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

  • News
  • Thread starter Rach3
  • Start date
  • #1
Rach3
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.

Kansas Republican close to deciding on presidential bid

"I think there's room for a full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative in the field," Brownback said. "I fully agree that other people have much higher name identification than I do. No question about that. But I think what you have to look at is the policy positions they get out once you have an effective campaign."
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/elections/16061252.htm

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]:

To date, Brownback has put forward no specific legislation to address the problems he sees with pornography. But he mentioned several possible options, including a law that would encourage families to file civil suits against porn producers if they felt harmed by the material, a strategy that might put Brownback at odds with many of his Republican peers, who have championed restrictions on civil litigation. He also talked about a federal public education campaign, along the line of anti-drug advertising, to inform Americans about the dangers of watching explicit sex.

Finally, Brownback spoke of possibly expanding the law to ban certain types of pornography beyond the current obscenity statutes. But he was repeatedly cautioned by one of the witnesses, Rodney Smolla, the dean of the University of Richmond School of Law, who said that any such effort would likely be shot down by the courts. The Supreme Court, Smolla explained, has been very clear that pornography is entitled to First Amendment protections, unless it is declared obscene.
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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brownback#Views
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Rach3
Here's one of his Falwell-like opinionations:

Brownback said:
And he says the youngest voters, ages 18 to 25, are the most pro-life cohort. They were born, he says, when abortion rates were highest, so "many of them feel they're the survivors of a holocaust: one in four of their compatriots are not here.''
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8017004/site/newsweek/page/2/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
14
0
a reagan conservative?

Sean Hannity will be pleased.



I seriously doubt this guy will get the nod over Guilianni.
 
  • #4
Evo
Mentor
23,146
2,742
Brownback said:
And he says the youngest voters, ages 18 to 25, are the most pro-life cohort. They were born, he says, when abortion rates were highest, so "many of them feel they're the survivors of a holocaust: one in four of their compatriots are not here.''
That's insane, what kind of person would even think up something that nutty? :bugeye:
 
  • #5
174
0
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
 
  • #6
Skyhunter
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?).
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.
 
  • #7
67
165
[
That's insane, what kind of person would even think up something that nutty? :bugeye:
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:
  • #8
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
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.
 
  • #9
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,850
2,115
Brownback visited refugee camps in Sudan in 2004 and returned to write a resolution labeling the Darfur conflict as genocide, and has been active on attempting to increase U.S. efforts to resolve the situation. He is an endorser of the Genocide Intervention Network, which called him a "champion of Darfur" in its Darfur scorecard, primarily for his early advocacy of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act.

After the September 11 terrorist attacks, he worked with Senator Ted Kennedy on legislation that imposed stricter entry standards at the borders of the United States. Brownback worked with Congressman John Lewis to help win placement of the African American Museum on the National Mall in Washington, DC.

Brownback is also trying to introduce price transparency to the US health care industry, as well as a bill which would require the disclosure of Medicare payment rate information.
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.
 
  • #10
13
0
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:
  • #11
48
0
I think he's a dirtbag and is unlikely to win the GOP's nomnation.
 
  • #12
13
0
I think he's a dirtbag and is unlikely to win the GOP's nomnation.
I'll agree with the second part of your statement but,
why do you think he's a dirtbag?
 
  • #13
48
0
"Dirtbag" may be a bit too strong. "Ultra-conservative religious nutjob" may be a more appropriate label.
 
  • #14
13
0
Is it the least bit surprising to anyone in the world that _KANSAS_ is producing the anti-evolution candidate?
 
  • #15
13
0
"Dirtbag" may be a bit too strong. "Ultra-conservative religious nutjob" may be a more appropriate label.
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.
 
  • #16
Evo
Mentor
23,146
2,742
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.
Those replies are usually from aides, even though he may have signed it.

HE'S A RELIGIOUS NUT.
 
  • #17
48
0
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:
  • #18
13
0
Those replies are usually from aides, even though he may have signed it.
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:
  • #19
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45
Those replies are usually from aides, even though he may have signed it.

HE'S A RELIGIOUS NUT.
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:
  • #20
russ_watters
Mentor
19,781
6,183
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?)
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.

Anyway..
He is about as socially conservative as anyone with political aspirations can get in the US...
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....
Does he have enough support from the conservatives to become the Republican nominee in 2008?
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.
 
  • #21
russ_watters
Mentor
19,781
6,183
BIG question-mark on the "may". Autopens have been around for many years, and have probably gotten a lot better over the years.
Most of my boss's letters are signed via an image file due to the fact that we mostly email pdfs these days. But still, I occasionally send out letters signed by my boss that he never reads. I am quite literally putting words in his mouth, but he has authorized me to do that.

When I get my P.E. and become a partner, I'll have real legal authority to speak for the company and I'll be signing the letters myself, but until then I speak through him and he accepts the responsibility for what I say.
 
  • #22
13
0
Sorry Russ, I'm warning ahead of time to let you know that I disagree with a considerable portion of your reply.

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.
Then the letter should make this perfectly clear. Afterall, such an omission caused me to form an incorrect opinion about this senator.

Anyway.. 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.
Not at all. Someone with "pure political calculations" would change his "opinions" to reflect popular opinion. Such a person would also base his "opinions" on polling data. That isn't so with Brownback. He has ALWAYS been a hardcore religious conservative. And he took a stand on immigration policy that goes totally against what conservations and the majority of the voters want in their candidate. Interestingly Bush holds the same immigration policy, and look at how much his approval rating dropped (no doubt a huge part of that is also Iraq).


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?
NO I don't think he has the support. I hear more support for the moderates like McCain or Rudy. But then again, 2008 is still long ways away.

His actions appear to be carefully calculated to get that support from those who run the party.
Although I am not disagreeing with you here, I'm also not holding it against Brownback. Every senator does that. I'm not arguing that he doesn't have political aspirations. It's just that my opinion of him is that he does not "waffle" on issues based on their popularity at any given time.


I don't know enough about this guy to have an opinion on whether he is further to the right than Bush
I'd say he is more conservative than Bush.


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.
I agree with everything here.
 
  • #23
russ_watters
Mentor
19,781
6,183
Sorry Russ, I'm warning ahead of time to let you know that I disagree with a considerable portion of your reply.
That's what politics is....
Then the letter should make this perfectly clear. Afterall, such an omission caused me to form an incorrect opinion about this senator.
Well, I tend to think it is a pretty standard practice, so no special notice would be necessary.
Not at all. Someone with "pure political calculations" would change his "opinions" to reflect popular opinion. Such a person would also base his "opinions" on polling data. That isn't so with Brownback. He has ALWAYS been a hardcore religious conservative.
Well, again, I think the key here is that the average conservative votor is not in lock-step with the party elite. Clinton would be the test-case for the other side: he really did form his positions based on polling data (which isn't far from where their votor-base it). Conservative politicians, on the other hand, sometimes follow the party-line for the money, though the party-line isn't necessarily what their votor-base believes in.

Regardless, that isn't really the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make is that some politicians (Bush) are ideologically driven while some politicians (Clinton) will do or say whatever their votors or party want to see/hear. I think this guy is the latter. He's probably a pretty hardcore conservative, but you don't switch religions like that because your beliefs change, you do it for the political benefit.
And he took a stand on immigration policy that goes totally against what conservations and the majority of the voters want in their candidate. Interestingly Bush holds the same immigration policy, and look at how much his approval rating dropped (no doubt a huge part of that is also Iraq).
Well, again, Bush is in-line with the party elite (which is how he got where he is), and I think this guy is following that line.
NO I don't think he has the support. I hear more support for the moderates like McCain or Rudy. But then again, 2008 is still long ways away.
Support from whom? Certainly you aren't saying McCain has support from the party elite, are you?
 
  • #24
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
Certainly you aren't saying McCain has support from the party elite, are you?
Doesn't Fallwell count? I think that's a big one - one that Brownback would wish he had!
 

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

  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
9
Replies
201
Views
11K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
55
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
8K
Replies
120
Views
7K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
60
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
53
Views
6K
Top