The Anti-Sam Brownback Blog

Time magazine has an interesting article that summarizes the Christian Right’s uneasy feelings about the current crop of front runners for 2008. Their comment on Brownback:

Many conservatives had high hopes for Virginia’s George Allen and Pennsylvania’s Rick Santorum–until they lost their Senate re-election races last year. And Evangelicals say they adore all-but-announced contender Sam Brownback, a former Evangelical who converted to Catholicism and is one of the Senate’s most ardent opponents of embryonic-stem-cell research and gay marriage. But they are skeptical that the Kansas Senator can broaden his appeal enough beyond religious voters to have a chance of winning.

Brownback now has to prove he has “what it takes” to run for president before the money and volunteers come pouring in from the conservative Christians. Ironically, money and volunteers are used as a metric for early success. Howard Dean overcame this same dilemma in 2003 by reaching out on the internet to build a vast small donor network but one look at Brownback’s pitiful website should make it obvious that internet strategy is currently not a priority.

Brownback will likely attempt to do the same thing except through existing church groups and bible studies. This takes plenty of face time, but time is the only resource Brownback has in his advantage at this point.

Perhaps someone should ask him if he agrees with his adviser, Tom Monaghan, who advocates for a total ban on birth control…

Please Join Pro-life Champion

United States Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)

As he salutes those marching for life and all those who work to protect the unborn child. In addition, Senator Brownback will be meeting with participants from the March for Life to discuss his possible bid for the White House in 2008.

When:
Monday, January 22, 2007
3:00 PM – 5:00 PM

Refreshments will be served
Informal attire for Marchers is appropriate

Where:
The Capitol Hill Club
300 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
(Two blocks from the end of the March for Life route and directly across the street from the Capitol South Metro stop)

RSVP is required:
Martin Gillespie (mgillespie@brownback.com)

Thanks to the person who dropped this in my email. Feel free to keep the tips coming!

From ABC news:

“He will be fully announcing on January 20 in Topeka, Kansas,” Brian Hart, the senator’s spokesman, said Friday. The move was expected even though Brownback set up an exploratory committee in December to gauge whether he had enough support for a full-blown campaign.

After the announcement in Kansas, Hart said Brownback will fly to Washington to participate in the anti-abortion march marking the anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling.

Stay tuned for more information about Sam’s visit to Washington…

All the news that’s fit to print in Brownback land:

• The KC Buzz Blog reports on two staff aquisitions the Brownback camp released today:
  

  In Iowa, Brownback hired his first full-time staffer, Trainor Walsh, as field representative. Walsh, who worked for Iowa Republican Rep. Jim Leach’s 2002 re-election campaign, most recently was the Regional Political Director for the Legislative Majority Fund, overseeing 13 State House campaigns in eastern Iowa. He is a University of Iowa grad and lives in Des Moines. He also has workd on campaigns in Massachusetts, Florida and Virginia.

  And a veteran of Steve Forbes 1996 and 2000 Iowa campaigns has signed on to Brownback’s advisory committee. Kevin McLaughlin, an investment professional, ran Polk County (that’s Des Moines) for Forbes in 1996 and was Vice-Chair of Forbes’ statewide campaign in 2000.

• The Kansas City Star reports on Brownback in South Carolina. His line? “I think there’s room in the field for someone with full-scale conservative values.” What a shocker!

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?

Senator Sam Brownback, having been rebuked by constitutional scholars for trying a complicated promised recusal scheme with a judicial nominee, now wants to bring Janet Neff back to the committee:

In Iowa on Tuesday to meet with GOP activists, Brownback said he only wants a chance to question Neff about her role in the 2002 ceremony. Brownback also wants a recorded vote in the Senate.

“I am not opposed to her getting a vote,” Brownback said before a lunch with potential donors and supporters in Davenport. “I would like her to come back through committee so she can testify what took place, factually … her legal views on same-sex marriage and her ability and willingness to be impartial.”

Neff has said she attended the commitment ceremony as a friend of one of the two women, a longtime neighbor.

Brownback needs to stop using this woman as a political cudgel and let the nomination forward. Let’s get this straight. She once attended the commitment ceremony of a longtime friend and neighbor. Once. For a friend and neighbor. Whoop-de-freakin-do.

So does Brownback think Neff caught the gay virus at the ceremony? Was the punch spiked with a gay mind control potion? How ridiculous can you get?

News flash to Senator Brownback. Being compassionate and supporting your friend by attended a non-binding ceremony in still A-OK in this country. Get over it.

So Senator Brownback will finally allow the Janet Neff confirmation continue now that he was told his hold and ensuing demands are constitutionally suspect:

Mr. Brownback, who has been criticized for blocking the nomination, said he would also no longer press a proposed solution he offered on Dec. 8 that garnered even more criticism: that he would remove his block if Judge Neff agreed to recuse herself from all cases involving same-sex unions.

In an interview last week, Mr. Brownback said that he still believed Judge Neff’s behavior raised serious questions about her impartiality and that he was likely to vote against her. But he said he did not realize his proposal — asking a nominee to agree in advance to remove herself from deciding a whole category of cases — was so unusual as to be possibly unprecedented. Legal scholars said it raised constitutional questions of separation of powers for a senator to demand that a judge commit to behavior on the bench in exchange for a vote.

I suppose our current President’s regard for the constitution and bill of rights certainly has set the bar very low…

On a more serious note, this is the first story dedicated to Brownback in the New York Times of any prominence since he announce his exploratory committee. You can look at this two ways. Certain GOP primary voters are going to look at Brownback and see someone who would get utterly crushed in the general election and find that unacceptable. Others will look at his steadfast (if possibly illegal) position against anything remotely tied to gay marriage and see a man who they could trust with their values.

So how does this play in Iowa?

So apparently Senator Sam Brownback doesn’t care that his fellow Kansan Senator Pat Roberts believes McCain is more fit for the Presidency:

Brownback, who formed a presidential exploratory committee less than two weeks ago, said prior to a speech to Christian radio employees that it didn’t make sense to worry about endorsements at this point even if the talk centered on Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.

“This is very early,” said Brownback, also a Kansas Republican. “There’s a long ways to go.”

Roberts said in a statement that he hadn’t endorsed any of the several potential candidates for president. However, The Washington Post reported that Roberts told a group of lobbyists and corporate executives this week that he intended to back McCain, an Arizona senator considered a front-runner for the nomination.

So Roberts now claims he “did no such thing” as endorse McCain. I would imagine Roberts has sent a couple of nasty emails towards Bob Novak, who broke the story in the Washington Post last week.

Roberts must have known his voice of support for McCain would eventually get out… so it is not clear to me why he declared his support so early. Does he think Brownback will drop out soon,perhaps when his paltry fundraising report is tunrned in Jan. 31st? Maybe Roberts thought he could keep it under wraps until that point. Then again, perhaps Roberts thought a private meeting about a front-runner for 2008 would be kept private. Yeah, right.

Regardless, having your home state Senator endorse some other guy doesn’t look good for a candidate like Brownback who is trying to prove that he is relevant to the debate.

So I stole the headline from the McClatchy lead in this good story about Brownback’s Buddy, anti-condom Tom Monaghan. I previously mentioned his Ave Maria boondoggle down in the Florida Swamps, but this piece is a good catch-up for those not in the know.

The challenge still stands! Who will be the first reporter (or blogger) to ask Sam Brownback: “Do you agree with your close adviser Tom Monaghan that all contraceptives should be banned?”