UPDATE: Frank’s written statement is below the fold.
The thorn in the side of many right-wingers, and the senior openly gay member of Congress, Rep. Barney Frank, does not intend to seek re-election in 2012, according to a statement from the 16-term congressman’s office.
Office of Congressman Barney Frank
Barney Frank to Hold Press Conference to Announce Plans Not to Run in 2012
NEWTON, MA – Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts 4th Congressional District, Ranking Member of the House of the House Financial Services Committee, will hold a press conference in Newton, MA today to formally announce and answer questions about his decision not to run for re-election in 2012.
The press conference will be held at Newton City Hall at 1:00 pm in the auditorium.
Neither Congressman Frank nor his staff will be available for any questions before the 1:00 pm event.
The brilliant, acerbic wit will be missed. A note on Frank’s district (CNN):
Frank’s district, centered around the liberal Boston suburbs of Newton and Brookline, is considered safe Democratic political terrain. Frank did, however, receive an unusually strong challenge from Republican Sean Bielat in 2010.
***
At 71, it’s understandable that Barney Frank wants to step away from the rough and tough battle for re-election. His brilliant, acerbic wit — it has withered many a person during town halls as well as colleagues when he spoke from this House floor – will be missed. However, I’m sure that the accomplished politician will make his voice heard for quite some time to come on many issues, including LGBT rights and financial regulatory reform.
Frank is a good example of the evolution of LGBT politicians at the federal level. Listeners will recall that Frank never ran as openly gay — he was outed in a scandal that resulted in a formal House reprimand. He subsequently ran and was re-elected, and his LGBT advocacy grew out of that de-closeting experience. His junior colleagues — Rep. Jared Polis and Rep. Tammy Baldwin — ran initial campaigns out of the closet, a phenomenon that we now see much more frequently in this generation of LGBT politicians. Today’s LGBT politicians are able to campaign mentioning their sexual orientation in passing, but focus on the issues relevant to their constituents.
Frank has had significant bumps in the road dealing with the transgender community, most notably in his position on an inclusive ENDA in the past. It proved to be a very public and raucous learning experience for the Congressman. It exposed the serious political and strategic gulfs that exist within the LGBT community. It also showed that it’s difficult to serve as an out elected member of Congress (and therefore ”represent”) and not step on land mines affecting our community.
***
Reaction from Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. Solmonese, a Massachusetts native, worked for Frank on one of his first campaigns for Congress:
“Barney Frank has exemplified true leadership over his more than 30 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. As the first openly gay Member of Congress, Barney defied stereotypes and kicked doors open for LGBT Americans. Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act would never have happened without his leadership. But it goes beyond that. His service as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee during a time of great economic upheaval made a gay man one of the most powerful people in the country and he used that power for great good. America, Massachusetts and LGBT people are better off for Barney Frank’s service.”
Background on the Congressman’s tenure from his office:
Frank began his political career in 1967 as the Executive Assistant to Mayor Kevin White of Boston. In 1971, he served as the Administrative Assistant to Congressman Michael Harrington of Massachusetts. In 1992, he was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives – he held that seat for eight years. In 1980, he ran successfully to succeed Father Robert Drinan as Representative of the Fourth Congressional District of Massachusetts, a seat he has held, throughout the various redistricting of that district, for more than 30 years. In 2007, Frank became Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. He serves as Ranking Member (the senior Democrat) of the Committee today.
Frank’s written statement follows:
I will not be a candidate for reelection to the House of Representatives in 2012.
I began to think about retirement last year, as we were completing passage of the financial reform bill. I have enjoyed—indeed been enormously honored—by the chance to represent others in Congress and the State Legislature, but there are other things I hope to do before my career ends. Specifically, I have for several years been thinking about writing, and while there are people who are able to combine serious writing with full-time jobs, my susceptibility to distraction when faced with a blank screen makes that impossible.
In 2010, after the bill was signed into law, I had tentatively decided to make this my last term. The end of next year will mark 40 years during which time I have held elected office and a period of 45 years since I first went to work in government full time as an aide to Mayor Kevin White in late 1967.
But with the election of a conservative majority in the House, I decided that my commitment to the public policies for which I have fought for 45 years required me to run for one more term. I was—and am—concerned about right-wing assaults on the financial reform bill, especially since we are now in a very critical period when the bill is in the process of implementation. In addition, recognizing that there is a need for us to do long-term deficit reduction, I was—and am—determined to do everything possible to make sure that substantial reduction in our excessive overseas military commitments forms a significant part of the savings over the next 10 years.
But, my concern for these two issues today cuts very much in the opposite direction—namely, in favor of forgoing a year-long full-time election campaign and instead focusing the next year on those two issues in Congress.
Two factors lead me to this view. The newly configured district contains approximately 325,000 new constituents, many of them in a region of the state that is wholly new to me as a Member of Congress. A significant number of others are in the area along our east-west border with Rhode Island which I have not represented for 20 years. This means that running for reelection will require—appropriately in our democracy—a significant commitment of my time and energy, introducing myself to hundreds of thousands of new constituents, learning about the regional and local issues of concern to them and, not least importantly, raising an additional 1.5 to 2 million dollars.
This would compete with two other obligations which I neither want to nor can avoid. First, I will continue to represent hundreds of thousands of people in the current 4th District to whom I am committed as the person they voted for a year ago. I have acquired a strong attachment to many of the people and causes I have worked with here. The Congressional redistricting removes from the district I represent virtually the entire fishing industry of Southeastern Massachusetts. It very substantially reduces the number of Azorean-Americans I will represent, and again removes almost completely people of Cape Verdean ancestry. Introducing myself and learning about the new area while continuing to give the existing area the full representation it deserves would make demands of my time that would detract from my focus on the national issues.
There is another, equally important consequence of the fact that so many of the people in this district would be new constituents that help persuade me to announce my retirement. The obligation of a Member of Congress to work as an advocate for the people he represents on local and regional issues that require or involve Federal government response are of paramount importance. And I am proud of the work I have done in that regard for the people I have been privileged to represent over these years. But as in almost every case, where there were significant local or regional issues involving environmental matters, transportation matters, housing matters etc., it took more than two years to resolve them. The relevance is that running again for one more term, I would be asking 325,000 new constituents to give me the mandate to be their advocate with the federal government for only two years. Starting on a series of projects only to be passing them along in various stages of incompletion to a successor two years later is not a responsible way to act.
There is one other factor that influenced my decision as I went through this year. Our politics has evolved in a way that makes it harder to get anything done at the federal level. I believe that I have been effective as a Member of Congress working inside the process to influence public policy in the ways that I think are important. But I now believe that there is more to be done trying to change things from outside than by working within. I am announcing today my retirement from elected office after 40 years but not my retirement from public policy advocacy and given the nature of our current situation, in some ways I believe I may have more impact speaking, writing and in other ways advocating for the changes that I think are necessary than trying to bring them about inside our constricting political process.
In summary, I am required to choose. I have to choose between fulfilling my obligation as a ranking member of the Financial Services Committee on behalf of financial reform and my responsibility to continue to be a full representative of the people who voted for me in 2010, and on the other hand to engage in a full-fledged Congressional campaign in a district which is very different than the current one. I am also required to choose between concentrating my efforts on trying to change the political equation in the country over the next year and doing the best I can within the conflicts and restrictions of the current set of forces. Given this, I am going to do what Massachusetts politicians often do, quote a former President from Massachusetts, although not the one usually cited. I do not choose to run for reelection in 2012.




32 Comments


Don’t forget Rep. David Cicilline in the mention of Polis and Baldwin. He ran as openly gay too.
GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if you use fewer than 14 exclamation points (not to mention letting slip an occasional lowercase character), then how is anyone to recognize the emphasis? I mean, it’s not as if we’re mind readers. (wait: we’re not?????)
[repeating to self]
do not feed, do not feed…
I disagree. With the ALL CAPS, ten (10) exclamation points is acceptable.
I had no idea Barney was 71. He looks younger than that.
Let’s see what cushy high paying gig he gets.
Nailed it, assuming by “community” you meant not just his LGBT constituents, but all in his CD.
I’m not his constituent, not even in the state, but it was always a pleasure listening to his intelligent voice on TV. It’s my opinion he tried his best to enact practical legislation while trying to evade or convince the stupid and dishonest shits he had to work with in Congress.
Barney spent last Christmas in the Virgin Islands with hedge fund owner Don Sussman (Paloma Partners) and his partner Chellie Pingree. I’m sure this power couple will see to it Barney has a nice retirement.
Thanks to Barney for moving the ball forward a couple decades ago; screw him for the roadblocks lately. I’m sure they’ll say the same of our generation someday.
I hope I meet the son of a bitch some day. I’ll puff a joint in his face and he’ll call me a hippie and then we’ll watch the kids take over the world.
Barney Frank received the first vote I ever cast when I turned 18 way back when. He was a great representative for his constituents, at least I can say that for the time until I left Massachusetts, and I hope more people follow his lead to maintain some semblance of progressive democracy in the House.
Frank was good on LGBT issues to be sure. But he was not a trustworthy progressive ally. The guy is one of Wall Street’s most reliable whores, and has backstabbed us countless times.
There are a few old timers that I imagine I like personally even though I don’t know them and regardless of their politics. Oddly, Hillary is one of them. And definitely Barny Frank. I’m glad he’s getting out. What once was the peoples house is now a den of thieves.
Besides, for the trolls, that’s what passes as “debate” and “discussion”.
-stewartm
Barney Frank is symbolic of all the good and the bad inherent in the Dem “progressive” leadership. A little bit of social progress, here and there (largely because ‘respectable/mainstream’ gay rights, as worthy an goal as that is, does not inherently threaten the PTB.) But that has to be weighed against a lot of useless theatrics and angry fists shaken in the air after vote after vote after vote that further entrenched the plutocracy, votes that could have been blocked by a united progressive caucus but weren’t–weren’t blocked because of the need for a “bipartisan solution” (when the Repugs never play that way) or because “we don’t want our President to fail” (Obama’s success–if he wants it–has to be tied to his honoring his progressive-leaning promises, not to us).
The same could be said about another progressive icon, Bernie Sanders. Love them “filiBernies”, Bernie, but how about an actual *filibuster* over the extension of the Bush tax cuts and so much more??
-stewartm
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out Barney!
As some have said, I can’t wait to see what sweet kickback he gets for the ineffective legislation his guided through Congress.
What a piece of shit.
stewart, LOL. Correctomundo.
Smart guy. Nice rhetoric. And at one times h represented he only rational voice at congressional hearings.
But he’s so deep in the fraud ad theft that is normal in Congress now. He’s also just like O, a talker. And his actions, with all the capitulations, are in stark contrast to his rhetoric.
He’s another 1%er and he will be just fine as America goes down.
He’s a sell out now. Just like O.
BIG den, too. Cathedral ceiling and all.
Why did Deval Patrick, a Democratic Governor, gerrymander Franks out of his seat. Is this because Franks was not a lock step Obama circle player? At a time when there are but a handful of Dem leaders, Why would you get rid of one of the more aggressive members. The only campaigning the party has done so far is starting Obama’s campaign. What is the theme of the House campaign or the Senate. Just what are the Dems standing for in 2012? Have they decided taht they would be better of with a House and Senate that is Repub and Obama as President?
Does it matter? They’re all the same now. They all represent only the rich and will screw over common people at every turn. They pay lip service to the people and work for the corporate interests that fund their campaign. They don’t care about us, nor represent our interests, Republican or Democrat, it doesn’t matter.
It is no longer a two party system, but a single party system with two groups representing the same interests. Never get that confused.
Don’t weep for Frank, he’s going to cash in even more and become a Wall Street lobbyist.
He is a hero and will be greatly missed.
Those here who excoriate him don’t even know how they benefited from his service, and are quick to denigrate him. But Barney Frank provided a lone voice in the wilderness Bush years and for that, all Americans should be grateful.
Thanks to him, and to his family, for his service and their sacrifice. And why shouldn’t he cash in? All the others do, is he exempt because of Teh Ghey?
via email from The Victory Fund, some background:
*Information Regarding Openly Gay and Lesbian Members of Congress*
Barney supported and help shepherd through the 2008 Paulson-Bernancke 7.77 Trillion dollar bailout of the banks…no questions asked.
Yeah, he’ll be missed.
What will we all do without him?
Good riddance, you plutocratic fraud.
No, no, come on guys. He’s a hero. Lol.
It was funny watching some re-runs of the Daily Show with the likes of Pelosi when she was recently on. She was so proud of herself when she was speaker when 40% or whatever thought Congress was OK. Why can’t people put together the fact what happened in 2010 was the result of them doing such a crappy job?
Because *her job* wasn’t that crappy. If the bills she passed in the House would have become law, the US would be in a much better position now. The fact that they didn’t isn’t her fault, but the Senate’s.
The results in the 2010 election only show that Americans don’t understand how their own government actually works.
It’s also a lie to say it’s somehow Frank’s fault that there were no conditions on the bailout. This was the result of Bush’s veto threat. The Republicans would have preferred to create a full depression rather than accepting the conditions of the Democrats.
The Wall Street reform act cannot do much right now because the Republicans have defunded the agency. How do you propose to do government’s job with the legislature effectively banning any activity?
You mean the Senate Dems, who abided by a set of rules which they, as a majority, could have ditched or circumvented anytime they really wanted to? That makes it easy for House Dems to pose as great “progressives” when they know their colleagues in the Senate won’t do exactly that to get the job done. It gives them cover.
The cover job works both ways. Remember the public option? We had 50 or 51 Senate Dems who had gone on record of supporting it. When Scott Brown was elected and reconciliation became necessary to pass Obama’s beloved RomneyCare (previously, Senate Dems had dismissed reconciliation as “too messy” a route to get the job done, instead crying out that mean ole Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson were forcing them to pull the plug on the public option ’cause they just had to have those 60 votes) Pelosi could have put the public option back in the House Bill–and IF we really had 50 or 51 Senators who really were for us and not for the insurance industry, the public option would have been in the final product and become law and the result would have been a notch above RomneyCare. But instead, *Pelosi would not allow the public option back in*. She gave those Senators who like to give speeches and shake their fists in the air and tell us how much better they are than those awful Repugs cover.
Sorry, but that’s the way the kabuki really goes on in DC.
-stewartm
At one time, Barney was a hero of mine. But at one time I might have called myself a Yeller Dog Democrat.
As for the lone voice bit in the Bush era–all well and good. But talk is one thing, action is another. That is what is important. Twice in the Reagan Era Dems have been given large majorities in Congress and the Presidency. Twice in the Reagan Era all they have done is to *at most* is to tweak Reaganism and not do anything meaningful to roll it back. Even worse, they have also helped further enact key parts of it (NAFTA, The repeal of Glass-Steagal, and RomneyCare).
If Barney (and Bernie, and Pelosi, and whatnot) had been such great progressives they could have blocked Obama’s extension of the Bush tax cuts. They could have blocked the deficit deal and forced Obama to extend the ceiling himself (or could have gotten through a permanent removal of the ceiling). They could have forced a public option through. The very fact that Repugs do these things with the barest of majorities when it’s there turn and don’t pretend powerlessness exposes the lie.
-stewartm
Pelosi did her job. Not her fault Reid couldn’t close the deals nor could Obama.
Correction to the post: he came out voluntarily in a Boston Globe interview a few years before the Gobie scandal. He was not outed. You may have him mixed up with Gerry Studds, who was outed via a scandal.
Good riddance.
How did no one bring up his terrible treatment of trans people?
http://www.questioningtransphobia.com/?p=2455
You can praise him for ENDA all you want, just don’t include the T when talking about it. And stop calling him an LGBT politician, when all he supports are LGB.
Frank has made no bones about his reason for retirement: the new legislative map, which doesn’t make his district less Democratic, but does chop out a lot of his old CD and add in a whole lot of new people. Rather than introduce himself to over 300,000 new people at 71, Frank decided to retire instead – and leave the district open to someone who wants to start fresh.