The Anti-Sam Brownback Blog

I have been asked what issues Senator Brownback might run on in a republican primary and what he needs to do between now and then to bolster his support. While I obviously am not included in Brownback’s strategy meetings, we can glean from his public appearances what he will attempt to use.

1. First we’ll hit abortion, his most obvious issue of affection. Brownback makes the issue of abortion work for him. Practically all of his name recognition outside of Kansas is within anti-abortion groups. These religious organizations also make up a large part of his speaking tours. On this issue Brownback is more extreme than any other likely primary opponents. In the next two years I expect Brownback to begin utilizing this network of passionate conservatives to raise money and awareness for his campaign. Of special interest is Brownback’s friend from college, Chuck Hurley, who now is the president of the Iowa Family Policy Center. Hurley has already endorsed Brownback for president and has vowed to use his organization to spearhead a Brownback Iowa caucus effort.
2. Next is the group of people he loves to hate. Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgender people have been constantly attacked by Brownback and his supporters. His current pet project, the anti gay marriage constitutional amendment, is only the latest in a long history of discriminatory acts. This issue also feeds his hardcore religious conservative base and goes hand in hand with abortion. Brownback has been grooming this issue ever since the Christian fundamentalist were ignored by the white house after Bush’s 2004 election. They were promised action on the amendment and Bush went with Social Security destruction instead. Now Brownback is trying to give them what they want, and they will love him for it.
3. “But wait!” conservatives will scream. “He’s not all social issues! What about his work in the Sudan?” Sudan is Brownback’s attempt at gaining the moderate vote. Putting the compassionate back into the conservative, so to speak. I have in the past applauded the attention that he has helped to bring to the situation there and I will continue to agree with him (gasp!) when he says more needs to be done. I will be interested to see how much he focuses on the Sudan in the next two years. I think it is an issue that will play well with moderates, but he will have to show he can make a difference there and not just make speeches.

Those are the big three. Beyond those we have the issues that he has not pushed as of yet, but probably will.

1. On defense, Brownback toes the GOP party line. While this has served him well in the past, this could become a problem if public opinion about the war in Iraq continues to plummet. Look for him to become more hawkish on Iran. He has connections to several Iranian separatist movements and has already vocalized his wish for regime change.
2. On the economy Brownback is know to be friendly to corporations. His largest donor by far is Koch Industries whose owners founded the Cato Institute. He is ranked 100% compliant with the Business-Industry Political Action Committee. This could be a true stealth fundraising angle for him. The Koch brothers could conceivably raise ungodly amounts of cash for Brownback’s campaign. I doubt Brownback will make business issues more public.
3. According to the pundits, immigration is likely to be a hot button issue in 2008. Brownback currently favors a guest worker program similar to that which the president supports. This is not popular with the conservative base. I think Brownback will begin to change course on immigration to come more in line with the extreme views of his potential voters.
4. On energy he again tends to take the party line. He supports drilling in ANWR and increasing domestic oil production. He is also a ethanol brown noser for the obvious (Iowa) political reasons. I expect he will begin to focus more on energy in the next two years. Speaking on ethanol in Iowa will give him a jumping off point for a more substantive policy outlay.
5. He has addressed health care with rural health provider concerns but has not spoken out on policy issues that would help the average American pay for health insurance. I have no clue what his health care policy will entail and how he will address rising costs for employees and employers alike.

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.