Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas running on anti-evo, anti-stemcell '08 Prez. campain

  1. Nov 20, 2006 #1
    Social conservative uprising? Brownback is back

    Something that hasn't been discussed too much, amid the 'apparent' Democratic sweep, is whether the whole USA has been moving farther to the right, Democrats included (Harold Ford, anyone?). I'm amazed to see that Sam Brownback's 2008 presidential bid is actually getting serious consideration.


    Brownback's issues emphasis is heavily into fundamentalist-inspired social conservatism. You may know him as the guy who tried to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/11/11/porn_hearing/index_np.html [Broken]:

    http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/11/11/porn_hearing/index_np.html [Broken]

    Indeed, we all know that pornography is major public health issue, every bit as menacing as AIDS.

    The candidacy of this man is the exertion of the Christian right's influence, the effects of a extreme religious views of a rapidly growing segment of the population. It is a very worrying direction.

    Some more of Sam's policy-influencing kooky ideas, from the unique souls of single-celled embryos, to his certainty that evolutionary biology is all wrong:

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 21, 2006 #2
    Here's one of his Falwell-like opinionations:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8017004/site/newsweek/page/2/ [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  4. Nov 21, 2006 #3
    a reagan conservative?

    Sean Hannity will be pleased.

    I seriously doubt this guy will get the nod over Guilianni.
  5. Nov 21, 2006 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's insane, what kind of person would even think up something that nutty? :bugeye:
  6. Nov 21, 2006 #5
    the religion based anti-sex ideas are a far bigger danger
    as a major public health issue
    then any film book or picture of sex
    this guy is an american tali-ban
  7. Nov 21, 2006 #6
    Harold Ford lost. Sherrod Brown won by a landslide. I think that if anything the shift is back to the left.

    I think the Dem's would welcome Brownback into the presidential race.
  8. Nov 22, 2006 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The conservative right will do and say anything to keep in favor with the Religious right. And the religious right will believe just about anything that they hear. "Take my sister-in-law, Please".

    We were better off in the last century when the religous fundamentalists were just opposed to booze and dancing:rolleyes:

    There is an old joke: "Why can't Baptists have sex standing up?"

    Answer: " It looks too much like dancing":smile:

    Am I in trouble?
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2006
  9. Nov 22, 2006 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I hope that we are seeing a shift to the middle; it will just take time to sort out. I'm hoping that the extreme right and neo-cons will be correctly perceived for decades to come as the downfall of the Republican party.

    As one of the talking heads recently commented, the dems had gotten too liberal. He cited one example of the dems specifically targeting transexuals as part of a campaign. Now, it may be true that transexuals tend to be democrats, but you won't win elections by wooing the transexual vote. In any case, I know that many democrats have been far too liberal for my tastes. Unfortunately, I despised the alternative.
  10. Nov 22, 2006 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    from Rach3's post - I can support him on these views. The other areas where he expects the government to restrict a persons life are views I cannot support.
  11. Dec 5, 2006 #10
    The great state of Kansas is producing the anti-evolution, anti-embryonic-stemcell-research candidate for the 2008 US Presidential campaign.

    http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/12/04/cq_2004.html" [Broken] about the story.

    His name is Samuel Dale Brownback (http://brownback.senate.gov/english/pressoffice/officialphotos.htm" [Broken]) and was formerly the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space under the Commerce Committee.

    He is about as socially conservative as anyone with political aspirations can get in the US... well, except for the fact that http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Sam_Brownback.htm#Immigration".

    Some may find it interesting that a few years ago Brownback http://www.slate.com/id/2069194"at the behest of his recently desenated (yes, I just coined it!) friend Rick Santorum.

    What does everyone think about Brownback's policies regarding science, etc?
    Does he have enough support from the conservatives to become the Republican nominee in 2008?

    "www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Sam_Brownback.htm"[/URL]of his votes on various isuues in the Senate.

    [I]Note: In the interest of full disclosure, I am not Sam Brownback, but I do live in Kansas.[/I]

    (I hope I have remained politically neutral and factually correct in describing Sam Brownback.)
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  12. Dec 5, 2006 #11
    I think he's a dirtbag and is unlikely to win the GOP's nomnation.
  13. Dec 6, 2006 #12
    I'll agree with the second part of your statement but,
    why do you think he's a dirtbag?
  14. Dec 6, 2006 #13
    "Dirtbag" may be a bit too strong. "Ultra-conservative religious nutjob" may be a more appropriate label.
  15. Dec 6, 2006 #14
    Is it the least bit surprising to anyone in the world that _KANSAS_ is producing the anti-evolution candidate?
  16. Dec 6, 2006 #15
    I'll give you that (with reservations on the "nutjob"). I once wrote to him, and he gave me a VERY prompt and quite frankly, very thoughtful, reply. I was very impressed that a senator would take that much time to reply to a person he's never heard of or seen in his life.
  17. Dec 6, 2006 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Those replies are usually from aides, even though he may have signed it.

  18. Dec 6, 2006 #17
    Here's justification for the "nutjob" label: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.520:" [Broken]

    Also note these related (and SCARY) remarks of his co-sponsor Sen. Shelby:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:2:./temp/~r109VScLOh::" [Broken]

    People like this are dangerous. On second thought, he is a dirtbag.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  19. Dec 6, 2006 #18
    Say it isn't so! The author of the letter even referred to himself as "I" (Sam Brownback) on numerous occasions.

    Hmm, investigative journalism should check into this practice, if it hasn't already been done.
    (anyone have any links concerning such a deceiveful practice by Senators?)
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2006
  20. Dec 6, 2006 #19


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    BIG question-mark on the "may". Autopens have been around for many years, and have probably gotten a lot better over the years. Somewhere around here I have an "autographed" photograph of Alan Shepard. If the first American in space had personally autographed every photo that we school-kids requested, he wouldn't have had time for anything else. I didn't know at the time that a machine signed his photo - I only found out about 20 years later when I showed the photo to an autograph collector.

    Rumsfeld had his staff use an autopen to sign letters of condolence to the families of military personnel killed in action. When he was found out, he said that he would sign them personally. Apparently, there were too many troops KIA, and signing all those letters was a burden on him. :mad:
    http://www.house.gov/doyle/newsrel/rumsmeetingiraq.htm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  21. Dec 6, 2006 #20


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It isn't deceitful and there isn't anything wrong with it, as long as he is aware of the letters and their content - signing the letter essentially just means that he approves the content. It is simply not physically possible for someone in his position to write letters.

    I write and sign letters for my boss all the time.

    He may be conservative, but the actions you listed paint the picture of someone who'se motivations are pure political calculations that don't necessarily have a whole lot to do with his own personal beliefs. Such a person is not a leader (yet) and is dangerous because they assist the party in pushing a party adjenda regardless of what typical conservatives want. Which brings me to....
    Largely incorrect and irrelevant question - the key question is: Does he have enough support from the party elite to become the 2008 nominee? - Just ask John McCain which is more important. I don't really have a good answer to that question, but what I can say is what I said above: His actions appear to be carefully calculated to get that support from those who run the party.

    A secondary question (making yours more relevant) is is it possible for someone so far outside the mainstream to win based soley on party support as opposed to popular support? Again, McCain/Bush is the test case for that. I don't know enough about this guy to have an opinion on whether he is further to the right than Bush, but perhaps more important than where he stands is whether another candidate will have enough popular support to overcome his (or whoever the party's pick will be, since you can bet he'll be to the right of the manstream) party support.

    And McCain may yet be that guy. The combination of Republicans who liked McCain and Democrats who liked him/hated Bush almost got McCain the nomination in 2000. Though a failure, that fight increased McCain's notariety to where he can start a campaign with some momentum instead of needing to build it as he goes along.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook