The Anti-Sam Brownback Blog

From the Washington Post:

“The judicial branch preserves its legitimacy by refraining” to make political decisions in its rulings, said Brownback, who used his statement to defend Alito’s record and make his own points on abortion.

“You can claim whatever you want to on pro-life and pro-choice, but the right to an abortion is not in the Constitution,” he said. “This is a proper issue to consider.”

More on his opening statement later tonight.

While Senator Sam Brownback may talk like a fiscal conservative, his continued support of the War in Iraq shows that he is no spendthrift. The Guardian reports:

The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.The study, which expanded on traditional estimates by including such costs as lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict as well as the impact on the American economy, concluded that the US government is continuing to underestimate the cost of the war.

How has Brownback suggested we reduce the financial cost of the war? Don’t buy the new state any garbage trucks:

Brownback also said he supported President Bush’s request for $87 billion for military operations and reconstruction of Iraq, but that half of the $20 billion earmarked for reconstruction should be in the form of loans to the country instead of grants.

“Iraq has the potential for a strong economy in many sectors and the availability to repay this,” Brownback said.

He also said the budget request probably could be pared down by $2 billion by eliminating such items as construction of human rights memorials and the purchase of garbage trucks at $50,000 apiece.

Somehow I don’t think cutting garbage trucks from the budget will make up $1 - 2 trillion. Sam Brownback is more than willing to mortgage our future on a war that we were led into by a lie. He is no fiscal conservative.

While on ABC’s “This Week” Senator Sam Brownback lied Sunday morning when he claimed Democrats have taken money from Jack Abramoff:

(Off-camera) How well did you know Jack Abramoff and did he ever ask you to take action on behalf of his clients?

SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (REPUBLICAN)

He never asked me to take any action on behalf of any of his clients. I met him once over a breakfast or a lunch meeting and that was the only personal contact that I had with him. Obviously he was raising lots of money from Native American tribes and trying to move up fast and rapidly. I think he gave money to nearly 80 members in the United States Senate so he was spreading it amongst Republicans and Democrats. And I’m hopeful that the trail is followed and let’s pursue this and let’s pursue it aggressively so that we can show the people good, honest, clean government. (From Lexis Nexis Archives)

Brownback should come clean and admit no Democrats took money from Jack Abramoff. If what he said was not what he meant to say, he should learn to be more precise in his wording. As the statement stands, this is a lie.

Having nixed the Miers nomination, Senator Sam Brownback now has the Supreme Court nominee he wants. Samuel Alito appears to be the sort of right wing lemming that will attempt to advance the conservative agenda for the next 30 years. Obviously a Brownback dream. You would think the good Senator could come up with his own talking points for his news show appearances. Apparently not.

BROWNBACK: …Things do change, and positions change. He’s advocating for a position in a conservative administration at that time — in an administration. Now he’s going on the Supreme Court of the United States if approved by the United States Senate.

And these are different jobs altogether, and they have different parameters with them all together. And he’s not going to answer questions about how he’s going to rule on a Roe-type case, and he shouldn’t.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But let me stop you there. That wasn’t a matter of personal opinion. He was expressing his belief, his constitutional interpretation. Why should someone who is going to sit on the Supreme Court not have to answer what his interpretation of the Constitution is? I mean, that was a very straight statement.

BROWNBACK: Well, because these are very active cases that will be in front of him. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she’s general counsel for the ACLU at one point in time. And does she go back to her positions she took then to say, This is how I will decide a case on the Supreme Court ? That’s just not the way the system works, nor is it, because then you’ve got people on the bench that have predecided the case. And that’s not where you get fair justice on the facts and the law, both involved in each of these cases.

We should determine about judicial philosophy and issues of judicial restraint and views toward the overall look of the Constitution, which I think are fully appropriate. And we need to look at the 15 years of written opinions he’s got out there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, I’m a little surprised that you’re so comfortable with this, because you expressed some discomfort during the John Roberts hearings that he wasn’t being more forthcoming about his interpretation of the right to privacy and whether Roe could stand.
And it doesn’t worry you at all that he’s not willing to stand by a position that I’m sure you agree with?

There’s (more…)

This morning on ABC’s “This Week”, Brownback went on the offensive against Bush on the issue of spying:

Brownback, on ABC’s “This Week,” said the Senate Intelligence Committee also will hold hearings - closed to the public - on the NSA program.

“I think this is something that bears looking into and us to be able to establish a policy within constitutional frameworks of what a president can or cannot do,” said Brownback, considered a presidential hopeful for 2008.

He said he was “troubled by what the basis for the grounds that the administration says that they did these on, the legal basis, and I think we need to look at that far more broadly and understand it a great deal.”

More from Think Progress:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You don’t think the 9/11 resolution gave the president the authority for this program?

BROWNBACK: It didn’t, in my vote. I voted for that resolution. That was a week after 9/11. There was nothing you were going to do to stop us from going to war in Afghanistan, but there was no discussion in anything that I was around that that gave the president a broad surveillance authority with that resolution.

Brownback seems to believe this is a winning issue and has begun to outright oppose the president. That last statement Brownback made sounds like a Democratic sound bite. Good for him, and I agree that President Bush does not have the right to spy on American citizens without a warrant.

This fits into my thoughts about Brownback’s presidential strategy. He is so unknown on the national stage, that he needs to have some prominent differences from the Bush Administration to get news coverage. This certainly counts. Additionally, this is just a precursor to the amount of airtime he will get during the Alito nominations. More on that in the next post.

Senator Brownback will likely attempt to use this break from the white house to paint himself as a maverick who speaks his mind and goes with his convictions. I don’t think the American people will buy that.

While I blogged about Brownback and the Bush spying scandal back on Dec. 23rd, the story is getting new prominence from a front page post at Dailykos. I was going to write another blurb, but Terry over at Nitpicker beat me to it. Here is his explanation for Brownback’s definance of the Bush Administration:

…I think he was pushed into it because he wrote an article entitled “A New Contract for America” for Policy Review in 1996, in which he argued that Republicans ought to:

” redesign the executive branch to be consistent with its constitutional authority instead of one still operating on 20th-century, centralized government experiments. We will replace the 14 cabinet-level agencies, which impose more than half a trillion dollars worth of regulations upon the U.S. economy each year, with perhaps nine, and restrict their regulatory powers under constitutional principles. The Constitution does not authorize at the federal level, for example, many of the activities within the departments of Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Education, and Energy.”

He also made some “protect the Constitution” noise, but he’s said nothing against Bush until now. This was the point that would have opened him up to all kinds of arguments against his honesty. You do have to give him credit here, but, on the other hand, he’s made no moves to actually implement any of the changes he argued for in the article. Does he remember, I wonder, when he was going to decrease federal spending?

Go read the entire post, and then add Nitpicker to your blogroll and / or bookmarks. The man knows his stuff.

Just a heads up to those early Sunday Risers and to the Tivo enlightened. Brownback will be on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos. This is at 9:30 am in my area but feel free to check your local listings. The official blurb:

This Sunday Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., discuss the upcoming Alito hearings, the Abramoff lobbying scandal, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Middle East peace process.

Brownback must keep trying to raise his name recognition in any way possible. He is likely to become a regular on the Sunday Morning circuit.

The Iowa political caucuses are a seamy, insider driven way of selecting a presidential candidate. In order to have a chance, you have to grease a few palms. Brownback, along with several other GOP 2008 presidential prospectives, made the first moves by contributing to republican Jim Nussle’s campaign for governor. Hotline On Call reports:

Another presidential money chase item: here’s what we can tell you about WH ‘08 GOPers and their contributions to Rep. Jim Nussle’s (R) IA GOV campaign. Nussle’s report is not public until 1/19.

The campaign reportedly asked every potential WH ‘08 candidate with a leadership PAC for money. All but three gave. The exceptions: Bill Frist, George Pataki and Mitt Romney, who is now chair of the RGA. Here’s who did give to Nussle in ‘05:

Candidate’s PAC Amount

George Allen $10,000
John McCain 5,000
Sam Brownback 2,000
Rick Santorum 1,000

Brownback is serious about competing in Iowa.

A new poll commissioned by the Kansas Coalition for Lifesaving Cures confirms Senator Sam Brownback’s extreme position against stem cell research is far different from the position held by the Kansas voters he represents. According to the survey:

Pollsters said that Kansas voters approved using stem cells from the somatic transfer process 69 percent to 28 percent, approve of stem cell research from leftover fertility clinic embryos 66 percent to 33 percent, and favor allowing somatic transfer research in Kansas 70 percent to 27 percent.

“The voters’ support of embryonic stem cell research exists both before and after they hear major arguments made by opponents and supporters,” Steeper said.

Who is this Steeper guy? Must be some bleeding heart liberal pinko commie. On the contrary:

The Kansas poll was overseen by Fred Steeper, a renowned Republican pollster who has served President Bush, his father and Presidents Reagan and Ford.

There goes that line of defense.

So how is this issue going to play nationally in the next three years for Brownback? Not well. I have already discussed the impact of stem cell research on the New Jersey Governors race and I continue to believe it will be a defining issue in the 2008 presidential race.

Brownback has a problem. He is more radical than a majority of Kansans. His is toast in 2008 unless he moderates his views.

Never forget: Brownback Hates Children With Diabetes