Brownback Decides To Run
By California Yankee Posted in 2008 — Comments (82) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Kansas Republican Senator Sam Brownback announced he will consider seeking the 2008 Republican presidential nomination:
"I have decided, after much prayerful consideration, to consider a bid for the Republican nomination for the presidency," Brownback said in a statement. "There is a real need in our country to rebuild the family and renew our culture and there is a need for genuine conservatism and real compassion in the national discussion."
Brownback has formed a presidential exploratory committee, which will allow him to travel the country and raise money while gauging his support for his campaign.
His entire announcement is available below the fold:
Read on.
blockquote>Dear Friend,
I have decided, after much prayerful consideration, to consider a bid for the Republican nomination for the presidency.
I am running to spread hope and ideas. We are a blessed nation at an important crossroads. War, corruption, disintegrating families, and for some, hopelessness, tear at the American Dream. We need hope and ideas.
I am running for America…to be of service in a crucial time of trial.
Ours is an exceptional nation. A nation between two oceans made up of people from every nation on earth. A great nation united by our ideals. But we are a great nation because of our goodness. If we ever lose our goodness, we will surely lose our greatness.
We believe in a culture of life—that every human life is a beautiful, sacred, unique child of a loving God.
We believe in justice for all—at all times.
We believe in liberty.
But the central institutions that best transmit these values—the family and the culture—are under withering attack.
We must renew our families and rebuild our culture!
We need to revitalize marriage, support the formation of families, and encourage a culture of commitment.
We need a culture that encourages what is right and discourages what is wrong—and has the wisdom to understand the difference.
Each generation of Americans is called upon to carry the torch of virtue during its brief season. If one generation lets the torch fall, its light is extinguished for all future generations. That’s a big responsibility, but we can achieve it if we pick up the torch with courage, generosity, and realism. We must meet and fulfill the job we are called to accomplish in our day. The time to act to insure our future as a nation is now.
Problems abound. The federal government wastes and spends too much. We lack compassionate yet practical programs to help the poor here and around the world. We need energy independence and alternative, clean-burning, domestic-grown fuels. The scourge of cancer has killed too many and must be stopped. We need term limits for judges and members of Congress like we have for the President. We need a flat tax instead of the dreadful, incomprehensible tax code we now have.
And we need humility.
While I am proud to be an American, when I consider my citizenship and the responsibilities it carries today in the light of eternity, I am more humbled by it. We have been given much and will be held to account for what we have been given.
I ask mostly for your prayers. Pray for America, that our division as a people might end and that our land be healed.
Thank you for your interest and support. Thank you for your prayers. Please join our campaign of national renewal and hope for the future!
God Bless you, and God Bless this nation we love so dearly,
Sam Brownback
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Daschle Will Not Seek Presidency — Comments (9) »
Brownback Decides To Run 82 Comments (0 topical, 82 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Brownback is well-liked, even by those on the other side. He could reach a lot of people who other conservatives can´t because he´d be seen as a straight-shooter, rather than someone just repeating talking points.
way; I commented here several months ago that Brownback doesn't excite or convince, really. He may honestly believe what he says but it just doesn't come across. It might be a Richard Lugar kind of thing but Brownback does get to choose his words, so the problem is not a natural lack of charisma.
I'd like to know what he proposes to "strengthen marriage." I can't support a constitutional amendment defining marriage because I don't believe the constitution exists to tell citizens what they may or may not do, and to argue otherwise is not what I would call true conservatism. We could make the tax code more fair to married people but what else can government constructively do to promote marriage? Can it change people's hearts?
A Brownback run as the latter makes some sense. But I don't see him as a legitimate threat to win, let alone win the general.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
And these single-digit/singe-issue wonders have become more of an annoyance than a source of enlightenment in recent years. Combined, I think there are three or four names such as this one that won't draw more than 10 percentage points combined in even one of their home states. They have every right to run, of course, and we have every right to ignore them.
Brownback is the one person out of all the mentioned GOP candidates that I could never vote for. After his attack on IVF last year he is permanantly on my bad side. Not to worry, he won't have a real chance - if anything, he'll draw a few votes away from Mitt Romney. I only wish he was giving up his Senate seat to run.
... but being that a Browback resignation would allow the just re-elected Democrat Governor of the State of Kansas to appoint his successor, don't you think the idea that such a course of action would be, rather than something for which to be wished wish, rather idiotic?
Just asking.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
This is not exactly a fruitful line of inquiry, with respect to the commenter you have directed it at.
Just FYI.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
Not sure if that means that you think I'm a Moby or a troll - or perhaps you just remember that I dislike Brownback in particular. For the record, I have always represented myself as what I am - a libertarian-leaning Republican. Given that it seems to be okay on this site to speak out and mention when we dislike particular elected members of the party, I don't see the harm in saying I don't like Brownback.
Encouraging you to think rationally about anything having to do with Sam Brownback is not a productive use of time.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
Gotcha! And you are probably right - we all have our little blind sides.
Sorry - forgot Kansas had a Dem governor. Really, I meant that we'd get a chance to put a different GOP sen in that seat replacing Brownback.
Can we just assume that every time the word "Brownback" occurs on this blog, GreatDarkSpot will surface to remind us all that he is the worst elected official in all history because of his remarks on IVF? We could save a lot of bandwidth and irritation on a reaction that is, at this point, even more predictable than conditioned dog salivation.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
Hey, at least I'm consistent. No one can accuse me of flip-flopping. :) But all joking aside, I didn't realize that I was so one note on this - If everyone is now clear on the fact that I don't like Brownback, I'll cool it and not bring it up again unless he actually becomes a serious player in the race. I've no desire to be that really anoying guy who just won't shut up!
Don't get me wrong, I like Sam. However, the more guys like him in the race, the less unified the SoCons become (SoCon is not pejorative, yes?) and the more likely we end up with a "consensus" on someone like Guiliani. Who is the one guy I won't vote for.
I hope the conservative base remembers Brownback voted for the McCain-Kennedy Senate "Amnesty" Bill. He was also honored with the "Capital Award" from National Council of La Raza.
"Enforcement first" conservatives usually don't win awards from La Raza.
I don't car how pro-life Senator Brownback is, immigration however IS an issue where the President has the power to change policy.
Going forward, I really don't think the Republican Party's problem has been that their candidates have been insufficiently pro-life. Senator Brownback's only real issue is his strong opposition to abortion, hardly an issue that will propel someone to the White House.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
It's okay, you anti-immigrant folks will have Tancredo to waste your votes on. I'd be more kind in my words, but when you use terms like "McCain-Kennedy Senate "Amnesty" Bill," I don't feel the need to. Enjoy tilting at the windmills and going Nader with your Tancredo vote. The other candidates will all support enforcement and pro-immigration policies, like most of America.
And FWIW, this probably won't even be an issue. Immigration reform is one of the most likely bipartisan issues to come out of the new Congress.
Just adding something quickly here to Adam C. in particular: Although I have been pretty harsh on someone we both know here in the past few days, I *do not* support Tancredo for the Presidency. However, I think that Tancredo should be allowed to speak at college campuses (and elsewhere) without being threatened, having fire alarms pulled, tires slashed, and other dark, Hobbesian things contemplated against his person.
He absolutely has the right to speak. Heck, if he wants to go on campus and say "I hate immigrants. We should bomb Mecca and Mexico City. And let's put automatic machine guns on the border," then he should be able to say it. I think free speech is wonderful and Constitutional and it helps us figure out who the real crazies are in society. I also think Tancredo has every right to run for President or Senator or whatever he wants. And people like the original commenter have every right to vote for him. (Note this was also all true of George Wallace back in the day)
All that being said, I think Tancredo is wrong and borderline bigoted. Many of his followers are not, but alas they seem to want to ride his horse on this issue. They have every right to push him as a candidate, but as long as they are attacking other Republicans with made-up taunts like "McAmnesty," I feel very little reason not to push back.
1. Lie to the electorate about his commitment to term limits
2. Declare that God told him it was fine to tell lies.
There is still a First Amendment. Of course, these declarations may cause some of us to take a dim view of his integrity.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
They have every right to push him as a candidate, but as long as they are attacking other Republicans with made-up taunts like "McAmnesty," I feel very little reason not to push back.
Some of the people who are using Tancredo's views as an excuse to bash other, much more viable candidates should remember that even John Shadegg said in the blogger interview that I transcribed that some form of a guest-worker program was going to be a "part of the solution."
Here were Shadegg's actual words, and I agreed with him at the time, and still do:
I’ll make no secret of the fact that I ultimately believe, or I believe that ultimately a guest-worker program, not to allow those already illegally here to stay, but to address the issue of is there a level of foreign workers that we need into this country legally, probably has to be a part of the solution.
Unless Shadegg has radically changed his mind since that time or the Tancredo supporters believe that even John Shadegg was not "conservative enough" on this issue, I think his thoughts have a lot of merit.
But the recent "protests" against Tancredo moved well beyond the realm of rational debate and verged on a kind of vigilante violence. If this country can tolerate Hugo Chavez taking the podium at the United Nations, surely it can find the tolerance to listen to Tancredo at a few sparsely-attended university engagements without resorting to high-school hijinx or worse.
First, I like Sen. Brownback. I think it would be great progress for the religious right to have Sen. Brownback as their main talking face rather than Falwell, Robertson, Santorum or Reed. He has a lot of good ideas and I'd love to see him in Senate leadership... but
All that being said, this is exactly the wrong cycle for him to be the Republican nominee. In 2006, Republicans did not lose ground in socially conservative states and areas. Republicans are losing ground in small government and small "l" libertarian states and regions. The Mountain West is shifting uncomfortably to the left, especially in CO, MT, AZ, and NM.
The Republican Party needs a candidate who can win states like OH, IN, MI, MN, WI, IA as well as CO, AZ, NM, MT and NV. Ideally, someone who is competitive in PA, OR, WA, ME, NH, and possibly NJ. Sen. Brownback is not that person.
Having Sen. Brownback in the crop would highlight some issues and may give religious conservatives a candidate to rally around. I just hope those religious conservatives are willing, if they lose, to rally around whichever candidate wins even if his name is John McCain.
My main worry is that nominating a man complicit in the overspending of DC Republican and a man who has never challenged the pork mindset of the Senate but who is a leader on social issues will back Republicans into a Southern corner where they continue to lose ground in regions with lower levels of religiosity. I think Sen. Brownback has good itentions, but his nomination would further the split that is sending small government voters away from the Republican Party.
I'm an unabashed Brownback supporter - I just donated to his PAC, but when (not if) he loses, I'll get on board with the winner, unless the winner is Rudy. Romney and McCain are not my first choices, but they're "good enough," I suppose.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
I hope you are representative of many voters. And I hope there is not too much intra-party attacking in the primaries. Sen. Brownback is a good guy, but I do not think he will be President.
he will bring issues that are more to the right up to the forfront that might have been left alone. So if there is a Rudy or McCain in the general they will have to have taken a position. I would not support either of these men in the primaries but I will if they make to the general election but at least I know where they stand and will know what to expect when they get into office.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
Any Republican candidate for President in order to get re-elected must do either or both of the following. Get at least as many conservatives out and voting or get as much of the middle to vote for them as voted for President Bush. While I have a decent amount of confidence in Senator Brownback doing the first, the second seems beyond his reach.
President Bush's poll numbers have made the generic presidential ballot tend toward the generic Democrat and I just don't see Sen Brownback pushing those numbers in the other direction.
Brownback would make a great VP. He needs 4-8 years in another job to make his credentials more amenable to the center. He is already considered a stalwart by the base. Once he gets the institutional inertia of having been the number two man behind him, he could probably coast to a nomination in 2016 or 2020.
That brings up the question of whether this would be a good thing....
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
When someone criticizes a candidates' position on the issue of immigration, you shouldn't automatically assume they're some crazy xenophobic bigot.
That tactic has alrighty been claimed by the Left.
I have no intention of voting for a fringe candidate on this one issue, but it is an issue that I care deeply about. I live in the Southwest, and I have seen what happens when the Third World migrates to the United States.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Tradesports is tracking 28 GOP possibles for the 2008 nomination.
12 have announced they are not running.
Brownback makes 5 that have taken formal steps towards running.
That leaves 11 more with unannounced intentions.
On the Dems side, just for reference sake, they are tracking 25 possible nominees. Of those, only 8 have announced they are not running, 4 have taken formal steps towards running, leaving 13 with unannounced intentions.
Am I a nerd if I say watching the field on both side of the aisle become more defined is a fun hobby?
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
Brownback is wise not to mention illegal or legal immigration at ALL in this statement, but then he goes and puts his foot in his mouth by mentioning culture.
How are we to strengthen our culture if we allow unrestrained immigration from one country, of people who have no plan to assimilate into our culture?
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
To the other fellow libertarian leaning Republicans on the board, who do you think in the potential '08 field best represents your views?
Personally, I don't see a candidate right now that does. Romney comes closest on the economic side and Guiliani on the civil libertarian side, but no one represents both. Perhaps Bloomberg should he (1) choose to run and (2) do so as a Republican.
For me, it's McCain. I think he's probably closer to the libertarian side on the social issues but he's not talking about it. And I think he's fairly good on the economic issues, too.
He's the only Senator who has consistently tried to fight pork (besides Coburn). He voted against the Transportation Pork bill and the Energy Pork bill. He fought the Medicare Pork bill.
I'd prefer Gov. Sanford, Gov. Pawlenty, or Gov. Bush as a small government conservative. But if they do not run, it will be a choice between Sen. McCain and a couple others. Specifically, I am looking at Gov. Thompson more since he pushed a major school choice initiative and the big welfare reform of the 1990s, both of which shrunk the reach of government.
As for your note the NYC mayors, I think you are off. First, Guiliani was a major "law and order" mayor and I doubt many civil libertarian groups are fond of him. There were many stories of zealous police officers for better or for worse. Second, how in any way is Bloomberg a libertarian? He runs the biggest bohemoth of city government in the country and he hasn't put much effort into shrinking it. NYC has scores of boards and commissions that could be shut down, but unsurprisingly Bloomberg has not done so.
Also note that Romney created a government universal health care program... I'm not sure how that is economically libertarian.
As I've moved away, over the last decade, from the GOP and towards the Libertarian Party, I've off and on cosidered voting for democrats but the one thing that always keeps me from pulling the lever is the spectre of socialized medicine - it simply scares the bejesus out of me. I can't think of any other single issue with the power to so negatively effect the American culture.
-exits
While McCain probably doesn't believe the in Religious Right agenda, he certainly seems to be courting them. Also, I just don't think the guy understands the nature of capital markets or the economy in general. He's spent his entire life in the Navy and in Congress.
Matters what you mean by that. He opposes the FMA on federalist grounds. Like 2004 Libertarian Party nominee Badnarik, McCain is pro-life because even many libertarians agree that government should protect the right to "life, liberty and property." What specific things has he done or promises has he made to social conservatives that you disagree with?
I'm not sure that Badnarik ever staked out a personal position on abortion. If he did, I never heard it anyway, and I paid pretty close attention. I heard him state several times that the official libertarian party position was pro choice, which was true even if a contentious truth.
-exits
Strictly speaking, at this point it's probably not fair to call me a "libertarian leaning republican," as I've all but become a Libertarian - full stop. Still, McCain (almost definitely) and Giuliani (maybe) are the only two candidates from either major party for whom I might vote.
-exits
At least not when it comes to things like guns, smoking or banning foods, abusing eminent domain for “economic development”, taxes, or school choice.
I’m not sure Giuliani is either. For some reason people equate “pro choice on abortion” and “gay rights” with “libertarian” even though neither are particularly libertarian positions. His support for federalism on those topics is laudable but they do not a libertarian make. It should be noted that prior to 9/11 Giuliani was vilified for his cracking down on pettier offenses like panhandling and the squeegee-men and he made his political bones by going after Michael Milken for insider trading – something that probably horrifies a lot of libertarians. I tend not to be horrified by either but I think a lot of people who are considering him a potential candidate are pretty much ignoring everything he did pre-9/11 which could leave them open to a few surprises.
I don’t think that there is any perfect libertarian candidate (besides the one that looks at me every morning when I’m brushing my teeth *g*) who can get more than single digits. However I think that the best we can hope for is one who is (a) close to being an economic libertarian, (b) supports the “opportunity society” rather than “Nanny State” approach to government programs (unfortunately much as it may pain the purists, defunding every government program created after the Civil War ain’t gonna happen), and (c) is serious about federalism and empowering individuals.
I think either Governor Romney or Senator McCain would be likely candidates although both have their drawbacks. Romney spent most of his time governing in a heavily Democratically-controlled State so it may be a challenge to distinguish between things he supported because he agreed with them and things that he supported because it was better than the status quo and moved the ball in the right direction (like his proposal for health care). To his credit he’s very bright and good at articulating which is which and considering that we now have a Democratic Congress (and may have one after 2008), those skills could come in handy.
Senator McCain has a great record on supporting entitlement reform and voting against wasteful spending. He’s very strong on national security issues and extremely hard for the other side to demonize. His major drawback IMO is that in supporting “clean government” he has shown an almost Teddy Roosevelt-like fetish for regulation (e.g. his support of the tobacco litigation, his support for antitrust statutes, hearings on steroid use in MLB, and the ever-popular McCain-Feingold). The Bush administration to its credit has taken a more hands-off approach to the economy (one of the reasons I think he’s been "misunderestimated" by friends and foes alike when it comes to domestic policy issues). Although in fairness to McCain, I don’t think he’s proposed to reregulate the economy so much as he’s defended some regulations (which everyone to the left of Ayn Rand does in some shape or form including yours truly) which he believes are essential for preventing some of the fraud and abuse that’s made the news. Also there is a case to be made (I’m putting it out there for people to think about) that because some regulation does serve to empower consumers against some practices that people consider abusive (like being automatically declined by a health insurance company who figures that you don’t have the time or money to fight to enforce the one-sided contract) and McCain has wisely decided when and where to pick his battles.
and who post at RS, I think the key is opposition to the internet gambling ban.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Finally there´s a candidate in this race about whom I can get excited. Sen. Brownback has been a consistent conservative who can broaden his appeal by reaching out to the other side on issues like AIDS in Africa. I know this will be unpopular with many of the rally round the flag Republicans on this site, but frankly I can´t support anyone else currently in the field, now or in a general election. I will not support Mayor Gay Marriage, Governor Abortion, or Senator Gang of 14. I have voted for liberal Republicans before and expect to have to do so again, but frankly asking me to support any one of those characters for President is just asking too much. If Huckabee or someone like that wins the nomination, I´ll close ranks. If not, it´s Brownback or bust.
Becuase if you want to use attack names "Mayor Gay Marriage, Governor Abortion, or Senator Gang of 14," then I guess everyone should have one. So if asking you to support middle-of-the-road Republicans is too much, enjoy the Constitution Party and President Hillary Clinton.
It takes a pretty long run to get Giuliani to the middle of the road.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Not on abortion or guns, but on law and order, national security, and judges he at least claims to be a mainstream Republican. He is liberal on a couple issues, the question is whether they are major or minor issues.
will have to satisfy the party on abortion to get the nomination, and that Giuliani and Romney can and will do it and be trusted. I agree with Kavon, who is our own thebij here at RS. Why?, Because any republican took an opposite course in office would lose all loyalty and support and be made a lame duck thru intra-party discipline.
http://race42008.com/2006/12/04/dick-morris-right-wing-doesnt-have-candi...
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
I don't think any R President can be functionally pro-choice and get re-nominated. However, Guiliani could appoint pro-Roe judges like Posner to the Supreme Court if he wanted while not being pro-choice in any other way. That would be all he would have to do to put the pro-life movement back ten years.
kinds of judges he would nominate and I think he said already that he thinks the abortion issue should be decided by the states. I think he will move even more to the right on this.
Now, as a soc-con, this would mean that we would not get an amendment on the issue, but I don't think that's possible anyway.
The bigger issue may be gay marriage, beacuse it is possible, eventually to get an amendment on that. It would awhile as we exhibit the positions of blue state senators to their constituents via votes on bills destined to lose, but when one looks at democrat voters on state amendments overwhelming support for defining marriage as one man and one woman, I think eventually we can get a federal amendment.
And on that, Romney has the correct position against Giuliani. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think McCain has said he now favors a federal amendment? and not state rights?
So with Giuliani, one does lose some things from my point of view, but I would be willing to settle, and I suspect most of my kind would so long as he is strong on judges, ie roe.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
I will never, ever pass the Senate.
You'll find Rudy will absolutely solid on judicial nominations.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
You need 38 states to pass the FMA. While most of the South and the Plains States will pass it in a heartbeat, I think the following 12 states would either vote it down or simply have it not come to a vote. CA, OR, WA, WI, MD, NJ, NY, CT, RI, CT, MA, VT. Can the FMA get every other one?
Randolph Finder
...to keep a proposed amendment off of the ballot (I'd be worried, too). Maryland is waiting on a court case; provided how that goes, the people opposing SSM may be able to reintroduce it. Oregon and Wisconsin currently ban SSM via Constitutional amendment; Washington merely bans it via State legislation. Of your list, only CA, CT, NJ and VT have passed laws permitting the practice; I'd say that the list of reliable SSM-supporting States would be those four plus HI & ME (no, MA is not on the list). All of this is, of course, not really an issue until/unless DoMA gets overthrown; then it all becomes very, very important. So you tell me.
I say this as a supporter of SSM: the current program of judicial activism has been an absolute, unmitigated disaster for us.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
allowing SSM? I thought they passed, by ballot initiative, either a law or a state con amend outlawing SSM that was the basis for the State SC upholding a ban in SF and nullifying the "marriages" by the SF mayor.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
...gay couples in CA may register for domestic partnerships that extend marriage privileges to them; but a law recognizing gay marriage statewide was vetoed by the Governor because [Insert your own reason here].
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
defeated a referendum on same that the legislature promptly ignored.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Remember, for a state to approve a Federal Constitutional amendment, it has to go through both houses (sans Nebraska). It isn't a referendum. For example in Maryland, the legislature may be unwilling to put forth a bill to give Gays the right to marry, but that doesn't mean they'll approve a marriage amendment. If the leader of one house deliberately sends consideration to a committee that is going to bury it, it won't pass. Maryland has had *both* gay-marriage and anti-gay marriage proposals die in the house. All it takes is a few key legislators willing to say "I don't think the Constitution should be changed" and that state isn't going for it.
As *state* amendments in Massachusetts, you need a majority of the members *in joint session* (twice) to send it on to the people. OTOH, for Massachusetts to pass this, the pro-FMA people need majorities in *each* house. If the Mass House favors Heterosexual only marriage by 100-60 and the Mass Senate is against it 25-15, a State amendment will go out (the joint session would be 115-85), but the State Senate being against it will kill Massachusetts approval of the FMA.
Note, this would be the first *truly* controversial amendment of the Television era. No one was willing to donate a quarter of their salary to help pass or oppose the Congressional Raise amendment or lowering the voting age. There will be those willing for this amendment...
And once Pelosi becomes speaker, she *will* use every trick in the book and then some to keep FMA from even coming to a vote. Her district is probably the most gay friendly in the country
...that you could have made similar arguments against say, Prohibition ever passing.
The legislatures will do what they do; but they do remain subject to the discretion of their constituents, which is not infinite - even in Massachusetts. And every State that passed a ban in the first place is fertile ground for the argument that a Constitutional Amendment is the only way to get the courts to listen to said State's opinions on this issue. Mind you, again, I'm assuming that this scenario relies on DoMA being overturned (we're never going to see any version of the FMA passed with DoMA still on the books).
As for Pelosi... her district may be gay-friendly, but it's also one of 435. And she doesn't have a majority on this issue. And it doesn't look like she's going to be very good at this Speaker thing anyway.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I think a lot of liberals would be pretty happy with FMA being removed 15 years after passing. :)
Right now the Massachusetts Senate is 34-6 for the Democrats. (I doubt it would pass there)
Agreed, while DOMA is in place, this isn't going anywhere. Things don't hit the fan until Alabama is forced to give all rights to gays married in Massachusetts.
As for Pelosi, look at the ability of Hastert to bury any bill that didn't have a majority of the Republicans in the house in favor. While she may not be as effective as Gingrich, I think Hastert is a much lower bar to get over. :)
I agree with you on the Senate. I think the changes in 2006 gave at least one more vote against (MO-Sen) and possibly a couple more. (VA-Sen?, OH-Sen?).
Randy
The odds are better that it wouldn't get repealed at all. Or at least, not in my lifetime.
As to your other points;
* MA's ban doesn't have to pass, it has to get enough votes (50 out of 200 from both houses) to make it onto the ballot. Hence the shenanigans.
* The problem here is that you have to stop thinking about what Alabama's reaction is to recognizing Massachusetts' marriages and start thinking about what Oregon's, Wisconsin's, Michigan's and Ohio's will be (all have Constitutional Amendment bans). Or perhaps Washington's, Minnesota's, Pennsylvania's, Maryland's, Delaware's, Illinois' or Maine's (they just have state laws banning the practice).
* You are assuming that a majority of Democrats would not vote for a post-DoMA FMA; or that soon-to-be-Speaker Pelosi can successfully dominate the House in the face of a serious challenge. The first is iffy, at best; the second... well. Early indications are encouraging. For the GOP. :)
* I'm not knowledgeable enough on all of our new Senators to gauge their views on SSM.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
at least play it right. I was attacking the other candidates on specific policy positions that they have taken, be it support for gay marriage, abortion, or the right of Senators to filibuster judicial nominees, not simply drawing a caricature. You could have said something along the lines of Sen. Open Borders, thus attacking a PRINCIPLED position with which even I, a Brownback supporter, disagree. Even so, I, for one, am much more comfortable with a candidate who´s on the same ideological page as I am and happens to disagree with me on a particular policy matter than the rest of the field, who either have never been on the same page or, worse, haven´t had the backbone to say that they were.
I see your attacks were so well thought through that I should never have thought you meant anything negative by them. If you throw out the 11th amendment, be ready for everything to go downhill fast.
As I said upthread, Sen. Brownback is a good guy and he has every right to throw his hat in the ring. But if that leads a bunch of primary voters to say it's Brownback or nobody, then it is bad for the party and conservatives. If it leads people, like Leon, to say "I have my guy, but if he loses I'll vote R" then it's a good development.
If it gets people like you to start attacking Republican nominees, then it will lead to a backlash against the religious right and Southern wing that is right now pulling the Republicans into becoming a regional party.
on the strength of religious conservatives. If you really want to get rid of us or shut us up, Republicans will again become a long-term minority. And if the GOP really wants to say that abortion, gay marriage, and judges are minor issues, we will lose in 2008.
By the way, Sen. Brownback´s entry has nothing to do with me not supporting those already in the race. I also said that there are other people who I would support, just not Romney, Giuliani and McCain. Pay closer attention.
Religious Conservatives are not a majority. Republicans become a Majority Party by finding issues that united small government conservatives, social conservatives, and good government types in the Contract with America (which doesn not mention abortion or same-sex marriage).
If a pro-lifer who voted for Bork is too far to your left on social issues and judges, then you are pining yourself is a small minority.
We need to be thinking about how to win back voters who have voted R in the past or win over new ones. If we increasingly become a religion-first party that is only successful in the South, we won't be a majority party. Tell me how Brownback wins over voters that did not vote for President in places like OH, PA, WI, MN, OR, NJ, and ME? Or at least explain how he can keep places like NM, CO, NV, and IA from shifting to Ds?
I'd love to go back to 1994 and have a large majority of the overall vote, but that would be going back to putting good governance first and other issues second. I don't think many people are excited about that right now and I'm afraid its going to take losing a few more times before people wake up and face the fact that the religious right cannot win elections alone.
Moderates by and large aren´t activists. The GOP money doesn´t come from religious conservatives, but the people who knock on doors, make phone calls, and do the other nitty-gritty things that win elections are, by and large, social conservatives. This isn´t to say that we´re the only ones doing that kind of thing, but if not for us, the GOP wouldn´t have won from ´94-´04 and won´t win again in the future.
"the GOP wouldn´t have won from ´94-´04 and won´t win again in the future."
This is true of all parts of the coalition. My point is that one of those parts has started leaving the coalition and we need to think about how to make sure they don't leave. That part is the fiscal conservative, small government voter. There are ways to do this without being socially liberal, but nominating Brownback isn't the way to do it.
Republicans become a Majority Party by finding issues that united small government conservatives, social conservatives, and good government types in the Contract with America (which doesn not mention abortion or same-sex marriage).
You never answer these questions, so I'll repeat it: When did the Contract come out? What was the polling shift as a result?
The Contract was icing on the cake. It was not the cake. 1994 was a year of mass retirements (the last golden parachute year), clicking realignments, Democrat overreach, and the result of Republican voters realizing where they'd gone wrong in supporting Perot. The idea that they were united under the banner of the Contract for America is amusing nostalgia, but it has no basis in fact, evidence, or indeed, experience.
One critical element you forget whenever you spin off on your favorite tangent is the gun nuts -- and I count myself as one, so take that pejorative for what it's worth. 1994 was the year they really got energized. The Democrats have neutralized that issue. It's gonna be a lot harder constructing a majority without them, religious wingnuts like me or small government obsessives like you notwithstanding.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
than the average person, and I had no idea what the "Contract With America" said. I don't think our Republican Rep ran on it. Good candidates in swing districts win elections. That is only about 50 districts. Win those and win the House.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I more or less like Senator Brownback but I don't think he can win. I think the best case scenario would be if he ran for a while and generated some support and than dropped out and endorsed Romney. If the field gets too crowded a McCain nomination is very likely. I don't know many Republicans that love the guy but I have no doubt that he can pick up around 30-40 percent of the vote in the primaries.
at least 2, and with any other candidate that shares these views, one of which I know McCain does, and which issue may be the most important economic issue that faces us:
1-He has fallen for the man-made global warming myth and parts of the agenda of the communist and anti-American activists that use it to weaken America; and
2-he speaks of the need for alternative fuels
Now, I would love for their to be some magic alternative fuel that we could all start using tomorrow. I would also like a machine that turns granite into gold.
NO MATTER WHAT WE DO ON ALTERNATIVE FUELS, OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND ECONOMY WILL BE GREATLY DEPENDENT ON OIL FOR DECADES TO COME.
PERIOD.
And while Brownback did speak of energy independence, he did not say what needs to be said, and that is, that we should
DRILL FOR OIL EVERYWHERE IT IS ON AMERICAN SOIL EVEN IF WE HAVE TO DRILL UNDER MT RUSHMORE.
No action of the democrats has been more destructive that their refusal to allow oil drilling in new areas since the late 70s (also no new nuclear plants and oil refineries).
And no new leftist issue has the potential to weaken us further that the agenda of the global warming flat earth society creeps.
We have so much oil NOW that we could be tapping. It is a crime that we don't. And it is just silly for anyone to pretend to be serious on the energy issue not FIRST admit this and propose drilling for oil but rather play games with hope on alternatives that do not exist. Even ethanol would require the construction of a whole new infrastructure.
We gave gas stations now.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
"Senator" and "amnesty"
In a world full of twists and turns, the ultimate twist...is a straight line.
Hotline Last Call has this as one of its swizzle sticks...
What are the chances Brownback's exploratory cmte ends up discovering a need to "spend more time with his family"?
but somehow I can`t help but think that this is the same reaction that everyone had when Howard Dean decided to run, and somehow I can`t see Brownback blowing it like he did.
that Brownback isn't going anywhere.
Is he good on pro-life issues? Absolutely. You couldn't find better.
How good is he on anything else? Well...
I don't mean to diminish the work of such a well-intentioned man, or to deny that he's conservative. But I don't see him as being a party leader. And perhaps it's unfair, but I wonder if some of his stranger stands come from being well-intentioned but ignorant of conservative principles.
And if he can't win people like me over, who are socially conservative first and fiscally conservative after, how on earth is he going to win over the rest of the party? I suspect he's the equivalent of Guiliani, someone who can't possibly succeed outside his faction.
I hope he can change people's minds. Certainly I'd like to see a social conservative do well. But he has a long, long way to go before I can take his candidacy seriously.
a Senator.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Brownback is completely unelectable in a general, if he got the nomination any democrat would beat him easily. He is perceived as way out of the mainstream on social issues and
would scare the heck out of the libs.
The gop needs a candidate who is perceived as somewhat moderate if we want to win. Sometime you have to vote with your head and not your heart.
The so called social moderates scare the heck out of us conservatives so I guess it evens out. But the libs aren't voting republican anyway so what does it matter.
Brownback is not "way out of the mainstream on social issues" but I could never support him because of his support of the mccain kennedy bush amnesty plan for illegals.
With a little time on the national stump--Brownback could quickly turn his speaking style around. Being on the stump at that level has a way of either polishing you up as a speaker, or knocking you down a notch or two as a candidate.
Blogging at RespectfullyRepublican.com
Before anyone says that Sen. Sam Brownback can´t reach out to moderates, take a look at this speech. If that´s not reaching out, I don´t know what is.
Brownback would be a strong darkhorse for the nomination.
That time has passed.
To win, Brownback would need to be the conservative consensus candidate.
There are too many other conservatives running.
Brownback isn't particularly impressive in front of the camera.
There is so little "sizzle" in that guy, that I don't think that he would even add much at the bottom of the ticket.
Don't get me wrong, he's one of my 5 or 6 favorite senators; but he's running on the assumption that the Christian right has more clout in the party than it actually does.