Brownback's Vote on Cloture Today
By Leon H Wolf Posted in Immigration — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Full disclosure: Leon Wolf is the E-Campaign Coordinator for the Sam Brownback for President Campaign.
I am getting a lot of questions about this, more than I can answer individually, so I thought I'd throw this up here. Also, I'm at work, so this will have to be brief.
First, people want to know why Senator Brownback voted "no." There are two reasons for this, and I'll let the Senator's words speak for themselves here:
I voted against the Senate immigration bill because I am not convinced it would fix our broken immigration system and it would most likely repeat the mistakes of the 1986 reform.
And:
We need comprehensive immigration reform, but the country is not accepting of this bill. We need to listen to the American people on both timing and substance. We need to help ‘the widow and orphan and foreigner amongst us,’ but must do so in a way and at a time the American people support. This is not yet the right way. We should let the topic rest for now while we work diligently to secure our borders. Americans support legal immigration, not illegal immigration. We desire to be compassionate but demand adherence to the rule of law.
I became convinced along with many my colleagues on the floor that this version of the immigration bill was not, and would not become the vehicle that would fix our broken system as I had hoped."
Second, people want to know how it came to be that Senator Brownback was heard to vote "Yes" but came to be recorded as a "No." In the Senator's words:
I wanted to signal that I am supportive of comprehensive immigration reform, but that now is not the time and this is not the bill.
The Senator did this intentionally and planned it, which is he made a point of voting first and loudly. It was intended to be a symbolic act which admittedly may not have had its intended effect on some people, but it *was* planned from the beginning.
Marches to the beat of a different drummer. It's maybe not what I would have done, but I believe him when he says he did it on purpose.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
So he voted for it before he voted against it.... on the same vote.
Somewhere even John Kerry must be laughing, along with the rest of us.
Of course John Kerry still has a better chance of becoming President someday than Brokeback.
1.) I hope that was a spelling error on your behalf by calling him Brokeback.
2.) These are not the same vote. Saying these are the same vote is ludicrous, akin to about the same thing that you could say for the for/against $87 billion dollar remark. The only thing is, Kerry tried to play it both ways. The vote on Tuesday was to proceed to debate. The vote today was to cut off debate. He openly says he supports immigration reform, but this isn't the way to do it. He's not trying to play both sides.
By the way, it's either Romney or Thompson for me, but don't try to sink a guy with something weak like this.
Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum
Formerly known as ShowMeConservatism. For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
- Roll call vote is in process. Tally is 60-39.
- "Is there any Senator who wishes to change their vote?"
- SB: "Yes. I vote nay."
- (pause)
- "The Yeas and Nays having been counted, the Yeas are 59 and the Nays are 40. By Senate rules, 3/5 of the duly elected membership of the Senate must vote in the affirmative. Therefore this motion fails."
There are a lot of things I like about Brownback, but this just seems like stupid symbolism to me. I realize no one outside of a few minutes given to Sessions was allowed to speak a negative word about this bill. If there had been open and honest discussion and he had said then that he wants reform but not this bill, then that would make sense. His argument appears to be that he wasn't allowed to do it that normal way, so this is how he chose to say so. But that still seems crazy to me, as I bet every one of the other 52 who voted nay also believe we should have reform but not this way or with this bill. So the symbolic gesture is pointless in my mind and it makes him LOOK like a scared flip-flopper whether that's fair or not.
but his explanation sounds very much like "Too much publicity right now!" He did add "enforcement first, then reform", but it still sounds like he wants full-on amnesty but just can't find enough electoral votes in it.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
....sincerely regret using a homosexual slur to bait Leon and to describe Brownback. DO NOT do it again.
I tend to believe him because I think most of the senators went into that vote knowing that it would fail (it would be nice if this was confirmed). Since he knew it was going to fail, why would he do the flip-flop, unless it is for the reason he stated (as weird as that is).
I wouldn't have done that either - it smacks too much of legislative thinking ("I voted for it before I voted against it" that goes on a lot in Congressional sausage making), which isn't good when you are running for an executive position.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
We should let the topic rest for now while we work diligently to secure our borders. Americans support legal immigration, not illegal immigration. We desire to be compassionate but demand adherence to the rule of law.
A reality that I wish the occupant of the White House would understand (and not say that we can't secure the border without this bill).
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
I'll grant Brownback is being truthful here; after all, you know him. That means he isn't a betrayer of American interests - he's just dumb enough not to realize how this would play to the public.
This argues poorly for Brownback's political competence. I do not want him as our Presidential nominee, regardless of his positions.
Except I'd praise him in my blog, but vote against him in the booth.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
Thanks to the Senator for helping put this beast to rest.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
This guy obviously thought it was still 1965 and he could get away with this switcheroo unnoticed. Now that he's caught he's flailing around and making a fool of himself with these ridiculous excuses.
A lot of Senators hung back and didn't vote alphabetically so they could see which way it was going and join the cowards like Voinovich and put their name down on the winning side of things. Brownback was just foolish enough to actually declare his vote first and THEN decide to change it once the writing was on the wall.
And then the multiple excuses(his staff told me a different line, and Hot Air was told something else before he finally landed on this ridiculous notion)... The guy could've really minimized the damage had he just come out and said he screwed up in a moment of weakness and tried to have it both ways. Sure, his campaign would be over, but people would forgive him and he'd have a chance next time. Now, I'll never trust this guy in another election, and many others will feel the same way.
I'm just glad he showed his true colors before anybody - in this cycle or in the future - actually voted for him for President...
Senator Brownback's Presidential website says he is a "Principled Conservative".
Yeah, right.
It's so very "principled" to vote one way and then switch it 11 minutes later when you realize you were going to lose. "Principled", sir? I don't think so. And now we not only know that you're a weasel, but we also know how you REALLY would've voted if the "popular kids" hadn't done something different than you thought.
And this guy thinks he has the strength and character to be President?
Excuse the loud noises... it's just my squeals of derisive laughter.
Give it up Brownback. You've shown what kind of leader you are, and you are done for as a Presidential candidate - both now and for all time. Ronald Reagan you are not. And I don't care if we lose a Senate seat getting you out of there next time - I want ACTUAL men of strength and principle rather than weasel politicos.
We would've appreciated you showing some actual strength and being on our side when it counted - not just when the outcome became clear.
"And I don't care if we lose a Senate seat getting you out of there next time - I want ACTUAL men of strength and principle rather than weasel politicos."
Sigh. If you're ready to turn the seat blue over 1 vote, well then, I think I know which side you're on.
We all know you're too reasonable to believe this.
Do you really believe that he *planned* this from the beginning?
Might it have been wise to put a press release out before hand?
It seems that the Brownback campaign website put something up this morning explaining his "Yes" vote on cloture - then took it down after his now-famous vote-switch, which he then claimed was "his plan all along". But, of course, the google cache still had it. What a lying creep this guy is. This is his "principled leadership"?
Go take a really, really, good look at the date here, the date on your computer - and then you will make a suitably groveling apology to the site for being such a damfool as to automatically believe whatever it is that Polipundit tells you.
Or we can toss you right now. Your choice.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I should've looked closer. You are indeed correct, and this is not proof of the lie. My apologies for posting the link and my mistake in terms of using it to say Brownback was "caught" in the lie.
Of course, it doesn't change the fact that he's still lying through his teeth. His excuse is patently ridiculous on its face, makes almost no sense at all with how this all went down, and is the THIRD excuse on this issue I heard from the Brownback camp today. I got one version from his office when I called, Hot Air originally got another version, and then, hours later, this ridiculous release stating he was "making a statement", which is just absurd, as I'm sure you and Leon know.
So yes, the link I provided proves nothing, and I shouldn't have posted it. But then again... come on... did we really need "proof" that his excuse is just an inane coverup of his weasel-like vote switch?
And now I will cheerfully - and, oh, yes, quite cravenly - take advantage of the fact that I'm not actually a Brownback supporter to stand mute on whether or not the guy was lying in the first place.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
You, of course, are free to draw your own inferences. Having spent some time around him, I can say that this is exactly the sort of thing that he would do.
The reason that you probably got different stories (I have no idea - I don't know what you were told or have any way of verifying that) is that he didn't tell anybody he was going to do it beforehand. He has been agonizing over this decision for a while now. As of this morning, we in the Pres. Campaign sure weren't sure what his vote was going to be. I'm sure this just came to him as the thing to do - which, in retrospect, didn't come off as planned.
But, as a Senator and a guy very involved in the process, the guys knew what the score was going to be before the first vote was cast. To suggest that he switched it after he "saw that the bill was going to fail" ignores the fact that there are whips, and for bills of this magnitude, they know whether a bill is going to fail or succeed before it starts.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
This is surely near the top. I am not surprised that it came from PoliPundit.
As the release itself says, that was regarding his "yes" vote to bring the bill back to the floor, which he did not change. In other words, that was from Tuesday's vote, genius.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Here's Rich Lowry on Senator Brownback's switchback on cloture today:
Brownback voted Yes on cloture today as far as I'm concerned. The way the game is played is that you vote "yes" if they need your vote, and then when it becomes clear that it's failing, you become a "no." That's why there were so many "no's" by the end. But it means you were ready to go along when it really counted.
What's extraordinary about what Brownback did is if that's the game you're playing you hang back and see how everyone else is voting before committing yourself. Also, as a Republican senator, you should have at least some vague idea of which way the tide of your colleagues is running and not get yourself in this kind of position.Now, if the campaign's (hard-to-believe-verging-on-laughable) explanation is true that this was a deliberate strategy on his part to vote first "yes" and then "no," well, then, he's badly in need of better political advice and you have to question his judgment for going along with it. Did he have no idea how it would play?
Ouch!!!
I recommended this in the hopes that more visitors to this site will read the Senator's side of the story. As you have said above, you know him better than the rest of us do, and it is possible that this is something he planned.
Having said that, I cringed reading this explanation. Frankly, I take it personally as an insult to my intelligence. I understand that you believe in your candidate to the point that you're spending hours volunteering for his campaign. I can understand you defending him, putting forth the campaign line, even believing it yourself. But put yourself in our position for a minute. If you read that explanation, would you but it?
It's not like Brownback was a border enforcement guy before. He previously voted for amnesty and even said in the debate that he could support this bill.
Also we know he is full of it because this it is very common for this to happen. The leaders let people go vote the way they need to in order to get elected if they will win or lose without their vote. Other senators did the same thing because they all knew this would be the last vote recorded on the bill.
If Brownback really thinks people are going to believe him he is going to have to come up with a better story than what they are putting out. I like Brownback for his social positions, but he isn't commander in chief material precisely for things like this.
He should have just stayed in Iowa and then he would have been by default a nay.