along. This current malaise is NOT as cataclysmic as any war the Europe has ever known.

It will work itself out. Europe will retain its place in our Brave New World of multi-polarity - along side that of both America and China.

Patience ...

FOOTNOTE
* The Brits are still suffering from a nostalgia for a period of its history when Victorians thought “Britannia rules the waves”.

Times have changed. As a pundit once wrote, “Today, Britain waives the rules!”

Good column EJ.

Quote: ” I need to note that Sikorski is married to my Washington Post colleague Anne Applebaum,”

And for FULL disclosure I’d like to know if you ate
Rice Krispies this morning. As you know I wouldn’t
want to find out you’re in cahoots with Kellogg (or
whoever it is that makes Rice Krispies).

Barney Frank can be quite the hellion when he chooses
to be, but that’s a good thing. Frank tended to
consider what was the best thing as least as far as
he knew it. OTH, he was open to suggestion, he’d
check it out but if he found it a defunct proposition
he didn’t mind saying so….. no matter who it pissed
off.

That’s a person you can trust. Because you know two
things; that they’ll hear you out and if you’re full
of it, they’ll say so AND why. But you also know that
if you’ve got a plan that “cuts the mustard” they’ll
be right beside you come hell or highwater.

Frank was on Rachel Maddow, it was very good. Check it out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#45485871
(if you’d like to miss the intro, skip to 9:00)