The Anti-Sam Brownback Blog

Brownback hates gays, is militantly anti-abortion and abhors government spending. What else could a GOP primary voter be afraid of? Brown people. Immigration has the potential to sink Brownback’s nascent presidential campaign just as quick as you can say “amnesty”. A recent comment on a post about Brownback and immigration at the popular conservative blog RedState illustrates the type of challenge that Brownback faces:

Ten million new Latino citizens will have immense consequences. Their presence here in the United States itself is hugely consequential, inasmuch as their (many) children born here are automatic U.S. citizens, forever. In 1965, the U.S. was nearly 90 percent white. Today the figure approaches 70 percent — and more chillingly, the figure for small children, 60 percent. Those small children are the U.S. population of tomorrow and, Leon, it doesn’t stop there. 50 percent, 40 percent, 30 percent, 20 percent, 10 percent status are all coming for U.S. whites.

This isn’t immigration; it’s genocide.

Mr. Brownback has committed no unpardonable sin by making a serious mistake on the immigration bill, but he needs clearly to understand that it was a serious mistake. I do not think that he does understand this.

It is important to note that this GOP activist has not written Brownback off. He allows for the chance of redemption if Brownback flips his logic on immigration and starts attacking immigrants. Not that Brownback is likely to do that, but it shows how far his other conservative credentials go in swaying the mind of a GOP primary voter.

Brownback will have a problem with immigration, no doubt about it. Even though he later voted for a fence, his vote for the McCain-Kennedy Bill will hurt him with the extreme conservative niche that he is trying to leverage. How much it hurts him will depend upon two factors.

One part of overcoming this will be focusing on the fence that Brownback voted for and talking up “enforcement” and militarizing the border. He has to convince those GOP primary voters who aren’t complete racists that he would enforce the border before doing anything else. Lots of tough talk will be necessary, and a particular air of disdain for people who break the law will certainly be required.

The other part of overcoming his vote for the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill will be uniquely Brownback. He will try and convince the devout Christians in Iowa that compassion is due to all people, whether they are here legally or not. He will argue against breaking up families and say that a path to legal residence, as outlined in the McCain-Kennedy bill, is the the Christian way of dealing with the immigration conundrum. The catholic church for the most part already uses those talking points. The real question is how well evangelical Christians who watch Fox News will take to the idea of compassion.

While Brownback may argue that his vote on immigration is in line with his faith, it certainly is not in line with his party’s base. Therein lies the problem. The more moderate GOP primary voters that might agree with his stance on immigration are likely to be turned off by his extremist stance on other issues. The opposite is also true. Hard core conservatives will like his stances on gays, abortion and government spending, but may be unwilling to compromise on immigration.

How do you think Brownback will deal with the issue of Immigration?

So says The Hill:

Sen. Sam Brownback, a conservative Republican from Kansas, told The Hill that he would vote for the immigration overhaul as long as no amendments are approved that would significantly expand the number of immigrants coming into the country or reduce the level of enforcement.

“I think good work has been done here in the Senate, and I would support it,” he said.

Notice Senator Brownback’s attempt at spin by focussing on enforcement. He has to find some way to placate angry conservatives who want to deport all 12 million illegal immigrants.

After President Bush’s speech which sought to appease the more vicsious anti-immigrant wing of the GOP, it seems that Senator Sam Brownback is also looking to hedge his bets with the minuteman caucus and now supports the use of troops on the border with Mexico:

Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., said he too supports “temporary” use of the National Guard to strengthen border security. Brownback has been criticized in conservative circles for supporting legislation that would offer most of the nation’s illegal immigrants work permits and a route to citizenship.

“The potential deployment of National Guard troops to the Southern border underscores how we need a long-term fix for our broken immigration system,” the senator said in statement.

Don’t forget, just over a year ago Bush cut funding for more than 9,000 border guards from the budget.  Funny how priorities change with the poll numbers…

Seems Human Events Magazine doesn’t appreciate Senator Sam Brownback’s position on immigration:

The immigration debate within the Senate has severely damaged the presidential chances among conservatives of two key Republican senators: Sam Brownback (R.-Kan.) and John McCain (R.-Ariz.).

Over the past few years, Brownback had won considerable favor among conservatives for his support of religious freedom worldwide and his strong position on moral issues, including his opposition to abortion. Brownback has also been an important voice fighting for human rights and religious freedom in Iran. Clearly, Brownback’s sympathy for illegal aliens stemmed from his concern about their human rights. The problem is that while most conservatives are willing to acknowledge the human rights of illegal aliens, there is widespread conviction that those “human rights” do not include a right to U.S. citizenship, especially as a reward for having immigrated here illegally in the first place.

From what I have recently heard, Brownback didn’t expect this much vitriol over his position on immigration reform. Obviously it is too late to change, and he will have to rely on his extreme conservative voting record in almost all other areas to woo primary voters. The best thing for Brownback at this juncture would be for this entire debate to blow over without significant reform and not see the light of day until 2009.

On a personal note, my absence was the result of finishing class and searching for a job. Blogging is entertaining, but doesn’t pay the bills. I’ll be posting more regularly from now on.

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, has come out against Senator Sam Brownback’s stance on immigration. Read this xenophobic diatribe that he told the Washington Post:

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who talks frequently with the senator, said Brownback should address the concerns of religious conservatives, including beliefs that a large influx of undocumented workers undermines the social fabric and that many of them do not learn English or attempt to assimilate into the larger society.

Social fabric? I bet those uppity negros in the 1960’s were undermining the social fabric as well, weren’t they Tony?

Such a blatantly racist sentiment would be expected from someone such as Tom Tancredo, but from the leader of a Christian organization? It seems that Tony Perkins is heading down the road to being the next Pat Robertson.

Senator Sam Brownback joined with some Democrats to try and compromise in order to pass a bill to reform the immigration system in America. The problem was that the compromise made neither extreme happy, and has exacerbated the growing ire among his conservative base who wants a hard line approach. The Washington Post expressed surprise at his stance on the issue:

Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) is one of the most conservative senators, a torchbearer on antiabortion and family causes. His measured opposition to same-sex marriage and embryonic stem-cell research has made him a favorite of social conservatives, and he has emerged as a dark horse for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.

So it came as something of a surprise when Brownback joined forces with Democrats and maverick Republicans this week to try to push through a major restructuring of immigration laws that would offer most of the nearly 12 million illegal immigrants a work permit and a pathway to citizenship.

Brownback’s stance does not surprise me in the least. As I have long told both his supporters and detractors, Senator Sam Brownback is a true believer. He really believes in his stance, and will not be swayed from his conviction. My problem with him is that I often disagree with his convictions, but I never doubt the authenticity of his position on an issue.

At least according to Human Events, a conservative weekly magazine. Senator Sam Brownback has made few friends by supporting the Ted Kennedy immigration bill in the Senate. Human Events postulates:

Don’t take Sen. Sam Brownback (R.-Kan.) seriously when he talks about running for President in 2008. Brownback’s vote today with Senate Democrats on an amnesty bill should put an end to any remote chance he had at the White House.

The three other mavericks Brownback joined are no friends of conservatives, but Brownback is known as a strong pro-lifer who generally votes with the conservatives of his party. This vote is by far the most disappointing.

Well, he knew he was going to get in hot water with the conservative base on this issue. The big question now will be how the issue plays out nationally. I think some republicans were hoping to quietly push through a punitive bill and then trumpet to their base in the midterm elections. So far, the issue has been loud and media friendly. Additionally, the split between the republican factions has been a constant news item.

Personally, I think Brownback expects to bolster his base support once the anti gay marriage amendment comes up in the senate. He will be a leader in that noisy fight and could get some significant airtime if he plays it correctly.

The only question is whether the conservative base will hold a grudge.

According to Tom Tancredo, Senator Sam Brownback is “as left as they come” on the issue of immigration. Of course, this is compared to Tancredo’s plan to deport all illegal immigrants and refuse them medical care.

Brownback’s stance on immigration could hurt him in the GOP primary in 2008. The current conventional wisdom holds that immigraiton will be a hot button issue and the GOP base is more in line with Tancredo than Brownback when it comes to solutions. Brownback’s “compassionate conservatism” approach to the issue would likely play better to moderate republicans than to the activist base. Tancredo obviously won’t make it very far in the primary. He hopes to hang in just long enough to put the spotlight on immigration and force his opponents to take a harder stance on the issue.

If Brownback doesn’t get on the ball with fundraising and organizing, he may find himself in the same boat with his religious conservative issues.

A few months ago, the conventional wisdom was that immigration would be the big issue of the 2006 races. Then the GOP found that not all of their members are in the same page. President Bush has put forth a plan that would allow a guest worker program, which some of the GOP activist base find abhorrent. Senators McCain and Kennedy have introduced a bill that would not only have guest workers, but would allow them to work towards citizenship. Senator Sam Brownback is supporting this legislation.

Brownback finds himself in the company of unusual allies on this issue. Many Democrats are also supporting the McCain / Kennedy bill and many GOP activists consider it unacceptable.

I think Brownback is in dangerous territory with his activist base. It is hard to know where the religious right falls on the issue, but by supporting this bill he would certainly lose the support of the most hardcore republican activists. I am sure Brownback will attempt to play this off as a compassionate conservative issue, but the climate for debate on immigration inside the GOP is so poisonous at this point any decision is likely to cause some flak.