The Anti-Sam Brownback Blog

I have written before about Brownback’s attempt to garner support from Christian fundamentalist Bush voters who feel their issues have not been addressed by the current administration. An Agape Press article from today is a good example of that strategy:

…Pro-family groups are charging the White House with not going enough to push for a Federal Marriage Amendment. The amendment will have to wait until next year for action, and supporters are asking the White to do more. Senator Sam Brownback agrees. “I hope we get the White House to engage much more aggressively on the marriage amendment,” the Kansas Republican says. The amendment was passed in subcommittee by a narrow party-line vote, but has not make it to the floor for action yet. Brownback maintains that is where President Bush can make a difference. “It’s my hope that next year, even in the [president’s] State of the Union message … that he will encourage and state strong support for defining marriage in the Constitution as a man and a woman,” he says. Brownback feels that until the president takes a more aggressive stance, the amendment will languish — and the courts, not the people, will define marriage.

This is an issue that has incensed fundamentalists. While Bush campaigned hard on the intolerance amendment, the moment he was elected the issue was shelved. Many church leaders feel forgotten at best and deceived at worst. Senator Sam Brownback hopes to capitalize on this feeling and promise the fundamentalists that their issues will be heard should he be elected President.

This strategy has become markedly easier to pursue as Bush’s poll ratings have fallen. While criticizing the President just a year ago would have been political suicide for a republican presidential hopeful, today it seems required. Both John McCain (on the issue of torture) and Tom Tancredo (immigration) have vocally disagreed with the President in the past few weeks.

The next year will see Brownback continuing to argue that Bush is not socially conservative enough for his hardcore supporters. I wouldn’t be surprised to see an Internet campaign (ala Howard Dean) that would attempt to join together fundamentalist Brownback supporters from across the nation for fundraising support.

While some of this is conjecture, I know for certain that Brownback will continue his assault on the GLBT community. He seems to truly enjoy promoting intolerance and bigotry.

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.

From the AP:

A conservative push to ban gay marriage through a constitutional amendment gained renewed momentum Wednesday after a Senate panel led by Kansas Republican Sam Brownback narrowly approved the measure.

In a 5-4 vote along party lines, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., cast the deciding vote allowing the amendment to pass to the full Judiciary Committee and a likely vote in the Senate next year. Specter said he opposes the amendment but feels it shouldn’t “be bottled up” in committee.

The measure would need to be approved by two-thirds of those voting in the House and Senate and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

I haven’t sat down and run the numbers yet, but I can’t imagine it will have the votes in either chamber. This is yet another stunt by Senator Brownback, the republican Senator running for president with a theme of hatred and intolerance.

From 364Gay:

(Washington) Senate Judiciary Committee chair Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said Tuesday that he will vote in favor of moving forward an amendment to the Constitution to prevent same-sex couples from marrying even though he opposes the measure.

The proposed amendment is scheduled for a vote in the judiciary sub-committee on Wednesday.

Specter said that despite his personal opposition to the bill he believes it should go to the Senate floor for a vote.

“I do not think it ought to be bottled up in subcommittee or committee,” Specter said.

The amendment is sponsored in the Senate by Sam Brownback (R-Kan). Brownback, expected to be a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, is chair of the sub-committee.

Brownback has made passage of the bill a key issue in this session of the Senate - a move seen by analysts on Capitol Hill as an attempt to garner support among conservatives for his presidential aspirations.

Indeed. Throwing out some fresh meat for the base. The big news is not that Brownback is pushing this amendment, but that Specter is allowing it to move forward. The timing for a full Senate fight would be ripe for the 2006 elections, and campaigning for state ratification could coincide with the 2008 Presidential campaigns.

I must say though, I’m not convinced it will get out of committee.

As you may know, anti hate crimes legislation is winding its way through Congress. Think this would be a no-brainer for unanimous support? Think again. The inclusion of a provision that would include “gender identity” as a class of protected persons under the legislation has proved quite controversial. Senator Sam Brownback, consistent supporter of hate, explains his reasons for opposing anti hate crimes legislation:

“I do not believe it is good, nor do I believe it necessary, for us to pass hate-crimes legislation — which is thought legislation,” he said. “We should punish the crime. We shouldn’t try to ascertain the thought going on at the time of the crime.”

I had to laugh after I read this. Brownback went to law school. He should know that accepted law already attempts to ascertain the thought going on at the time of the crime. Ever heard of voluntary manslaughter and wondered how it is different from second degree murder? From Findlaw:

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the “heat of passion.” The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable “heat of passion” or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender’s obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.

What is the difference? The state of mind of the killer at the time of the offense. If the court is able to divine the state of mind in this case, why wouldn’t it be able to do the same in a hate crime case?

If Senator Brownback believes it is acceptable to target a person for a violent crime solely because of their gender identity, then he should just come out and say it. We already know that he is a hateful person. Trying to hide behind a legal argument that doesn’t hold water just makes him look like hateful fool.

Another day, another example of Brownback’s intolerance. A few readers have e-mailed me about Senator Brownback’s recent hearings on the anti gay marriage constitutional amendment that is yet again languishing in the Senate. Frankly I thought it was a pretty big non-story… but I am more than happy to give the people what they want. The Washington Blade reported:

“Just one year ago, the issue of marriage was center stage in the national political debate,” said Brownback, who chairs the subcommittee. “When the people spoke at the voting booth last November, they approved—by decisive majorities—every one of the 11 state amendments protecting traditional marriage.”

Brownback said he called the hearing to discuss what he called “popular support” for protecting traditional marriage and to examine how a constitutional amendment is needed to stop “judicial activism” by state and federal courts,which he said have threatened the institution of marriage.

I don’t think this amendment is going anywhere this year. The WB article mentioned some staffers believe it may be pushed next year as a way to fire up the conservative base, and I think that is certainly possible. Not that apathy from his fellow Senators is likely to stop Senator Brownback from holding hearings. Every time he chairs a hearing on promoting intolerance he gets a mention in the Christian press. That is all he is after. He doesn’t want this to come to the forefront of national media yet because he needs this issue to be fresh for late 2007 and early 2008. This is one of his only issues and there is no way he is going to waste it. For now, he is just tending the fires of religious hatred.

Today (Friday) Senator Sam Brownback will be in Ohio to attend a rally for Reformation Ohio, a group that wants to register 400,000 conservative voters in that state. The associated press reports:

A second conservative Christian movement is planning a foray into politics built on its success in helping gain passage of a gay marriage ban and the election of President Bush in Ohio last year.

Reformation Ohio, created by a suburban Columbus minister, the Rev. Rod Parsley, is a four-year plan to bring 100,000 people to Christianity, help low-income families and recruit 400,000 new voters.

It scheduled a Statehouse rally on Friday expected to be attended by U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, and U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican.

What the story leaves out is Rev. Rod Parsley’s sketchy background. The Reverend is a “Big Money” Christian who focuses on financial wealth and giving plenty to his church. He claims no political affiliation and claims he is a “Christocrat”. He also has some interesting ideas about Islam. The Columbus Dispatch reported on April 17th 2005 (via lexis):

Parsley’s book advocates fighting “judicial tyranny” expressed in rulings such as in the Terri Schiavo case in Florida; opposing homosexuality and abortion; ending poverty and racism; and challenging Islam, which Parsley calls “the anti-Christ religion.”

Additionally, The Columbus Dispatch reported on August 21st 2005 (via lexis):

In his book, he also condemns Islam as being responsible for “more pain, more bloodshed and more devastation than nearly any other force on Earth.”

CoughBullshitCoughCrusadesCoughCough

The real question is what kind of credibility would Brownback have as President if he keeps company with people who hold views like those? None. You think Muslim nations are wary of President Bush’s motives? Brownback associates with pastors who want to destroy Islam.

The political reasons for this visit are obvious. Parsley is a powerful advocate with the group of voters most likely to identify with Senator Brownback. A tacit endorsement some time down the road would be a boon to Brownback’s campaign.

Additionally this should put to rest those that say Brownback is throwing his hat into the 2008 contest solely to advance his pet issues (such as Tancredo). While Ohio used to be relevant in primaries, super Tuesday is less super because of the large number of states that have leapfrogged Ohio and now have primaries in February. The only reason to pander to an Ohio preacher in 2005 is to lay the ground for a general election in 2008. By campaigning in Ohio Senator Brownback is tipping his cards and showing he’s all in.

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.

In a move surprising no one, and outraging every non-bigoted person in the country, Senator Brownback has declared that the federal government should take a hard line against gay rights in Washington DC. He was quoted in the Washington Post as saying:

“I have been and continue to be a strong believer and protector of traditional marriage. I think it’s an important issue for society and for the country,” Brownback said. “This issue has now been moving across the country for several years, and I guess we will deal with something in D.C. now.”

So Mr. “I hate gays but try to be like Jesus” Senator, how exactly are you going to “deal with” this issue in DC? The article points out that DC ranks second only to San Francisco in the number of gay couples living together. The district voted for for John Kerry at the tune of 90 percent! It would seem as though the community is likely to support the right for married gay couples to jointly file their income taxes.

The mayor of DC certainly has a feeling what could happen if the district recognizes the Massachusetts marriage:

The mayor explained his reticence, saying he is “very — extremely — concerned” about the reaction by Congress, where “I think that a lot would be in jeopardy, yes.”

He cited the District’s $8 billion budget, which requires annual approval by Congress and which city officials have tried in recent years to rid of such controversial social issues as amendments barring its spending of tax dollars on free drug-needle exchange programs and statehood lobbying.

It truly is sad when Brownback believes it is his right to force his misguided morals of hatred and bigotry on people who haven’t even elected him. Heck, they don’t have any real representation anyway.

I think this is a good example of the way the country would be run if heaven forbid Brownback was to become president. As I have said before, there is no place he would rather be than in your bedroom, seated on a high throne of infinite wisdom, dictating to a consenting couple which sexual acts he considers appropriate and thus legal.