The Anti-Sam Brownback Blog

While he had tried to stay out of the brouhaha surrounding the port deal, Senator Sam Brownback today stated that he didn’t know what to do about the sale:

“There are things that compete back and forth” in the Dubai situation, said Sen. Sam Brownback. The United Arab Emirates, home country of the proposed buyer, supports boycotting Israel in opposition to America, he said. On the other hand, “the UAE has worked with us on the war on terrorism,” he said. “This needs to have a very public review.”

Brownback is again walking a very fine line. He has enjoyed an unusual level of support from the Jewish community for his hawkish views in the middle east. This could wane if he came out in support of a company that is boycotting Israel. I do agree with him that the entire back room deal needs some very public examination.

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.

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.

In another high profile break from the Bush Administration, Senator Sam Brownback says he is reserving judgement on the Bush Domestic Spying scandal until hearings commence. The Wichita Eagle reports:

Sen. Sam Brownback isn’t sure he supports President Bush in authorizing surveillance of people within the United States, and he acknowledged Friday that one justification given by the White House troubles him.

The Kansas Republican said he doesn’t agree with Bush that when Congress authorized him to use force against terrorists following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, it gave the president the authority to have individuals’ e-mails and telephone calls monitored without first seeking a warrant.

“I do not agree with the legal basis on which they are basing the surveillance, that when the Congress gave the authorization to go to war, that gives sufficient legal basis for the surveillance,” Brownback said during a news conference at the Kansas Statehouse.

Isn’t sure. Hmmmm. So spying on American citizens, in the US, without a warrant or any sort of judicial review might be ok under some circumstances? Brownback is heading in the right direction, but his spineless pandering could get him in trouble if this turns out to be a disaster for the President. Waffling on this issue could become costly. Let’s hope so.

The Agape press reports that Senator Sam Brownback is lining up behind President Bush and supporting the renewal of the Patriot Act:

“This is something that the President believes strongly is needed to fight terrorism and for national security purposes; and I think it’s something we need to do as well. I’ve been very hesitant about it because I’ve heard a lot of complaints,” he says. Also, Brownback notes, he has not heard of anyone who has been harmed by the act up to this point. “I think this renewal is needed,” the senator says.

Of course we have not heard of anyone who has been harmed by this act. That sort of information is certainly classified. What a ridiculous argument.

[This C-SPAN interview will run on Sunday at 8pm and 11pm. My readers get it here first]

This is the complete C-SPAN interview. I will continue pulling out excerpts and providing analysis in the days to come but I also wanted to provide my readers with the full copy. I added the Blockquotes and Subsection Titles to help make it more readable. A little light holiday reading…

Why Do You Want To Be President?

BRIAN LAMB, HOST: Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, why do you want to be president someday?

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK (R), KANSAS: To be able to serve the people and to be able to renew the society and the culture. There are lots of reasons why one wants to do something like this. And I haven‘t made a formal announcement or a formal declaration. I have been traveling to a number of the early primary states.

But at the core of it, I just see that the country really needs to renew its basic structures. We have got — I chair the D.C. Appropriation Committee, and we have got over — just right at 60 percent of the children born to single mothers. A child can be born in that situation and do well, but the numbers generally move against him.

And I think we have really got to renew just these basic structures within the society. And that‘s at the core. I‘m also an economic conservative. I push things like the flat tax. I‘m a strong proponent of the military and a robust foreign policy. I‘m a full scale conservative in that sense.

But at its core I think we have to renew the society and renew the culture.

(more…)

With the John Murtha brouhaha yesterday, I thought now might be a great time to revisit some of Senator Sam Brownback’s statements during the Kosovo conflict. I am sure he was completely supportive of President Clinton…

First up, story by the AP titled “Roberts, Brownback back troops but still question mission“:

Despite voting against NATO airstrikes on Yugoslavia, Kansas Sens. Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback said Wednesday they support U.S. troops involved in the effort to end the conflict in Kosovo.

‘’There isn’t any member of Congress now who doesn’t support the troops,'’ Roberts said.

But the Republican lawmakers, both of whom voted Tuesday against a resolution backing the mission, remained critical of the Clinton administration’s reasoning.

‘’It was ill-advised, ill-timed and a very dangerous action on our part,'’ said Brownback, a Foreign Relations Committee member

Next we have a press release from Brownback on May 4, 1999:

“The situation in Kosovo is a serious one deserving of deliberation and vigorous debate,” Brownback said. “At this point in time, the administration has not provided the members of the Senate with the information needed to make an informed decision. Therefore, I will vote to table the resolution.

“What is the objective? How do we define success? Is there a coherent and achievable plan of action? What price would we pay for this in terms of potential loss of lives? What about the monetary cost? Is escalation in the true national interest of the U.S.?

Finally, the kicker from a March 31, 1999 press release. Brownback you hypocritical partisan hack:

“Our men and women in uniform have performed magnificently in such a hostile terrain,” Brownback said. “They have shown the best the U.S. has to offer. I continue to implore the Clinton administration to present a clearly thought-out exit strategy from the hostilities in Kosovo.

“I oppose the use of U.S. combat ground troops. We should not insert U.S. ground troops into yet another Balkan military conflict.

“From the outset I thought it unwise for us to be in Kosovo, and I will be pushing to get our troops out of harms way as soon as possible,” Brownback said.

Once again, Senator Sam Brownback is shown to be a partisan hypocrite. Does he support the formation of an exit strategy from Iraq? No.

Sam “Hypocrite” Brownback ‘08

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.