The Anti-Sam Brownback Blog

As the Lawrence Journal World reported last Thursday, a group calling themselves “Kansas Traditional Republican Majority” has formed to counter the extreme conservatives in the state. Some of the interests they are fighting against have close ties to Senator Sam Brownback.

The Kansas Traditional Republican Majority Website states their mission:

We are addressing a broad spectrum of issues and our doors are open to people of differing views, cultures, backgrounds, and approaches. We are reaching out to disenfranchised Republicans - people who are distressed by the politics of hate and intolerance that too often dominate the Party - and to others attracted by a thoughtful, centrist approach to Republican politics. Such an approach allows us to explore multiple perspectives without fear in order to reach reasonable, fair-minded, fiscally sound, and responsible solutions. It demonstrates inclusion, respect, reason and, yes, compassion.

Unlike some of the screaming fundamentalist radicals, from the sound of this statement it appears I would actually enjoy discussing issues with this new group.

The connection to Brownback is their opposition of two groups that are close to Brownback and his past campaigns. The Journal World explains:

Those groups named by KTRM included the Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity.

Both are anti-tax groups linked to the state’s top Republican officeholder, U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, who is one of the most socially conservative lawmakers in the country and has indicated he may run for president, and Wichita-based Koch Industries, which funds numerous conservative and libertarian think tanks and whose owners have been longtime movers and shakers in Kansas politics.

David Koch, executive vice president of Koch Industries, helped found Americans for Prosperity and serves as its board chairman. He was the Libertarian Party candidate for vice president of the U.S. in 1980.

The Koch family have been longtime supporters of Brownback, whose former chief of staff David Kensinger runs the Club for Growth. Both the Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity were active in many of the same legislative campaigns in Kansas last year.

Brownback’s extensive ties to the Koch family will be covered in a series of posts in the future. Suffice it to say that by opposing the Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity, KTRM is directly opposed the Senator Brownback. In this case I’ll consider an enemy of my enemy a tolerable acquaintance. If nothing else, they should make the Kansas GOP primary races in 2006 wonderfully bloody.

President Bush’s Healthy Marriage Initiative seems to appear any time republicans are worried about support from their Christian Fundamentalist base. Given the subject matter, it should be no surprise that Senator Sam Brownback is involved. The Washington Times reports:

“Tragically, government spends hundreds of billions of dollars each year to pick up the pieces when marriage fails, yet does virtually nothing to preserve or strengthen marriage,” Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) said in a letter sent Thursday to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-IA).
“The healthy marriage initiative represents a bold departure from this pattern of failed policy,” said the letter, which was signed by Republican Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, Jim Talent of Missouri, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida and David Vitter of Louisiana.

A veritable who’s who of panderers to the religious right. How does this legislation encourage marriage? The Heritage Foundation explains:

The proposed program would seek to increase healthy marriage by providing individuals and couples with:

• Accurate information on the value of marriage in the lives of men, women, and children;
• Marriage-skills education that will enable couples to reduce conflict and increase the happiness and longevity of their relationship; and
• Experimental reductions in the financial penalties against marriage that are currently contained in all federal welfare programs.

Of course all of these claimed benefits would only be for heterosexual couples. No need for gay or lesbian couples to attempt to get the benefits. This is par for the course for these intolerant republicans. Certainly Brownback doesn’t like gays and lesbians. The HRC is quick to comment on the rank hypocrisy:

“We think it’s ironic that the administration is spending $1.5 billion to support this [marriage initiative] while at the same time considering a constitutional amendment that would deny the security and stability and protection of marriage to literally millions of same-sex couples who are in lifelong devoted, committed relationships and want to embrace those rights,” said HRC spokesman Mark Shields.

I don’t have a problem with the counseling services the legislation would provide, even though I’m sure most of the money would go to churches which would discriminate and proselytize. Frankly, churches have taken the lead on marriage counseling and I wish more secular options were available.

My main concern with this government meddling in marriage centers around the last point of financial incentives. I don’t believe the government should be in the business of monetizing marriage. It seems to me that a decision to marry based upon potential financial benefits is built upon a shaky foundation. Besides seeming crass, would republicans really want people marrying for the money?

Additionally, why should women women who have abusive boyfriends be financially encouraged to marry them? Shouldn’t a strong woman who walks away from abuse be rewarded for trying to provide a better environment for her children? Why penalize women in this way?

Obviously this legislation is pandering towards a certain set of voters who don’t care about women’s or GLBT issues. Brownback certainly fits that category.

First, a disclaimer. At least Brownback is talking about the issue of African women’s health care. There are many Democrats who haven’t given the issue 15 minutes, much less trips and press conferences. Discourse is a step in the right direction. That being said…

Brownback yet again shows rank hypocrisy by highlighting the plight of African women with fistula while neglecting to mention his support for the Global Gag rule which restricts third world women’s health care in the name of not sponsoring abortion. His journal entry for Dec. 3rd reads in part:

Today I visited a hospital operated by Doctors on Call for Services Hospital (DOCS) in Goma, DRC. The hospital services patients of all kinds, from traumatic car accident injuries, to war wounds, to children suffering from malaria. One of the major programs at DOCS treats women suffering from obstetric fistula, a condition that results in incontinence, often times from rape or prolonged child birth.

Brownback neglected to mention how the Global Gag Rule (which he supports) has decimated many other clinics. First, a refresher on what the Global Gag Rule entails:

The Global Gag Rule penalizes non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in 56 countries that receive family planning assistance funds from the U.S. These NGOs are prohibited from providing abortion-related services, including counseling and referrals, and/or lobbying on abortion issues.

So not only are these agencies not allowed to use US money to provide abortions, refer women to other abortion provider or even provide care to women who have sustained injuries from a back alley abortion but they are also prohibited from using their own money in those ways as well. When President Bush signed an executive order at the beginning of his presidency making the gag rule US policy many clinics decided that not informing women of all of their choices is unethical and so gave up their US funding.

So what does this have to do with fistula?
(more…)

Over at Thoughts From Kansas, Josh mentioned that whenever he heard about the movie “Brokeback Mountain” the phrase that sprang to his mind was “Brownback Mountain”. He took his ideas to photoshop, and the rest is history:

Photoshop makes me so happy! Great job Josh!

Spurred by a Wichita Eagle article and a need to procrastinate studying for finals I thought I would bring up the topic of immigration.

Republicans seem to think immigration will be the next gay marriage style hotbutton issue. They believe that it will fire up the base and continue to peel away middle class voters from the Democrats.

There’s just one problem. Many business interests, traditionally the part of thier base that holds the purse strings, are opposed to stricter immigration controls. They know that many areas of our economy are resting upon the backs of cheap, often exploited, illegal labor.

As a result of this trepidation, Republicans are split on what type of reform is needed. President Bush has advocated a guest worker plan that would allow existing illegal immigrants to keep working here for a certain amount of time and for a fee. Other Republicans want to clamp down on the border and work on deporting existing illegal immigrants.

Senator Sam Brownback falls closest to the Bush guest worker plan. Why does he hold this position? Brownback is supporting the meatpacking industry in Kansas which is staffed almost completely with illegal immigrants. This stance has not won him many friends in the emerging anti-immigrant movement:

Americans for Better Immigration gives Brownback a D-

Numbers USA also lists many negative (in their view) Brownback votes on immigration

Both of these groups are hardcore “deportation” advocates.

While the pundits continue to claim the issue of immigration will be huge in 2006, I have yet to see significant attempts to put through legislation. I don’t think Bush will push the issue since it will divide republicans and he hardly has any political capital to spare.

[Update] Check out this Bloomberg story on immigration and the California 48th district special election. More speculation that anti-immigrant republican candidates will attempt to move the issue in the 2006 congressional primaries.

University of Kansas Professor Paul Mirecki who recently became famous due to disparaging remarks he made about intelligent design was hospitalized this evening after being beaten by two men who apparently referenced the controversy. The LJ World Reports:

Kansas University religious studies professor Paul Mirecki reported he was beaten by two men about 6:40 a.m. today on a roadside in rural Douglas County. In a series of interviews late this afternoon, Mirecki said the men who beat him were making references to the controversy that has propelled him into the headlines in recent weeks.

“I didn’t know them, but I’m sure they knew me,” he said.

Mirecki said he was driving to breakfast when he noticed the men tailgating him in a pickup truck.

“I just pulled over hoping they would pass, and then they pulled up real close behind,” he said. “They got out, and I made the mistake of getting out.”

He said the men beat him about the upper body with their fists, and he said he thinks they struck him with a metal object. He was treated and released at Lawrence Memorial Hospital.

If true, and we have no reason to assume otherwise at this point, this incident is a turn for the worst for Kansas political debate. We may be the laughing stock of the nation from time to time (and certainly deserve to be) but I didn’t think that conservatives would resort to violence.

This chills me to the bone. Beyond concern for Professor Mirecki, I now have to wonder about my safety as a blogger. Should I look pursue methods of self defense? When I started this political blog I was warned by a few people that I might face repercussions in my future professional life. I never thought I would be considering the possibility of facing violent repercussions.

[note: While this is not directly Brownback related, I felt it important as a pregressive KU student to spread the word]

[Update]

I think a poster on Dailykos put it well:

I think I must have missed the part in the Bible where Jesus said “Yay, blessed are those who kicketh ass and taketh names. Be ye so-called intellectuals or faggots, my grace will not be shed for thee, but a bludgeoning in thine eye in it’s place”.

Whoever committed this crime may call themselves Christians, but obviously are not upholding the teachings of Jesus Christ. As progressives, we need to remember that not all Christian Fundamentalists would stoop to this level of brazen violence in order to enforce their ideas. Hopefully, many will condemn this attack.

Over at the DCist, Martin writes:

Steve Forbes, editor-in-chief of Forbes Magazine, advocated a federal flat tax in his 1996 and 2000 presidential bids. Brownback may be prepping for the same — he is a rumored candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

This is exactly what Brownback is planning.

He already has the social conservative vote, they will vote for Brownback just knowing what they know now. However, the fiscal conservatives are clamoring for more favorable policies from republican leaders. A flat tax proposal would go long way towards building a coalition of fiscal and social republicans.

This is an interesting strategy. Brownback already has the social radicals, now he appears to be targeting fiscal conservative radicals as well. The more extremist the views held by a voter, the more likely s/he will participate in a primary. This could be a canny strategy for the primary battle that is bound to be hotly contested and crowded with similar candidates.

For those of us who know Brownback, his pandering to radicals is no surprise. He consistently defends positions that are at odds with the vast majority of Americans.

Senator Sam Brownback: Raging Radicals Unite!

Looks like Senator Sam Brownback may be tied to the Jack Abramoff scandal. Why am I not suprised? Bloomberg reports:

When the U.S. Interior Department rejected a $3 million grant in 2003 for an Indian-tribe client of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the Indians doubled their political donations to Congress — and got their money’s worth.

A joint House-Senate committee agreed later that year to insert the grant in legislation funding the Interior Department for 2004. The Saginaw Chippewa tribe gave $556,730 to U.S. lawmakers in 2003-2004, up from $237,980 in the previous two years, and more than one-fifth went to 17 of the 30 committee members.

Burns received more money from Abramoff and his tribal clients than any other lawmaker between 2001 and 2004, taking in $136,500. Dorgan ranked fourth, with $54,000. Two other members of the conference committee were among the 10 biggest recipients: Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who received $43,000; and Republican Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who got $37,000.

“It looks like there is some connection between the contributions and the activities, if in no other way than the timing and the way it was done, in conference,'’ said Noble, now executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group that studies campaign finance.

This all wouldn’t matter much if Abramoff was going to keep quiet and take a hit for everyone else. Thankfully, the New York Times is hinting that a plea agreement could be right around the corner. The Republican culture of corruption may finally see the light of day.