The Anti-Sam Brownback Blog

According to the Boston Globe, the stem cell bill that recently passed with bipartisan support in the House will likely come up in the Senate next month. The Globe reports:

Frist, a heart surgeon, is ‘’uneasy about the content of the House bill,” but is open to bringing it up for a vote along with other legislation that deals with stem cell research, Call said. The content of any competing bills is not yet clear.

Call said no agreement has been reached yet, but aides to Democratic senators said yesterday that Frist has assured them a vote before the Senate breaks for the summer at the end of July.

Uneasy? He should be. The issue of embryonic stem cell research is an absolute winner for the Democratic party. A CBS News poll in late May found that 58% of Americans support embryonic stem cell research. The breakdown by party is similarly stacked against the republicans: 50% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 57% of independents support the research. The PR value of this issue is easy to exploit. There are millions of Americans who are suffering from medical conditions that could be cured by this research. While we are arguing about clumps of cells, countries like South Korea and France are pulling ahead in the search for cures.

However, considering Senator Frist’s presidential aspirations, this is big trouble. The republican religious base hates this bill. They will not support anyone who votes for this legislation. On the other hand, In the general election he would need to be on the other side of the issue. Whoever is the Democratic nominee in 2008 will happily use stem cell research as a very effective wedge issue.

As you well know, Senator Brownback is planning on opposing the bill. The Boston Globe article continues:

Conservative senators, led by Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, have vowed to mount a filibuster if the House-passed bill reaches the Senate floor. Embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of embryos, sparking opposition from many in the antiabortion movement.

I imagine we will hear some filibuster bluster from Brownback this weekend as he talks at the National Right to Life Convention.

As reported in the Washington Times, Senator Sam Brownback is supporting a tax on battered women who leave their abusive husbands. Brownback is the chairman of the Senate subcommittee in charge of Washington DC’s budget and is looking for ways to “encourage” low income families to stay together. The article explains:

…the program would reward low-income couples who remain married and contribute to a savings account. Those contributions, [Brownback] said, could be matched with federal funds at a 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 ratio.

“It’s a part of an incentive to getting them into a program to work on developing goals, work habits and a productive citizenry,” he said.

At first glance this seems like a decent idea. We all know that working class families often struggle to pay the bills. Why not help them save many for the future?

The insidious part of this proposal is that it only applies to families that have a married mother and father. Single mothers on the run from abusive husbands? Either get re-married or forget about assistance. Single father whose wife died in a car accident who is trying to raise three kids and work two jobs? He either can get remarried immediately or lose out on the benefits. Loving, committed gay parents who work hard to provide a good life for their adopted foster children? They get nothing.

In short, a system to provide all low income workers with a government augmented savings account would be a wonderful idea. A system that only rewards people who are in a heterosexual marriage is wrong. It amounts to a tax on battered women. Senator Brownback should be ashamed.

A few days ago I wrote about the Christian extremist movement that Senator Brownback will have to rely on to be successful in a GOP primary. Today, a story in the Boston Globe postulates a situation that would greatly assist Brownback by inflaming his base:

[Judge Roy] Moore, a Republican who enjoys widespread support in his home state [of Alabama], is poised to run against a vulnerable Republican governor. If he wins, some party strategists speculate, he could defy a federal court order again by erecting a religious monument outside the Alabama state Capitol building. With the 2008 presidential race looming, President Bush would then face a no-win decision: either call out the National Guard to enforce a court order against a religious display on state grounds or allow a fellow born-again Christian to defy the courts.

Just imagine how this would excite the religious right. This would make the Schaivo debacle look like a tranquil mid-afternoon tea. This would also codify the nagging doubt many religious conservatives have about the republican party’s willingness to go along with their radical agenda. This environment would be tailor made for Senator Brownback to make a serious primary run. The amount of religious activism for him would be monumental. Remember, so far he is the most extreme GOP presidential contenders. Anything that makes the GOP religious base angry and restless is good for him.

On the other hand, a scenario such as this would hopefully galvanize a vocal resistance to the religious right. What moderates are left in the GOP might be able to swing the primary vote to a less radical contender. Electability might come into play. However, considering today’s media frenzy surrounding the primarys, if Brownback managed to win Iowa and South Carolina and didn’t get totally crushed in New Hampshire he would have a very good chance of becoming the nominee.

It is unclear what this defeat will mean for the Senator’s presidential aspirations. The key will be noticing how Senator Brownback explains himself to the anti-choice activists. Especially during his address at the NRLC Conference. I would imagine he will allude to higher political pressure and defer some of the blame onto his presidential rival, Senate Majority leader Bill Frist. He also likely will diplomatically defer some of the blame onto the Whitehouse. This would fit the narrative that is starting to seep into the religious conservative consciousness. Many religious activists are beginning to feel like they are used to win elections and then discarded until the next cycle. A prime example usually cited is the President’s emphasis on the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. During the fall of 2004 Bush often talked about the need for an amendment. However, once he was re-elected the talk of pushing an amendment faded and the activists were told “now is not the time.” They don’t care if now is not the time. They wanted it this spring.

It is this subtle sense of betrayal that Senator Brownback will have to use in order to defeat other, more moderate, GOP candidates in a primary. He has to feed off of a feeling of buyer’s remorse that the extreme right of the party is already beginning to vocalize. These will be his voters. Brownback is known as a constant in the religious right. He always votes the correct way. He constantly speaks to the activist base. Here in Kansas he can be very extreme without endangering his seat.

When addressing his base he will have to spin this defeat as a valiant effort against overwhelming odds. Can he get away with it? I think so. There is no one currently running for president who is more conservative or who has a better religious right pedigree. Senator Sam Brownback is pure-bred extremist.

Senator Sam Brownback caved. There really is no other way to describe it. The Associated Press is reporting that Brownback is lifting his hold on the nomination of Julie Finley to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. She is a long time GOP activist and also happens to be pro-choice. Which you would think would have no bearing on the OSCE considering it doesn’t deal with social policy. As mentioned in previous posts however, Senator Brownback blocked her nomination purely out of pandering to his base. The AP story gives Brownback’s explanation of the released hold:

“I had a very good meeting with Ms. Finley yesterday, and we had an opportunity to address concerns I and others have regarding the OSCE,” Brownback said in a statement. “I am satisfied that she will well represent the interests of the United States.”

This is not how Brownback wanted this situation to end. My gut feeling says that this was a stunt pulled specifically for the National Right to Life Committee Conference which is being held in a week. Brownback has recently announced that he is going to be a featured speaker. The NRLC was a major opponent of Finley. Had Senator Brownback succeeded in blocking her nomination he would have further cemented his support among the religious right of which the NRLC is a major component.

The Washington Post editorial page chimes in regarding Senator Sam Brownback’s undemocratic blockage of Julie Finley and calls him out on the national stage:

The move may please Republican anti abortion activists, who have launched a campaign against Mrs. Finley, demanding that the president withdraw her nomination. But the hold is repugnant, on both procedural and substantive grounds. If a filibuster is at best a controversial way of deciding policy, allowing a single senator to have effective say over whether to hold a vote on a particular presidential appointment would seem completely unacceptable.

It will be interesting to see how Senator Brownback reponds to this very public, national criticism. Being a Senator from Kansas, he is not used to the level of scrutiny that comes with being a presidential candidate. Perhaps this will spur the Kansas media to pay attention to the hypocrisy. Anything that reduces ‘ole Sam to less of a diety in Kansas is a good thing.

So Senator Sam Brownback has been caught in yet another astonishing act of hypocrisy. After railing against Democrats for holding up some of President Bush’s nominees, he is now holding up in committee the nomination of Julie Finley to be U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This is one of President Bush’s nominees. Senator Brownback is apparently angry that she is pro choice. The ridiculous part is that her position has nothing to do with setting abortion policy. He opposes her nomination solely based upon her personal views.

Opposition is fine. If he wants to vote against her in the full Senate, that is certainly his right. However, bottling her up in committee so that she never gets a vote is extremely hypocritical. Doesn’t Brownback believe all such positions receive an up or down vote from the senate?

Apparently, this is even too much to swallow for some republicans. From RedState.org, a popular republican political blog:

On the issue of Bolton’s nomination, we were particularly upset when Senator Boxer placed a hold on his vote (since lifted) because it represents an even more odious version of the filibuster- one that can be used by one Senator only. Sen. Brownback should certainly not be immune to criticism for his use of this undemocratic procedure, even though the great majority of Republicans may agree with his justification. He was behind the President on the nuclear option. Why he now chooses to violate the spirit of that principle is incomprehensible, no matter how pro-life he is.

This brazen act of hypocrisy seems to have rattled even seasoned partisan hacks. It should. Brownback clearly needs to explain his position on this matter. Calls to his Washington D.C. office were never returned.