[Desertdog]

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/11/14/blumenfeld.htm
It's Official: Morse v. Frank in 2004
By Samuel L. Blumenfeld

It's Official: Morse v. Frank in 2004
Chuck Morse, the intrepid radio talk-show host, made it official on October 31, 2003. He will seek the Republican nomination to run against Barney Frank in the Fourth Congressional District of Massachusetts. If Morse wins, he will be the only Republican from Massachusetts in the House of Representatives. :)

Morse made his announcement before a group of supporters in front of the landmark Shawmut Diner in New Bedford, owned by conservative Phil Paleologos, who has a glass-enclosed studio in the diner where he conducts his own radio talk show.

Morse and many Republicans believe that the time is ripe for a successful campaign against far-left Frank, who has been in office since 1980-23 years. As Morse put it, it's time for Barney to go. It's time for a change.

Although at first glance this may seem like just a local election, the truth is that it has national ramifications. Barney Frank is a national figure who is considered important in the grand schemes of the Democratic party. His sister is a major official in that party. And because he is one of the few openly gay members in Congress, he has the support of gays all over the country. They will pour big bucks into his campaign to make sure that he retains his seat for the gay agenda. And as a member of the Progressive Caucus, Barney can expect great support from the far-left. Symbolically, Frank represents too much to be permitted to go down in defeat.

On the other hand, Morse can expect support from gun owners, defenders of the Second Amendment, right-to-lifers, pro-family organizations, homeschoolers, and other conservative groups. It will be a classic battle between conservatives and liberals. Morse hopes that the National Republican Committee will see the importance of getting rid of Barney Frank and replacing him with a genuine conservative. That too has symbolic significance for conservatives.

There are those who believe that Barney Frank is invincible and that his district will support him overwhelmingly. But this district voted for Republican Mitt Romney for governor. So if Morse can convince fifty percent plus one to vote for him as the much needed alternative to Frank, he will be going to Washington.

Frank's Achilles heel is his vote against Amber Alert, the rapid-response system to help find kidnapped children. The bill, introduced in the Senate by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), passed unanimously, 92-0. The House passed it, 400-25, with Barney being one of the 25 who voted against the bill.

Why did Frank vote against Amber Alert when everyone else in the liberal Democrat Massachusetts delegation voted for it? He says he voted against it because of the Republican add ons. What were the add ons? They were tough measures to punish criminals, pedophiles, and child pornographers. And it was those tough measures that Frank voted against.

President Bush signed the legislation into law on April 30, 2003. Present at the signing were Elizabeth Smart, who had been rescued from a kidnapper, and the families of other kidnapped children. That Barney Frank would vote against such a popular bill suggests that he is more concerned about the rights of pedophiles and child pornographers than the rights of families in his district who are concerned about kidnappers.

Amber Alert is one of the most popular programs enacted by Congress to protect children. It permits law-enforcement agencies and local broadcasters to send an emergency alert to the public when a child has been abducted. By getting the alert out early enough, the kidnapper may not be able to carry out his plan before being caught. According to Dianne Feinstein's office, since 1996, Amber Alert has been credited with the safe return of 43 children to their families, including a case in which a kidnapper released a child after hearing the alert on the radio.

There are other reasons why the voters may decide to throw Frank out. He was against the Bush tax cut. He opposed the war against Saddam Hussein. He voted against the $87 billion needed to carry out our mission in Iraq. Otherwise, he is one of Congress's biggest spenders for social programs. As a member of the Progressive Caucus he is in favor of anything that would lead this country into socialism.

And so if you want to help Chuck in his crusade for sane conservative representation in the 4th Congressional District of Massachusetts, you can contact him at MorseForCongress.com.

[Augustwest]

Ummmm, my understanding is that Franks voted the way he did because the RAVE Act (quarter million dollar fines for nightclub owners whose patrons take MDMA on their property) got tacked onto the Amber Alert bill.

I certainly wouldn't vote for B.F. - not even for dog catcher. But assuming my understanding of his rationale for his vote is true, I wouldn't have a lot of interest in casting my ballot for someone whose campaign is implying that the guy is a fan of child molesters either.

JMO

[Jonesy9]

I'm not in the 4th district but went to school down there and have a friend who works for BF in DC.

He'll never be voted out, too entrenched with his base. The portuguese immigrants in New Bedford and Fall River are very hard working people, couple them with the limo liberal town like Newton that make up his gerry mandered district and they'll never vote him out.

The bigot vote hasnot worked before and it won't work now. Plus, BF consistently gets voted as the smartest man in the house, even by the rubes who hate his guts. He'll take Morris apart, especially if Morris is intent on a smear campaign that has it's facts wrong.


I'm not sure what your interests are in MA state politics Desertdog. Are you from the 4th?

[Desertdog]

I am in the PRK and my interest is to get conservative, pro 2nd people into the Congress and Senate.

[Hutch]

Franks will steamroller the poor schmo. I a classic matchup between bedwetting liberal and rock-ribbed conservative in Mass, the conservative will get whupped worse then OK beat the Aggies.

[Cactus]

Much better to spend our money in a district where a conservative has a chance. Barney Frank's district is like "Baghdad Jim" McDermott's in Seattle. The only person with a chance of beating McDermott is Fidel Castro!

[Bruce H]

I'll bet the yankees thought ours in four too. Giving up before the start keep us in these conditions.

[Cactus]

Bruce,

There's such a thing as picking ones battles. Wasting your time trying to elect a conservative in a district predominately populated by socialists is a waste of time and money.

[Bruce H]

And if you admit defeat before you even start what is the point of anything? Barney Frank isn't invincible. Being in the house for twenty some years should make him real dirty. Leave the mud in the mud hole. Discuss issues and difference of opinion. Bet the democrats thought they would have both the house and senate forever. Trying shouldn't be frowned on. Not trying because you might loose should be despised.

[Don Galt]

IF the RAVE act was attached to the Amber Alert, then every person who voted for it is a betrayer of the constitution. The RAVE act is a violation of the first ammendment.

I never thought I'd see Barney Frank doing something that I could be proud of in this thread... I thought he was a lost cause.

Republicans need to realize that passing laws making things that are already crimes more draconian is not effective. And often, they end up criminalizing things that are pefectly legal-- like free speech!

[Cactus]

And Bruce, you MAY be able to beat a grizzly bear bare handed, but I'm not putting any money on it! The "point of anything" is to make a difference where you CAN. In politics, money is a valuable resourse, to waste it on a pipe dream is a losing proposition. You end up taking money away from other races that you have a chance in and the end result is that you lose ALL of those races, not just one.

Win enough of the races that conservatives have a chance at and Barney Frank becomes irrelevant, just a lonely voice in the wilderness. Strategy, man, strategy!

[Bruce H]

Cactus, attitudes like yours are what keep the Franks and McDermots in office. If nobody ever tries nothing changes or gets done.

[Gray Peterson]

They will pour big bucks into his campaign to make sure that he retains his seat for the gay agenda.

:rolleyes:

[Cactus]

Your right Bruce, the Republican Party should spend EVERY last dollar it has to defeat Barney Frank. Maybe the GOP can keep Frank's margin of victory under 40 percentage points. So what if without any money, all of the close races go to the Democrats and they regain control of the House, at least the GOP "tried"!

Open your eyes! Some districts are layed out to ensure only one party can win. THAT is what keeps them in office, not a lack of "trying". The candidates could get caught f**king sheep and still get re-elected. You think some mud will come out on Barney Frank? Maybe something like Barney's boy toy getting caught running a gay prostitution ring out of his D.C. home?

Well guess what? That happened and Barney Frank has been re-elected several times since then with overwhelming margins. Jim McDermott went to Baghdad and commited treason in 2002. He was still re-elected with over 70% of the vote. You really want to tell me it's possible to defeat these guys? They could win re-election from prison. Against McDermott the GOP candidate came in third behind the Green Party candidate. You really think a few million dollars more spent by the GOP would have made any difference in that race?

The way you defeat Barney Frank and Jim McDermott is too make sure that every close contest is won by Republicans. You increase the GOP majority in Congress and their voices are irrelevant and their ideas never see the light of day.

[Don Galt]

Having trouble getting interested since republicans are just as anti-constitution as democrats.

Someone in another thread put it succinctly: "I can't tell them apart even with a scorecard".

Can anyone name something that Barny Fife here (er, FRank) has actually done wrong?

Voting against the RAVE act is something he shoudl be proud of-- and you guys should be vowing to send the republicans who voted for it home, along with the democrats who voted for it.

I assume he voted for the unconstitutional AWB (with lots of republicans), but I assume he also voted against the "Desecration of Marriage Act" of 1996 that the republicans passed. So, that balances out in my book-- he's not worth getting upset over.

[Hutch]

Don, I can't quote chapter and verse, but in his countless TV interviews, Franks has established himself as a pure left-wing socialist idealogue, committed to the redistribution of wealth and the intrusion of the government into areas I believe it has no place in. Simply because you found one point of intersection between your (proper) concern about civil liberties and Franks' otherwise Marxist viewpoints doesn't make him a hero.

[Don Galt]

No, but your description of him as a Marxist makes him similar with most republicans.

The difference between the two parties is Republicans endorse Nationalist Socialism, while the democrats endorse State Socialism.

I'm just trying to get you guys to see some of the evil in your own party.

And the RAVE act is evil.

[Hutch]

Don, without re-visiting the "lesser of two evils is still evil" issues associated with libertarian views vs. what passes for the Republican platform, let me ask you this...

Do you really view both major parties as equally detestable? Equally to blame for the current welfare state? Is one not closer in their platform boilerplate to your views? Are you absolutely comfortable with your "a pox on both your houses" view?

Honest curiousity, hopefully expressed without rancor.

[Don Galt]

Yes, I do believe this, and I can defend this belief.

Just taking the guns issue, the 1994 AWB was an extention of the 1989 ban, which was Bush seniors doing.

The republicans are currently busting the federal budget. I don't see this as working for "smaller government, lower taxes" as they say. Even the tax cut that was passed is a minor one compared to the taxes that will have to be raised to meet the budget deficit.

Printing money is another way of raising taxes, and the Bush administration is doing it like crazy right now. Look at the M3:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/M3NS_Max.png

I have the monthly data and it shows serious growth since Bush took office, I think the line on the curve is going to show an elbow where it goes more vertical when we look back on it in a year or two.

Anyway, I don't believe the Republicans are really that different from the Democrats. On %20 of the issues, they disagree, but on %80 they don't. Bush is working on new welfare for seniors, and has failed to do anything about privatizing social security-- and I don't think he will.

But I digress into the issues... I was a liberal for a long time, and then realized that they were wrong. When I did so, I looked at the republicans and still occasionally flirt with becomming one, but there are so many issues where they are no different (And the ones where they are different, the republicans often come down on the wrong side of.)

If Bush had passed a serious tax cut, had cut government services, had responded to 9/11 with dozens of seal teams instead of two wars, and had used it as an excuse to promote private gun ownership, rather than an excuse to balloon the size of the federal government and undermine liberty by making the police more gestapo like-- then I'd be singing a different tune.

Don

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Don Galt:
Even the tax cut that was passed is a minor one compared to the taxes that will have to be raised to meet the budget deficit.

Printing money is another way of raising taxes, and the Bush administration is doing it like crazy right now.

I'm glad to see that you now admit that President Bush DID indeed cut taxes, Don! However, taxes do not necessarily need to be raised to meet a budget deficit. The budget deficit of the 1990's was not eliminated by Clinton's tax increases but by the growth of our economy. An expanding economy brings in more tax revenues without raising tax rates. Our current budget deficits are lower compared to the GDP than the deficits of the 1980's. They can be out grown easily.

Your hangup with President Bush "printing money" is nearing hysteria, Don. First off, the President does NOT determine the money supply, the Federal Reserve does. The Fed either increases the money supply or decreases it depending on economic conditions. The Federal Reserve is a board that acts independently of the President, sometimes doing the opposite of what the President wishes.

To NOT increase the money supply during a time of low growth and fairly high unemployment (like the past 3 years) would be a disaster. Right now, the nation has business' that have unused capacity to increase productivity and hire people. To keep the money supply static, or decrease it, would result in business' keeping production low and unemployment high. We would no longer be complaining about the slow recovery from the past recession but would be mired in a depression!

If they increased production at a time of low money supply, they would need to lower the prices of their goods and services because demand would be down due to limited available dollars. This could in turn lead to deflation. No one would be happy seeing the house they paid $150,000 for five years ago be worth only $100,000 today!

By the Fed increasing the money supply, business' can increase production and hire more people without raising prices because supply and demand remain constant. This is precisely why interest rates are at a near historic low, to increase money supply and stimulate growth.

If we had a situation that was reversed, production at maximum levels and full employment (as in the 1990's), the last thing the Fed would want to do then is increase the money supply. If they did, demand would soon outstrip supply and a high inflation rate would be the result. This is why the Fed raised interest rates during the 1990's, to decrease the money supply and suppress inflation.

You may not realize that you posted the M3 chart, Don. The M3 not only shows the currency and checkable deposits available, but it also include ALL deposits into money market funds, savings and mutual funds. So what your chart is showing, and you say is proof of President Bush "printing money", is nothing of the sort but is actually showing the enormous growth in the wealth of our nation during that time period. Your chart is showing a GOOD thing , Don, not a bad thing!

Balancing money supply is an art, Don. One that is practiced by the Federal Reserve Board, the members of which have forgotten more about economics than you or I will ever know. And over the last 20 years they have done a remarkable job. The normal economic high cycles have been extraordinary and the normal low cycles have been quite minor.

[Don Galt]

Cactus--

You make a number of errors.

First off, the president has not cut taxes. He passed a tax cut. That is not the same thing. The total revenue the government is taking from citizens is going up, not down. Cutting taxes would involve cutting the amount of income that is taken by the government both thru direct taxation and inflation. His tax cut does little, and is overhwelmed by the inflation and tax increases that are going to be necesssary to meet the budget.

Secondly, the president does control the Federal Reserve. The Reserves chairman is appointed by the president and answerable to him. The administration has a variety of officials who effect monetary policy... or have you forgotten about the Department of the Treasury.

The idea that increasing the money supply spurs economic activity is wrong, it is, in fact, exactly the opposite. Increasing the money supply devalues the capital companies would otherwise put into economic growth and investment. Literally, it is taking money out of their pockets at the time when their revenues are low to begin with. I think you're giving me Keynsian (Eg: marxist) economics here....

Regarding deflation: Sure, everyone would be happy to see their house be worht "only" $100,000 dollars if that $100,000 had the purchasing power equal to $1,000,000 had when they bought their house. In other words, the house would go down in price, but UP IN VALUE.

Your talk about prices is playing around with numbers. You confuse the price of something with its cost. The cost is the economic cost in relation to everything else on the market. Price can reflect cost, but when you distort the money supply, you don't get to say that the price / cost relationship has stayed the same as it was before you inflated the money supply.

IF you look at the chart, notice what the money supply did in the 90s. This is the time you say there was "full employement" and "the last thing they would do is increase the money supply". Starting in 1995 about, it went from $4,000 billion to $7,000 billion. More than a %50 increase.

Yes, I posted M3, because I am showing the total quantity of dollars out there-- I am showing the devaluation of the dollar that has occured and is accellerating. It is NOT a good thing.

The idea that the money supply has to increase for the economy to grow is false. FALSE.

Money can get more valuable, just like every other item in the economy... in fact, before we went off the gold standard, for many periods it did get more valuable.

Balancing Money supply is NOT an art. It is a crime. The federal reserve board does not know much about economics. But they do know how to steal. The federal reserve system is a massive counterfiting scheme... and they make a lot of money by printing money and then *renting* it to the government.

You are operating under some basic economic fallacies put forth by keynsians. They do this to try and justify socialist ideas. After all, if the government can print money without immediate consequences, its a lot easier to fund all those socialist programs.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/WCURRNS_Max.png

The above is just the cash component of M1. It is the pure money that is printed... but it does not show all of the picture. That cash is sold to banks, which keep it in deposit and write loans against it. They have to keep %10 reserves. Which means for every dollar they can loan out 9. So the effect of this increase in the cash supply is magnified by 9 at that first step. Further down in the system, the magnifications are even greator.

Look at that curve, its on its way to going vertical. Notice how there was a bump in late 1999 as Y2K approached and money was printed because people were stockpiling? and then for a few months in 2000 it was flat.... but notice that when it picks up growth again, its much more vertical than it was before. The line from 1995-1999 is about 15 degress less vertical than the line from mid 2000-present.

In a government that was operating within budget, and honestly, that line would be flat. Maybe a little bit of variation as the economy varies, and slow growth as more gold and silver are pulled out of the ground, but otherwise flat. Not the exponential curve we see here. Remember, this is just money, not stocks, and other leveraged value.

All of that increase in the chart represents money (literally value) stolen from people--- it is a form of taxation just as much as the income tax is.

A trivial cut in the income tax, measured against this massive printing of money is not "cutting taxes".

[Don Galt]

Oh, by the way, if the increase in the M3 in the late 90s was due to a good economy, as Cactus says, then that would explain why it went up from 1995-2000. But it would not explain why it went up %30 from 2000 to the present--- aperiod where we've had a dead economy.

[Hutch]

Don, reflect a minute on a couple of aspects of your reply to me. You were disappointed that Social Security wasn't privatized. Which party do you think is more philosophically disposed toward that goal? You are cheesed that while tax rates have been cut, overall revenues continue to climb. Which party is more likely to actually embrace a really-truly smaller level of government? Seems to me that you fault the Republicans for straying from what is viewed as their ideological roots, but don't fault the Democrats for adhering to their statist platform. Why is that?

Could it be.... SATAN????:p

[Don Galt]

You misunderstood. I explained why the republicans do not have my trust (And I dont' consider those goals their ideological roots-- they are merely the propaganda they feed to voters.) I have plenty of complaints against the democrats.

Both parties are socialists-- both parties are doing exactly what the faction within the party in power at a given time wants to do.

Bush wants to go adventuring in Iraq and so he's ignoring his campaign promises.

If you think the republicans are even going to propose getting rid of social security, you have far more faith in them than me. IF they were to do that, then they would be acting true to their "ideology".

The point I'm making is that thier claimed ideology and their ideology are two different things.

The democrats, being more openly socialist are closer to their claimed ideology in action than the republicans.

Seriously,-- can you name anything signfiicant the republicans have ever accomplished that fits their claimed ideology, in the last 20 years? And I mean, the congress passing a law and the president signing it (eg: the people we get to vote for).

Only thing I can think of is Reagan cut a chunk of government regulation. That freed up the economy a bit, but it has since grown back. And reagan's tax cut was a net tax increase--we're still paying for his deficit spending.

At the same time, the size of the government shrunk under Clinton. Now Bush is undoing that. Which party is the party of smaller government?

Clinton worked for a "balanced budget" though he used smoke and mirrors to get it.... but Reagan and Bush 2 are both massive deficit spenders. You need spending to grow the size of the government.

On this board, pointing out the failings of democrats is not going to get much more than agreement-- there's not much point in discussion.

"Read my lips: No New Taxes" is a promise that was broken-- and on top of it, it was the *WRONG PROMISE*. The promise should have been to cut taxes AND spending. Republicans are getting by with cutting taxes and spending like crazy and inflating the money supply to pay for their spending. This is just a more shady way to raise taxes, that's all.

They are both socialist parties.

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Don Galt:
First off, the president has not cut taxes. He passed a tax cut. That is not the same thing.

ToMAYto, ToMAHto! You know exactly what I meant Don, you are simply being arguementative. I specifically said he cut TAXES, I did not say that the President cut tax revenues. I expected more from you than word games.

Originally posted by Don Galt:
Secondly, the president does control the Federal Reserve. The Reserves chairman is appointed by the president and answerable to him. The administration has a variety of officials who effect monetary policy... or have you forgotten about the Department of the Treasury.

The President does NOT control the Fed. He appoints the chairman to fill a term. He has no firing power over the Fed Chairman who works independantly, the President can only replace him after his term expires. The Sec. of Treasury has no say in the money supply, that is the perview of the Fed.


Originally posted by Don Galt:
The idea that increasing the money supply spurs economic activity is wrong, it is, in fact, exactly the opposite. Increasing the money supply devalues the capital companies would otherwise put into economic growth and investment. Literally, it is taking money out of their pockets at the time when their revenues are low to begin with. I think you're giving me Keynsian (Eg: marxist) economics here....

No Don! I'm giving the economic theory shared by virtually every reputable economist outside of the von Mises Institute. When everyone says it's daytime and you say it's night; you should question your observations, not everyone elses.

Originally posted by Don Galt:
The federal reserve board does not know much about economics..

Don, with all due respect you are an ideological fanatic. You think that you have the franchise on the truth. You don't just think your theories are correct, you KNOW they are.

I'll let you get back to ruminating about how everything our government does is unconstitutional and controlled by socialists and Marxists. I have a life to lead and prefer to spend it where I can have an effect.

[Don Galt]

If I were wrong, you could make a logical argument. Not play word games. Yes, you started playing word games by pouncing on my mention of Bush's tax cut as proof that I was wrong in talking about tax revenues.

You did exactly what you accuse me of in your last posting.

I'm sorry that you think that Milton Friedman is not a reputable economist. I'm sorry you think the Nobel Institute which has been giving the prize lately to Chicago and Austrian school economists is "not reputable".

I'm sorry that you cannot listen to my arguments and come back with a counter argument, instead of resorting to calling me a fanatic.

Yes, I do believe what I believe. But I am also defending it with logic and facts. If you wish to sway me, please provide some.

But I think you would be hard pressed to find an economist who believes the government printing money is not inflation.

I find it interesting that you guys are all too happy to throw out the socialist word as an eptith toward democrats, but when I show how the ideology they are exercising and the ideology the republicans are exercising is really socialist in nature-- when I make a logical argument for it-- you act like I'm being unreasonable.

But the facts and logic are on my side. Take this as a challenge-- go figure out where I am wrong, and show it. Maybe you'll teach me something. Or maybe you'll learn something.