The Road to Damascus Starts and Ends in Kansas
By jbonham76 Posted in 2008 — Comments (74) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Townhall.com's Matt Lewis rounds up some old friends of Brownback's. I give you 4 quotes Lewis used in his piece:
1.“Kansas Republican Party Chairman Tim Shallenburger said he remembered having a conversation with Brownback in 1994 when Brownback was running in the GOP primary for the U.S. House. After the conversation, Shallenburger said he left with the impression that Brownback “was not pro-life.” Link
2. “David Gittrich, development director for the state’s largest anti-abortion organization, Kansans for Life, said when Brownback first ran for Congress in 1994 'he was ill-informed.' Gittrich added, 'He didn’t know whether he was pro-life or pro-choice.' … Gittrich said he had heard from others that Brownback simply didn’t understand the issues at the time." Link
3.“As recently as 1994, the year of his first campaign for Congress, Brownback was a member in good standing of the moderate Republican establishment.” Link
4. “… as primary day approached, (Brownback’s opponent) noticed a change in his opponent's language. Brownback never used to mention abortion on the campaign trail. Now he was publicly pronouncing himself an abortion opponent.” Link
Read on . . .
The problem here (as Lewis notes) isn't Brownback's Conversion- as a social conservative myself I am more than happy to see a new face in the crowd- it's the inherent hypocrisy of his past when coupled with the recent statement by Brownback concerning Romney's conversion:
"I think you'll have to look at where he stood, and at times, he's said different things on these issues. I think that's all going to come out during a long campaign.
...I do think that when you get out on the campaign trail and the campaign really gets fully engaged, there's going to be a lot of discussion about where people actually stand on the issues.” Link
Now if this was the only area of "only I can convert" conversion one might be willing to give him a pass. Unfortunately it is not. While perusing the Internet I found this old article on a munitions plant in Kansas. Back in 2005 apparently Brownback had decided that tucking a $10 million dollar appropriation into a large defense bill was for the good of his constituency. From the AP:
The Pentagon, President Bush and the Base Closure and Realignment Commission all agree the southeast Kansas plant is expendable. Even so, Sen. Sam Brownback got the extra money tucked into a defense spending bill before the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which he sits, approved it this week.
"Normally you don't spend money on a facility that's about to be closed," said John Pike, a military analyst with globalsecurity.org in Alexandria, Va. "It's basically doing an end-run around BRAC."
Only a few months later in April of 2006 we get this:
We have to get spending under control,” said Brownback. “Congress needs to show the American public that it is capable of fiscal restraint...link
The Road to Damascus is for the chosen few...
Battle scars mean you have taken hits for your position. How has this been the case. It is easy to be pro-life when your from KS, at least much more so than MA.
On the other hand Romney's lowering in the polls as a governor who came down on the side of life and pro-marriage shows that he has taken the heat for his positions. This is something Brownback has never had to endure. And these are true battle scars.
The Kansas Republican Party is among the most divided in the country. Yes, he has faced reelection with his pro-life position on his record and, while easier in Kansas than Massachusetts, he followed his conscience regardless of whether that pleased the liberal wing of the state Party. He`s doing the same thing on the immigration issue. While I disagree with him on the issue, it would have been very easy for him to toe the Party line and just read the RNC talking points. Instead, he did what he thought was right, consequences be damned. Because he is not running in Massachusetts again, there are no consequences for what Romney has done of late.
So you've retreaded a month-old TNR piece, coupled it with the shocking piece of knowledge that every Senator (including McCain) brings back pork to their home state, and somehow this is news?
I know that it's a vexing thing for you and the rest of the Johnny Fives to understand, but having a conversion is not a problem. Brownback's is especially non-problematic since he's spent over a decade on capitol hill kicking butt and taking names on life issues. The problem with Romney is not a conversion but rather a pattern of conversions including more than one conversion on the same issue. There's also the slightly problematic fact that he told basically the same story for both conversions and promised both groups that his conversion was sincere and irrevocable.
Now, you all go ahead and try to pretend that there's no difference between Brownback's single conversion (followed by a singular and unblemished record of over a decade, which he has faced the electorate for) and Romney's multiple position shifts (the latest of which he adopted after deciding not to face the electorate again) if you want. Nobody who hasn't drunk the Flavor-Aid is buying.
------------
Fnord.
You are right Brownback has a good pro-life record after his mid-election conversion. Yet as a senator form Kansas that does not strike me as anymore wonderful then being a basketball lover in Indiana or a surfer from Huntington Beach.
It's no big deal for him to go back home to his constituency and say I voted pro-life and brought you home some bacon. It's a huge deal when Romney vetoed the morning after pill and fought for gay marriage and slashed pet projects left and right, knowing it would hurt him in the polls.
He gave a flip about the polls. In other words, if he didn't make these decisions knowing full well that he wasn't going to run for re-election. As it is, Mitt Romney's "standing in the polls" in Massachusetts isn't all that relevant to him right now.
------------
Fnord.
Now that your boy is a "flip-flopper" too, I guess its OK. Looks like Mr. Brownback has some credibility issues on abortion.
Boy, have you got me. Brownback and Romney, peas in a pod.
Just out of curiosity, is English your first language?
------------
Fnord.
I wouldn't call them peas in a pod. Romney is a far more capable executive, something Brownback is unproven on.
He helped to build the GOP party in Massachusetts into a winning political machine, capable of supporting his agenda so that his vetoes didn't all get overridden.
------------
Fnord.
Actually he didn't do that. That would have been impossible, considering the GOP makes up around 10% of the legislature.
PS: Romney supporter here.
Here's some advice. Why don't you do more to make the argument for Romney rather than against his fellow Republicans?
I personally could care less about where he stood twelve years ago. I'm far more concerned with where he stands now and whether or not he'll continue to stand with us as President.
I think he will.
I wouldn't call Romney particularly capable in his leasdership of the Republican Governor's Associaion--six seats lost and none picked up.
But, of course, it didn't have anything to do with Romney misdirecting cash to key presidential primary campaign states to enhance his presidential ambitions. Or, did it?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/01/romney_directs_gop...
Booo hooo. Considering Brownbacks immigration proposal, I'd think you'd wanna ask HIM that question.
How very clever, you've noticed that both Dole and Brownback are Republicans, from Kansas.
Here's one: Romney '08 - Because we didn't learn our lesson with Ford '76!
------------
Fnord.
But i'm not on the romney bandwagon. And if you remember ford barely lost, dole got his ass kicked.
All brownback running does is lead to the nomination of mccain. Brownback has no way of ever winning the nomination outright. Were not going to nominate a pro illega, la raza loving, pork barrel spending, squishy on the war senator. All brownback does is ensure that the field is crowded enough for mccain to win.
Lets also remember, senators make horrible candidates and haven't won in a long time.
Save the planet, Kill yourself
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Bill Clinton 49.23%
Bob Dole 40.72%
Ross Perot 8.40%
Ralph Nader 0.71%
Harry Browne 0.50%
Others 0.44%
ere not going to nominate a pro illega, la raza loving...
For a minute there I was going to waste some time talking with you.
------------
Fnord.
Brownback Honored by National Council of La Raza
Wednesday, February 27, 2002
WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback last night received the National Council of La Raza Capital Award at the National Council of La Raza Dinner in Washington, D.C.
“This honor is especially meaningful to me because the Latino community represents the best parts of America – a community proud of its immigrant heritage – a community that is family-oriented, religious, and hard-working,” Brownback said.
“It is wonderful to see the increasing number of Latinos working in government, industry, and public service.
“After the events of September 11th, it would have been natural to close our door to the world. It would have been easy to scapegoat immigrants and abandon refugees. Yet, I am so pleased to say, our great nation has remained open and true to our values.
“And through it all, we will remember: For every brick torn down by the hands of terrorists, there are a million bricks built up by the hands of immigrants.
“Our lamp is held high. We will continue our efforts to create an immigration system that is orderly and fair — one that brings families together, strengthens our economy, and honors our commitment to the protection of refugees,” Brownback said.
The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is the nation’s largest Hispanic civil rights organization. Sens. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Tom Daschle (D-SD) were honored for their support of the Latino community, in particular, their work on civil rights, immigration, education, and other issue areas affecting Latinos. Newsday was recognized for its editorials on the debate over the growing Latino population on Long Island, New York.
The NCLR Capital Awards annually recognizes members of Congress for their support of public policies benefitting the Hispanic community during their careers. Honorees are selected based on their legislative record, provision of constituent services, and institutional reform.
The NCLR Ceremony took place last night at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C.
Save the planet, Kill yourself
Romney reminds me more of Kerry than Ford. Same state and seems like they have one other thing in common.
Everytime this is brought up it seems to require an unreasonably hostile interpertation of events.
The way I see it:
Senate race:
Romney was "personally" pro-life, politically pro-choice. (Because of brother's fiance's death due to illegal abortion).
Governor race:
Romney calls for a freeze in place of Mass. abortion laws. Opposes overturning Roe vs Wade, but doesn't want to be called pro-choice.
As Governor:
Maintains pledge to keep abortion rules as is. Seems to be rather incoherant as to his political position on these issues.
Becomes embroiled in the embryonic stell cell research debate.
Identifies this as the begining of his pro-life conversion.
Becomes increasingly pro-life in his rhetoric and harder line on his positions.
To me this seems normal for those being converted on a major social issue to have a period of incoherence when they are still trying to hold to some of their old worldview while incorporating their new worldview. Sometimes they never leave this fence sitting position, but usually they eventually reject their old worldview as too logically inconsistent with their new worldview and become firm in their new position on the social issue.
Now the timing is such that I can understand people being suspicious- but I think it unfair to depict Romney as repeatedly flipping on this issue.
Here's how it actually went.
During the 1994 Senate campaign, many people accused Romney of being "pro-life." His response was that, some years earlier, a family member had died from an illegal abortion, and that therefore, he had become pro-choice "and you will not see me wavering on that." Conversion #1.
Between his two campaigns, a Salt Lake City newspaper writes an editorial about Romney, which (in part) calls him "pro-choice." At this time, Romney is all set to take control of what have become the controversial olympics. Romney writes an angry denunciation, claiming that he is "pro-life." Okay. Conversion #2.
In 2002, Romney promises, "Let me make this very clear, I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, and this should not be made a political issue in this campaign." I don't care what anyone calls themselves, that's the definition of being pro-choice. Conversion #3.
Then, I guess sometime in 2004, surely not coincidentally around the time he's making his plans for a gubernatorial run, he has a brief meeting about stem cells and decides that he's "pro-life." Stridently so, apparently. Also (surely out of pure coincidence), Mitt announces that he will not run again for Governor of Massachusetts and begins a scorched-earth policy, to no real effect (except to sink the Massachusetts GOP even further into oblivion). Conversion #4.
Hope that helps.
------------
Fnord.
who lined the pockets of his home constituency now and then we'll end up with an extremely short list indeed. Probably it's better to focus on his current plans than to dwell on his sins in the past here.
However, to take Romney to task for his abortion conversion is more disconcerting. I don't think a "purer-than-thou" attitude is productive, and just gives media fodder to beat up Republicans on this issue with.
I think if there's social issues fatigue, in part it's because even pro-life politicians like the President tend to act like they'd like to issue to go away themselves. They mumble their pro-life positions under their breath if they articulate them at all. Maybe if someone boldly and confidently articulated their pro-life views, and challenged the pro-abortion politicians to justify their position, the fatigue factor might go away.
No one is complaining about a candidate who's had a sincere change of heart on the abortion issue. That's a red herring. The problem is whether the conversion is sincere or whether it is politically expedient pandering.
Brownback has the battle scars to validate his sincerity.
Romney, on the other hand, was a vocal advocate for abortion on demand when a Massachusetts candidate. He held those views for more than 30 years! Now, that he's a candidate for president and needs to break out from behind McCain and Guiliani, he suddenly became a strong pro-life candidate.
Did he use it for political purposes...
It helped Romney to be pro-gay and pro-choice and it wouldn't of for the Senator. Romney has to prove he isn't a political opportunist
open questions about his positions and possible conversions. Are impressions/perceptions people have about conversations they had 10 or 12 years ago comparable (especialy those that come from people who were once political opponents)?
None of those quotes--nor all of them together--make a strong case that Brownback flip-flopped. The case against Romney is clear.
I'm not saying that Romney should not get the nomination. I'm just pointing out that Romney has clearly changed his position several times on several social issues. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind occasionally.
This is similar to the entry that I posted a few weeks ago. I do think that Brownback's coversion was poltically motivated, but this in no ways equates Romney's record to that of Brownback. Brownback has been not only solid, but staunch since then. Romney has been pretty squishy during his governorship and obviously timed his "conversion". The only saving grace for Romney is that the "I will change no laws" postion he took allowed him to be "efffectively" pro-life.
Brownback is the obvious choice for pro-lifers, the real question is whether Romney can be trusted enough to be the conservative anti-McCain.
"I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the god--d fence if they want it."--McCain
"I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected" --McCain
My point is not whether he has faught a good fight for Pro-lifers, he has. My point is he had a conversion in a place easy to convert, like converting to Judaism in the North Chicago. Not everyones Jewish, but there is a huge population t support and welcome you. Romney's conversion is more like coverting to Judaism in Saudi Arabia.
Romney has done numerous things in the 4 years while govenor on the gay marriage, abortion, taxes, and terrorism when it was highly unpopular. This is something Brownback can't claim and perhaps Romney's Conversion in MA is a totally different game than a conversion in Kansas.
For Brownback to raise these points especially with a history pork barrell and consistant pro-amnesty votes smacks of something I would call politically expediant rather than enhancing the pro-life cause.
For Brownback to raise these points especially with a history pork barrell and consistant pro-amnesty votes smacks of something I would call politically expediant rather than enhancing the pro-life cause.
I think it's personally great how you're able to take facts that have nothing to do with each other, put them together, and then assume that you've turned the Romney charge around on Brownback.
Life is NOT a malfunction!
------------
Fnord.
The original article had Brownback responding to being asked if Romney was truely "conservative." I think in that light it is fair to tie in spending and immigration.
That is tossed around these days with little agreement concerning meaning - so even if this point is arguable, what in the world does it have to do with doing what is "politically expedient, rather than advancing the pro-life cause?"
------------
Fnord.
Fair Question,
Brownbacks comments are expediant on two counts:
1. To define your self as conservative based solely on abortion despite being pro-amnesty, and pro-pork while giving anti-pork statements is narrow and self serving.
2. Romney meets many qualifications for the term "conservative." Brownback calling those into question is not meant to help Romney be more pro-life or save unborn children but rather help Brownback get more crumbs from the table of Romney voters.
Being pro-life does not make you conservative. Example - Senator Casey from Pennsylvania.
Being pro-choice does not make you a liberal. Example - Former Senator Goldwater of Arizona.
Supporting pork barrel spending until the pigs come home to Kansas does make you not a conservative though in my book.
Give me a break. Maybe it`s like a Saudi citizen converting to Judaism once he was safely out of the country and never planned on returning. By the time he had his "change of heart", Romney had no intention of ever running for another office in the state of Massachusetts.
Accept, he was governing pro-life and pro-marriage. If I recall correctly he fought the SJC on marriage, and did some good vetoing. It's not like it happened last week.
He also appointed a bunch of pro-choice, anti-marriage judges to the bench. After his apparent conversion on the issues. Read: Romney's judicial appointees leave much to be desired.
Take the bad with the good, man.
Any nominee for the courts in MA has to make it past the Governor’s Council, which in MA during Romney’s tenure was 8 out of 8 democrats (6 of whom were hard-core lefties). Romney has been candid about the fact that his appointments do not take into consideration sexual preference or gay-rights politics…the reason being that that his appointments have all been lower-bench seats which focus on the legal qualifications and rule-of-law views of the candidates. Romney has not gotten the chance to back up his call for strict constructionist interpretation of the MA Constitution on the Supreme Court. The fact that Romney got 25% republicans through that briar patch of a 100% lefty GC bodes well for his abilities with SCOTUS and a 49% conservative US Senate. One of Romney’s early executive orders from 2003 overhauled the nomination process to make it blind to partisan political leanings of the candidates, a very likely reason for his success. http://myclob.pbwiki.com/02-11-2003 "When it comes to protecting our citizens, there is no place for political correctness" -- Mitt Romney
Of those, Ted Stevens, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and John Warner have all gone on record supporting Roe v. Wade. So, you've got actually 41 pro-lifers in the Senate.
------------
Fnord.
But only after much work, and only with a majority at stake.
The key thing for a lot of us social cons is finding someone who doesn't just talk nice, but who we trust on this issue. Given that even after his 2002 conversion on abortion, Romney continued to appoint individuals who were hard-core supporters of abortion on demand, you must understand our misgivings.
I understand that someone would have misgivings about Romney given his change of heart on abortion, and that those misgivings would extend to the issue of judges.
However, appointing pro-life judges in Massachusetts under those conditions would have amounted to grandstanding for SoCons. They would have been shot down instantly by the committee. At some point, you have to recognize that Romney was only going to get a few good judges through.
Which are the good ones?
Really, I'm not trying to be difficult - but even the nominees that were arguably on the right side of the spectrum still strike me as particularly weak on the fundamental issues of life and marriage.
Even with a Democrat controlled Senate under Daschle, President Bush still got an abundance of fantastic nominees through the process. I understand that, to a significant degree, Romney's options were more limited. But were they so limited as to fail to pull in a few good nominees?
If he truly cares about this issue...well, where's the beef?
I think the 51 to 49 Senate of Daschle was a lot more different than the Democrat supermajority in MA.
Alaska's Constitution has an explicit privacy right, which makes the issue here much different than under the US Constitution. While abortion is unquestionably legal in Alaska, moreso than in most states, there is enough public resistence to it that it is virtually impossible to get one in the State. I don't know what the Indian Health Service does, but if you're white, you're going to Seattle if you want one. There might be a few private physicians that would perform one for an established patient, but that's it.
I don't know where Stevens is coming from on it, but since his background is as a federal attorney, he's probably got a lot more respect for the "majesty" of the law than others of us might have. Lisa's political career here was from one of the few Purple districts in the State, so Catholic or not, her support may have been simple political expedience and now she doesn't want to face a flip-flop charge, or - miracles never cease - she might actually believe in it.
In Vino Veritas
Than what President Romney would face in a Senate dominated by pro-choice Democrats. I expect he could use exactly the same excuse - too many Dems, gotta prioritize - in appointing Harriet Miers.
It's really not the same.
If the Senate was 100 Dems and 0 Republicans, do you think any President would send a pro-life SC nomination to the Senate?
He could afford to set himself up for a national campaign because he never again would have to face the voters of Massachusetts.
Give me a break.
I'm not a Team Brownback guy, but The New Republic story that is the basis for this entire meme displayed a very clear change of heart on the part of Brownback early in his career. In 1994, he was endorsed by nearly every significant pro-life organization. He declared himself as taking the Bob Dole position on abortion in surveys from National Right to Life and the Madison Project.
Yes, he's become more passionate on the issue since coming to Washington - but to describe a "change of heart" in a GOP primary more than a decade ago as equivalent to a change of heart that Mitt apparently had in a brief meeting four years ago is ridiculous.
Let's just believe everything said in these quotes, many of them taken completely out of context, is totally true. What do they mean?
They mean that in 1994, Sam Brownback was "ill-informed," he was "moderate," he "left an impression" that he wasn't ardently pro-life. He then followed this up with 13 years of being the most ardently pro-life Senator on Capitol hill.
Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney was arguing with Ted Kennedy about how pro-choice he could be. He followed this up with eight years of being completely pro-choice, two years of being kinda squishy, and two years of being pro-life.
You do the math.
It sounded to me like he switched, and did so politically expediently and late in the primary, when his primary opponent was gaining a lot of support from the pro-life movement in Kansas.
Also the "Nancy Kassebaum" statment, reported to have been made in 1994, is pretty clear, if it is true as reported.
Here's a challenge - you find from me one quote from Sam Brownback - at any point in time whatsoever - or any vote of any kind during his entire lengthy tenure in public office - which indicates that he was ever anything other than pro-life.
Otherwise, I think I'm going to start taking the comments from Teddy Kennedy, Robert Reich, and other political rivals of Romney as fact, when they are uttered about him.
------------
Fnord.
I assume it's a valid question now whether that was politically motivated, too?
As I recall, Nancy Kassebaum did just fine in politics in Kansas. Brownback had no need politically to become a leader on abortion. He became one anyway.
Are you saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE that Brownback read the tea leaves and saw the building strength of groups like Kansans for Life before his switch, which, according to the article, occurred very late in the 1994 primary campaign, after Brownback had allegedly rebuffed KFL earlier in the race, and mollified the strength of his opponent? Impossible, Ben?
(1) Where he became pro-choice in a follow-up campaign by describing, in the same terms he used to describe his conversion to the pro-life cause, why he was a pro-choicer (again).
(2) Where he held the same position over time, rather than becoming more strident and active.
(3) Where you explained the political calculus of his conversion to Catholicism.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
That Brownback has a 13 year legislative record on abortion since the events you describe which makes the "he's a fake pro-lifer" conclusion so unlikely as to be laughable. And that the treatment of Brownback in this regard displays a profound ignorance, which smacks of being a purposeful ignorance, on the difference between his record and that of a fellow who merely talks a good game.
So it's okay for Brownback to say "I think you have to look at where he stood on the issues and what he said publicly" but not for anyone to apply that statement to him, simply because he's remained ardently pro-life since his conversion?
I don't see where anyone is questioning Brownback's position or commitment. I do see people pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation.
I've got no problem with anyone who wants to examine Brownback's statments and positions. I do doubt the intellectual honesty of anyone who does so and then questions whether Brownback is and will be a staunch pro-life advocate.
OTOH, one can look at Romney's past statements and actions and reach a different conclusion.
Romney has done numerous things in the 4 years while govenor on . . . abortion, .... when it was highly unpopular.
What did Romney do in 2003 that was highly unpopular with respect to abortion? How about 2004?
I tend to trust the voting record of Brownback. Check out the number of dem (judges) that Romney appointed versus republicans. The ratio is about 3 to 1 (in favor of dems). That doesn't give me much comfort if we are talking about pro-life.
So far I would take Brownback. His major drawbacks are that no one other than us political junkies have heard of him, and he is a senator. Romney's biggest problem is the multiple flips. (In my book you should only get one).
I still haven't gotten a candidate that inspires me. It's starting to like like Dole '96 all over again.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
as a reason not to vote for Brownback?
Never did say that. Just something to be aware of. I guess you might feel this implies this, so maybe you should ask why?
But his pork and pro-Amnesty make me want to veer away from him like a deer in the headlights.
Mitt was hardly ever actually in Massachusetts while Governor. He spent more days out of state then he did actually in state. The Lt. Governor Kerry Healey did a fine job filling in but if it weren't for her, the Commonwealth would have been in serious trouble.
I would be afraid that if he were elected President, he'd leave the job up to the VP and enjoy long vacations for himself.
People should accept Brownback's conversion as they should accept Romney's.
If I was Brownback, I would not focus on the social issues per se because I think we are seeing signs of social issue fatigue even within the Republican Party. He should be out their touting his support for the flat tax and his plans to cut federal spending. I do not think he can do this because of his big spending past.