05-14-2019 01:57:15 PM -0400
05-09-2019 05:01:30 PM -0400
05-09-2019 01:41:48 PM -0400
04-18-2019 10:46:35 AM -0400
04-18-2019 10:18:40 AM -0400
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.


The Battle for America 2010: Might Barney Frank Lose?

Frank’s positions are well-known, and consistently leftist. Frank voted for each Obama spending bill, all of which have inflated the deficit. He does not vote for a strong military. He voted against reforming the UN and against making the Patriot Act permanent. His pro-abortion votes have earned him a 100% rating from NARAL, and his consistent opposition to law enforcement and his positions on security matters have earned him a 93% percent rating from the ACLU. He votes for affirmative action and is considered to have an anti-business record.

Frank is for an open border at a time when Arizona is fighting a two-front war. He is for gun control and for a narrow reading of the Second Amendment that has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

Brown ran a focused three-point campaign. He promised to vote against ObamaCare, for an end to profligate spending on borrowed money, and for a strong defense. Brown exuded an aura of sincerity, and his role as a military lawyer presented him as a serious defender of the nation.

Bielat’s similar arguments will carry more weight than Brown's -- ObamaCare has passed, and the Republican predictions of vast cost overruns in health care, familiar to Massachusetts voters, are reality. Obama is still pushing Democrats to approve further spending, and the economy is not responding. The U.S. has suffered terrorist attacks -- even though Obama tried to spin the events as the crazed actions of individuals -- and the common sense of voters has labeled them as accurately.

Brown’s election highlights a critical lesson. His campaign built a foundation on his identity, and slowly gathered momentum until people began to believe he could make a good showing. He proceeded to establish that he could win, and his campaign exploded when people believed that he would. The Democratic establishment in Massachusetts lost its aura of invincibility somewhere along the line, a tipping point. No one can foresee if Bielat can create a campaign capable of reaching a tipping point, but he now has precedent.

There is a substantial Jewish vote in Newton, Brookline, and Sharon, three of the cities where the Democrats have dominated. Jewish voters supported Obama with a 75% vote. The election in the Fourth may give an indication of whether or not Jewish voters will hold Frank and the Democrats accountable for the humiliation heaped on Israel and Netanyahu by Obama, and for the cavalier way Democrats have treated Israel regarding Gaza while Israel is in existential danger. Will Jews draw the relevant historical lesson of the 1930s, when all were quiet while the Nazis prepared the Holocaust and a naïve policy of appeasement failed?

Independent voters who selected Frank when Bush was president now realize that their earlier vote had far more consequence to their lives, to their finances, and to the United States than they foresaw. If they fear the continued consequences of a Democratic-controlled White House and Congress with a veto-proof Senate, they will vote for “change.” If Jews credit the explicit genocidal promises of Ahmadinejad, they will be fearful. If both Jews and independents are fearful, they will dial “911 U.S. Marines,” and Sean Bielat will answer the telephone.