Talk:Barney Frank

The Frank Rule

I just watched a YouTube clip of Barney Frank with Bill Maher. The quote provided in "The Frank Rule" section should apply to the Larry Craig scandal instead of the Mark Foley scandal, should it not? Unless he's just repeating himself. BadMojoDE 22:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Harvard College vs. Harvard University

Re [User:Adam Carr]'s question. Googling for

"Barney Frank" biography Harvard

shows several entries all specifying Harvard College.

Harvard College is the undergraduate institution. I am not an expert on this, but I believe that those who complete the undergraduate program receive their degrees from Harvard College. I don't think there is such a thing as "graduating from Harvard University." You can only graduate from Harvard College, Harvard Law School, etc. And I think Harvard graduates are particular about this. (Though not as particular as graduates of Dartmouth College!)

So I'm changing it back, because I'm pretty sure that Harvard College is correct, and that whoever edited it originally was just being punctilious.

(In other words, no, I don't think it's any sort of subtle deprecation of Barney Frank!)

I could well be wrong (and it's certainly not worth having an edit war over), bu that's what I think. Dpbsmith 16:17, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am happy to take your word for it. I have always assumed that Harvard was Harvard University. Adam 00:27, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Barney Frank's office only accepts emails from constituents (and I don't want to lie about my address!) but I've sent an email to the president of Harvard inquiring on this point... it will be interesting to see whether I get an answer. Dpbsmith 02:06, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It might be better if the article just says he was "educated at Harvard", because a lot of people are going to assume that Harvard College is wrong - it certainly looks wrong. Adam 02:22, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Like other Jewish Democrats, he has been a strong supporter of Israel."

Something doesn't sit right with me about this. --PrinceValium 22:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Because it describes him as a "Jewish Democrat", or because it suggests that all Jewish Democrats are strong supporters of Israel? Adam 01:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The latter. --PrinceValium 07:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you name a Jewish Democratic office-holder who is not a strong supporter of Israel? Adam 21:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

(1) Russ Feingold, who is neutral at best. See this article. (2) That's irrelevant. You should be able to support your factual assertions with outside authority, not ask me to disprove your assertion. (3) "Supporter of Israel" is an empty term. Does it mean "I support Israel's right to exist?" Or "I support every policy decision of the Sharon government." Or if somewhere in between, where? (4) Why say that he supports Israel because he is a Jewish Democrat? Do Jewish Republicans not support Israel? Do non-Jewish Democrats not support Israel? (5) "All X does Y" is a lazy way to write Wikipedia articles because they are essentially hyperbolic statements that are unsupportable by outside authority.

Amazing how when you argue with a Jew, they avid any direct discussion of your points. LOL.

Just because the statement is "mostly right" doesn't make it "all right" nor does it make it appropriate for this article. --PrinceValium 05:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to deleting "Like other Jewish Democrats," since is not essential to the meaning of the sentence. (Note in passing: Feingold's position on the evidence of that article is essentially pro-Israeli but critical of some Israeli policies. So far as I know this is also Frank's position. "Strong supporter" does not mean "uncritical supporter.") Adam 06:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

In the case of politics (and other realms), "strong supporter" is actually often taken to mean "uncritical supporter," so the assertion is misleading and certainly doesn't belong.--Gloriamarie 03:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Gobie scandal

Our article asserts as a fact that Gobie was running a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment. But one of the sources we cite says that Gobie's claims proved false. Is there any support for the accusation? At a minimum, if Frank denies it, his denial should be noted. JamesMLane t c 16:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Frank admitted to the affair. Amazing though, how Wikipedia's amazingly large gay Jew lobby can deny things that have even been admitted too. LOL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read my comment, you'll see that what's at issue isn't whether the two had an affair, but whether Gobie was running a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment. Also, please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA before maligning Wikipedia editors. JamesMLane t c 02:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Classic Re-Direct

I love how this site automatically redirects when one enters "Barney Fag". I expected a list of choices, this page being one of them, but to go straight here?? How do you know I wasn't looking for evidence of an affair between a certain purple dinosaur and a certain purple Telletubie?

"That question's a little too silly for me to answer." - Barney Frank to Stephen Colbert, Better Know A District

If you want to lobby so that "Barney Fag" no longer ends up here, then that is a noble persuit. I, personally, think that is disgraceful. But if that is your intent say so. Don't be silly. (Wikifan999 19:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

openly gay

i had to remove the portion of the intro that mentions Franks sexual orientation. you wouldnt mention a straight person being open about being straight. dthomas—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keltik31 (talk • contribs).

What about the story about Frank hosting a man who ran a gay prostitution business from Frank's home? This was a big story and deserves some attention in such an entry. 89.54.56.159 18:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Steve

Are you serious? The Gobie incident is described in the article—and it has been in the article since November 2003. By the way, it was never proved that Gobie did run a prostitution business from Frank's home. Gobie claimed to have been running such a ring, but the House Ethics Committee determined that Gobie's story was full of inconsistencies, and that much of what he said had been contradicted by third parties and phone records.--RattBoy 14:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; being openly homosexual is both unusual and notable for an active politician in this country, not to mention that frank's rule makes very little sense unless it is known by the reader that Frank himself is an open homosexual. 71.59.142.105 01:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)twelch

FWIW, mention of orientation does not come up on the Liberace page until four subsections down. [[1]], and on Elton John not until the middle of his article. [[2]]. As a compromise, can I suggest that a separate section be set up, above Controversies, discussing his sexual orientation and the effect it has had on his career. It's up to you, but it will match other famous people that way. CodeCarpenter 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Gerry_Studds' article openly mentions his orientaion. P.S. don't know the proper way to add something here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.30.76 (talk) 20:50, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

What the Gerry Studds article actually says is, "He was the first openly gay national politician in the U.S." His being the first makes it much more notable, and appropriate for the introductory section. In the case of Barney Frank, the fact should be mentioned in the body of the article, and it is mentioned -- he came out while he was in Congress, so the "National politics" section states, "In 1987, he spoke publicly about his homosexuality for the first time." I don't see the need for the introductory section to mention his orientation, any more than it mentions his religion. JamesMLane t c 21:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually he's not the first just currently the only gay man in congress Gang14 18:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I said Studds was the first, not Frank. I don't think Frank is the only gay man in Congress, though he may well be the only openly gay man in Congress. Tap with your loafers if you agree with me. JamesMLane t c 03:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Key word is openly gay because Mark Foley was gay just not open about it but unlike Larry Craig who denys it even though even his wife knows the truth. Gang14 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Male Prostitutes

For any other politician, this would be included in a seperate controversy section. is MLane working from frank's office? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.77.5 (talk) 23:04, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

No. I am not now nor have I ever been an employee of Barney Frank or the U.S. House of Representatives. The issue of placement of the material was one of the subjects addressed in the RfC, and all the uninvolved editors who commented preferred the version that put it in "National politics" as part of Frank's Congressional career. JamesMLane t c 23:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How come his scandals are deleted? Didn't he run a gay prostitution ring from his home?

No, he didn't. The facts are in the article now, as the third paragraph under "National politics":

In 1990, the House voted to reprimand Frank when it was revealed that Steve Gobie, a male prostitute that Rep. Frank had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted a prostitution ring from Frank's apartment when he was not at home. Frank had dismissed Gobie earlier that year, and reported the incident to the House Ethics Committee, after learning of Gobie's activities. After an investigation, the House Ethics Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity.

JamesMLane t c 00:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

--> That's not the whole story. Frank paid $80 for sex from Gobie, a three time convicted felon. (Wasn't one of the convictions the production of child pornography?) Also, the "personal advertisement" was more than just a typical dating service. It was an advertisement for prostitution.

Our current text says that Gobie was a male prostitute and that Frank hired him. That seems to convey that he paid for sex; I don't think any reader would assume from that context that Frank hired Gobie for yard work. Is there any evidence that Frank knew of any illegal activity by Gobie? JamesMLane t c 08:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

--> Yes. He was writing letters to Virginia probation officials on Congressional stationary on Gobie's behalf. You don't get put on probation unless you've engaged in illegal activities. Oh, and prostitution is an illegal activity as well. So obviously Frank knew Gobie was involved in illegal activities WHEN HE PAID HIM FOR SEX! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.223.136 (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a credable source for this? and please sign your posts Gang14 18:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

--> Yes, it's cited right there in the article! It's from the Washington Post, back in 1989. That's where I got my facts and quotes from. Frank has admitted paying for sex with a male prostitute he met through a personal ad in a gay weekly. Frank has admitted to writing letters (on Congressional stationary!) on Gobie's behalf to probation officials in Virginia. This is all public record. It's ridiculous to think that these facts should be excluded from Frank's wikipedia biography. Would you exclude Robert Byrd's KKK membership from his bio? I realize that there are quite a few liberal Democrats who spend a lot of time on wikipedia making their little partisan edits, but any entry on Barney Frank that doesn't include the whole "homosexual pimp and prostitute living in his taxpayer-funded Capitol Hill apartment while being paid for sex and other services by a current member of the Congressional leadership" deal would be an embarrassment to this entire endeavor. Remember, the article PRIOR to my edits made no mention of Frank paying for sex, admitted to writing those letters, having this guy work with him and basically live with him, etc. Before my edits, a reader wouldn't know what the scandal was really about. All a reader would know, basically, is that the House of Representatives refused to seriously punish Frank for some unproven stuff some guy said a long time ago. Oh, and using Media Matters as an "unbiased" source? LOL! The Washington Post is a million times more credible than the left-wing Media Matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.223.136 (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your disparagement of the article, as it stood before your edits, is inaccurate.

• "Remember, the article PRIOR to my edits made no mention of Frank paying for sex...."

It said that Gobie was a male escort and that Frank hired him. I mentioned elsewhere on this page that no one would think Frank hired him to do yard work.

• "admitted to writing those letters...."

The issue of the letters is mentioned in the discussion under the RfC. It's something that can be included if it's significant, but it must be done consistent with WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and WP:BLP. The Washington Post story says only that Frank "wrote letters on congressional stationery on [Gobie's] behalf to Virginia probation officials...." If you want to include something about it, you'd need to do some actual work to develop information establishing the significance. For example, the Post article says that Frank was paying for Gobie's court-ordered psychiatrist. If Frank merely confirmed that fact to the Virginia officials, I wouldn't see anything notable about his correspondence.

• "having this guy work with him and basically live with him, etc."

The article said that Gobie "claimed to have conducted an escort service from Frank's apartment"

And, by the way, not everyone who disagrees with you can thereby be assumed to be a vandal or biased. Please take a look at WP:AGF. JamesMLane t c 05:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In the context, it should be clear that I was referring to whether Frank knew of illegal activities by Gobie conducted from Frank's apartment. Frank says he didn't know. Gobie says he did. The article reports that the House Ethics Committee agreed with Frank's account but that Gobie disputed it. I think that's about as far as we can go. I can't imagine any kind of source that would support our taking a definitive position about "what did Frank know and when did he know it". JamesMLane t c 03:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

One quote from the very end of the article that you keep citing, "Frank denies that he knew, saying he learned from his landlord and kicked Gobie out in August 1987. Gobie supports this part of Frank's story." Gang14 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus the whole article is an interview with Mr. Gobie of course its going to be bias. Also accorrding to US House Frank is cleared so just because one man says otherwise does not make him right. It makes him a spotlight seeker. Gang14 05:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly has never committed any crimes that I know of, and he isn't an elected public official. Frank, meanwhile, has admitted to committing crimes while a member of Congress. Yet Bill O'Reilly has an entire page dedicated to his "controversies" ... but Barney Frank, who is best known nationally for the Gobie affair, can't even have a "controversies" section??? And then you wonder why so many people think wikipedia has almost no credibility, and has a decidedly leftist slant... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.233.68 (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that, wherever feasible, "controversies" concerning a public official should be integrated with the part of the article to which they most logically relate, not ghettoized in a separate section or a daughter article. If you look at Talk:Rudy Giuliani, you'll see that I've taken the same position there; I'm not trying to treat Republicans and Democrats differently. Anyway, how is it a "leftist slant" to include this information in the principal section about Frank's career in Congress? To my mind, that placement gives the Gobie incident more prominence, not less. It's the section of the article that would be the focus of anyone seeking information about what Frank had done as a public official.

O'Reilly is different because he's not a public official. Both Giuliani and Frank have records in office that should be presented, but O'Reilly doesn't. He's prominent basically because he thrusts himself into controversies. O'Reilly isn't a right-wing Barney Frank; he's more like a right-wing Michael Moore, whose "Controversies" section got so large that it was spun off into a separate article, Michael Moore controversies. JamesMLane t c 03:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

But the way the article was written, prior to my SOURCED AND CITED edits, did not mention the fact that Congressman Barney Frank has admitted to committing a crime (paying for sex). Would the Larry Craig wikipedia article not mention the fact that Craig admitted to a (similar) crime??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.240.230 (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If Barney Frank has entered a plea of guilty in a criminal prosecution, as Craig did, please feel free to add that fact to the article. For that matter, if Barney Frank has even been the subject of a criminal prosecution, as Craig was, feel free to add that.

As to your other point of loud self-congratulation, I refer you to this passage earlier on in this very thread:

Your disparagement of the article, as it stood before your edits, is inaccurate.

• "Remember, the article PRIOR to my edits made no mention of Frank paying for sex...."

It said that Gobie was a male escort and that Frank hired him. I mentioned elsewhere on this page that no one would think Frank hired him to do yard work.

Simply repeating your assertion, without replying to my response, accomplishes nothing. Your use of all caps is no substitute for actually addressing the issues. JamesMLane t c 06:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Gobie Affair

Amazing someone could write an article without mentioning it ... its the only thing I know him for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But, alas, not amazing that a right-wing ideologue would throw charges of bias without bothering to get the facts straight. The affair is fully discussed in a passage that long predates your edit. JamesMLane t c 02:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And, alas, not amazing that a left-wing ideologue would accept the verdict of a Democratic-controlled Congress' ethics investigation of a Democratic Congressman! To remove any hint of bias on your part, I assume you believe Att. Gen. Alberto Gonzalez is capable of investigating and clearing himself of any wrongdoing!

Wikipedia policy is to report facts, including facts about opinions. We therefore report the fact that the Congressional committee reached a particular conclusion. We also report the fact that Gobie disputes that point. If Gonzales issues a report about any of the significant allegations against him, we certainly would report the fact of his response. JamesMLane t c 02:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalized

Someone wrote "Liberal Faggot" by his name!

Yes and there's a picture of George Michael up there. I'm not sure how to take it down, but I'm hopeful that someone will.

Dating that is all Gang14 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Potential Candidacy?

Can someone attest to any source saying that he is considered a potential candidate for the 2008 presidency? Cyby 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt he is a candidate. In fact, I was thinking that the following on his page should be removed "On the 3rd of of February 2007, a group to draft Congressman Frank into the 2008 Presidential Race began. The group's website was launched on that day, and can be viewed at: www.freewebs.com/draftfrank2008". Anyone can set up a web site and have anyone in it to draft for president (Garfield, Mickey Mouse, Dick Cheney, Jimmy Carter), but that should not equate to them being a candidate. Let's face facts, Barney Frank would be carrying some luggage, and would be a RIPE target for a Republican party that has made a career of ripping Massachusetts liberals (Kerry, Dukakis, T. Kennedy). CodeCarpenter 16:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

He's a gay man from massachusetts plus he's only a rep. as much as i'd like to see a rep. make some waves barney just got a new chairship i think he's good where he is now Gang14 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Preparing a request for comment

TDC, I'm not going to waste any more time edit warring with a known POV warrior who constantly acts in bad faith. I'm taking this to RfC.

Here's the outline of the RfC, including the current draft of my statement in support of Version 1. If you would like to explain your reasoning in favor of Version 2, please draft something here, and then I'll post the RfC. JamesMLane t c 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"a known POV warrior who constantly acts in bad faith", As the old adage goes: when ya point a finger three are pointing back at you. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to can compare our respective histories of handling editorial disputes. I am completely confident as to how an impartial observer would assess my conduct. JamesMLane t c 20:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

With regard to TDC's good faith (or lack thereof): The version called "Version 1" herein has been in place for some time, but when TDC's unilateral change is reverted, he's unwilling to leave the longstanding version in place during the RfC. I've reverted his POV warring three times already so I'll leave it to someone else -- although, under the circumstances, his edits are arguably vandalism and the current text, in my opinion, violates WP:BLP. Because I'm closely involved in this, however, I won't revert again, but I hope someone else will. JamesMLane t c 00:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Summary

The issue concerns how to discuss Frank's relationship with Steven Gobie. Version 1 has been in place for a while. TDC has replaced it with Version 2. Below is an argument for each version, followed by the full text of each.

Argument in favor of Version 1

• The discussion belongs in "National politics", rather than "Controversies", because the House reprimand made it part of Frank's career record.
• Whether Gobie was actually running a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment is in dispute. Version 1 calls it "alleged", while Version 2 improperly states it as a fact.
• Version 1 reports the House Ethics Committee finding: "After an investigation, the House Ethics Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity." Version 2 omits this important finding, and actually asserts as a fact that Frank did know.
• Version 2 includes a lurid quotation from a personal ad placed by Gobie. It serves no purpose in Frank's bio except as an attempted smear. Version 1 states the fact that Frank answered a personal ad; we can leave the rest to the tabloids. Whether a quotation from an ad placed by Andrew Sullivan belongs in the Andrew Sullivan article sheds no light on whether a quotation from an ad placed by Steven Gobie belongs in the Barney Frank article; statements by a biographical article's subject are obviously on a different footing.

Argument in favor of Version 2

• If this does not qualify as a controversy, then I don’t know what does. There is no duplication of material here, in fact the version of the article with the info in version 2, is actually shorter than version 1.

• To the best of my knowledge, there is no dispute as to whether Gobie ran a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment, only a dispute as to whether Frank knew about it. Version does not alleged that Frank was aware of Gobie’s activities.

• As to the conclusions of the Ethics committee, that can be easily fixed.

• The quote from the personal ad certainly provides some context, and as I mentioned in the edit summary is similar in nature to the material found in the Andrew Sullivan article, where the use of it, especially by the source, is most definitely to slur Sullivan. Sauce for the goose is savory delicious sauce for the gander.

Full text of Version 1

In 1990, the House voted to reprimand Frank when it was revealed that Steve Gobie, a male escort whom Frank had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted an escort service from Frank's apartment when he was not at home. Frank had dismissed Gobie earlier that year and reported the incident to the House Ethics Committee after learning of Gobie's activities. After an investigation, the House Ethics Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity. Gobie disputes Frank's account.

The New York Times reported on July 20, 1990 that The House Ethics Committee recommended "that Representative Barney Frank receive a formal reprimand from the House for his relationship with a male prostitute" Attempts to expel or censure Frank failed; instead the House voted 408-18 to reprimand him. This condemnation was not reflected in Frank's district, where he won re-election in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won by larger margins ever since.

Full text of Version 2

In the fall of 1989, Frank acknowledged his sexual involvement with Stephen Gobie, a male escort he met through a personal ad where Gobie described himself as “exceptionally good-looking, personable, muscular athlete is available. Hot bottom plus large endowment equals a good time". Over the next two years, he and Gobie carried on an affair, during which time Frank hired Gobie as a driver using his House privileges to fix Gobie’s parking tickets. After learning that Gobie was running a prostitution ring out of his apartment, Frank fired Gobie and reported the incident to the House Ethics Committee. Frank apologized and defended himself by likening his actions to Henry Higgins in “My Fair Lady”, claiming his intention was to reform Gobie and transform him into a productive member of society. The House Ethics Committee recommended "that Representative Barney Frank receive a formal reprimand from the House for his relationship with a male prostitute" which passed with a vote of 408-18 although attempts to expel or censure Frank failed.

References

Responses

• Version 1 is better, but it needs to include the abuse of power in fixing parking tickets and the use of Congressional stationery to attempt to influence Gobie's probation officials. A more objective source should be found than the one-sided Media Matters. THF 00:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This particular Media Matters piece pulls together information from reputable newspapers (The Guardian, the Boston Globe) and from the House committee report. The citation to Media Matters is the one that's most informative to the reader. Any reader who considers Media Matters unobjective can check the sources for him/herself. JamesMLane t c 02:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The ethics report is not readily available, the LOC's online archives only go back to the 104th congress. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Ditto'ing the above -- the only serious omission I see in Version 1 is the abuse of power, as above. Suggest adding that, and then adding the version. It's nice to see a RfC so well-conducted, by the way -- usually commentators just wade into a slew of confusion and bad faith. This one is quite refreshing. --Haemo 00:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I agree with you about most RfC's, and I'll be quick to jump in here and take credit for setting up this one to accommodate uninvolved editors (with TDC contributing the argument for his version). JamesMLane t c 01:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Also agree that version one is better, and that it could be improved with including the material on abuse of power. The "tabloid tattler" writing style of version two makes it a pretty transparent violation of NPOV. --Marvin Diode 14:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• I'd go with Version 1. This is a pretty easy call to make. The quote from the personal ad is unnecesary to the article and POV. The use of the word affair clearly indicates to me a POV edit, too. The My Fair Lady reference is likewise unnecessary to the article. I'd add the abuse of power from version 2 providing it is well sourced...(but what I don't understand is under what authority a Congressman can fix parking tickets?)JasonCNJ 14:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You're absolutely right that a Congressmember can't fix parking tickets, and our article shouldn't say so. I'll confirm the details, but I think what happened is that Gobie was driving Frank's car and parked it where Gobie wasn't allowed to park, but Frank (as a Congressmember) was allowed to park, and Frank said that he had been driving the car rather than Gobie. If that's correct, Frank made a false statement but his misconduct didn't rise to the level of bribing a judge or threatening to have someone fired. Given the WP:BLP concerns, we'll need to be very sure of exactly what happened before we add it. JamesMLane t c 15:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A few quick things. Why Frank Fired Gobie in the first place.

Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress, confirmed Friday that he paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that clients were visiting the apartment. [3]

Franks own congressional website confirms that he Fired Gobie after he found about Gobie's activities in his place of residence.

The Ethics Committee concluded Mr. Frank was not aware and had no knowledge of any alleged illegal or unseemly activities occurring at his Capitol Hill apartment and also found that Mr. Gobie had exaggerated the facts to news reporters. The Committee reported that as soon as Mr. Frank found out about these activities, he fired Mr. Gobie and severed any ties to him. [4]

I realize that for legalese they have to state “alleged illegal or unseemly activities” as Gobie was never prosecuted/convicted for these, but these two sources would seem to contradict the MMFA statement that Gobie’s activities were never established because Frank himself established these allegations and found them to be credible enough for him to fire Gobie and go the the Ethics Committee .

To say that someone in a position of authority cannot fix a parking ticket is ridiculously naive. Its as easy as saying “I am so and so, I got a parking ticket, traffic ticket, DUI, my son/daughter was nabbed for some weed, please take care of it”. You don’t have to threaten, or coerce anyone to do it. So can a congressman (or cop, or mayor, or councilman) “fix” a ticket, of course they can, it happens every day.

The “My Fair Lady” is a quote directly attributable to Frank. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the tone of Version 1, but Version 2, overall, has better information. Version 1 should mention the parking tickets, and I found it confusing when I read this in the initial article because it says Gobie was fired but it doesn't say what he was ever hired for or what he was fired from! That version makes it seem that he was hired as a personal assistant or something. It's confusing. I also like the My Fair Lady quote; it's informative. If Version 2 is used, the ad should be taken out; that is too tabloid-ish and how can we know that's the ad Frank saw? Secondly, it should say that it's disputed whether Gobie ran the ring from Frank's home or not and that Gobie disputes the House resolution.--Gloriamarie 03:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)