Brownback Responds to Retreaded Story
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So apparently, the many online supporters of Mitt Romney got tired of answering all those pesky questions about Governor Romney's many positions on abortion, so they decided that they'd instead retread an old TNR attempted smear job which purported to show that Sam Brownback also changed his abortion position in 1994. The message? "See, everyone's doing it!" Nevermind the fact that Brownback's purported single conversion shares almost nothing in common with the serial political opportunism that characterizes Mitt Romney's abortion position at any given moment, the important thing was to find any excuse for Mitt to not stand alone on this. Nevermind the fact that the quotes in question did not actually say that Sam Brownback used to be pro-choice, nor the fact that most of them came from his political rivals, nor the fact that Sam Brownback himself has never made any public comment or vote that would indicate that he has ever been anything but 100% pro-life.
Well, Brownback himself has responded to these charges - you can view the video for yourself. And given the fact that Brownback has spent a decade on Capitol Hill kicking butt and taking names for the pro-life cause, and given the fact that he's never been accused of serial lying/pandering (in fact, the most common criticism of Brownback is the exact opposite; that he is too idealist, not enough in tune with "political realities"), I think the question has been put to rest. Mind you, I'd still support Brownback even if he did change his mind in 1994, because I can recognize a person who's genuinely committed to the pro-life movement when I see one. But I thought it important to let Senator Brownback speak for himself about this, to illustrate the folly of building a case based on ambiguous quotes taken from a man's political rivals. If this is the new standard for establishing truth about a candidate, is it okay to build a case against Romney based not upon what he's said, but rather what Teddy Kennedy, Robert Reich and others have said about him? Because if so, politics has become a whole new ballgame.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Sucking and Other Pulmonary Aerodynamics — Comments (14) »
Brownback Responds to Retreaded Story 34 Comments (0 topical, 34 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"Too many incendiary comments and actions in the past."
Can you provide links to specific comments and actions that would obviously be considered incendiary?
"A real gimlet is half gin and half Rose's Lime Juice and nothing else. It beats martinis hollow." - Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
There is the fruit comment he made a year or so ago regarding people.
There was the judicial hold that he put in place because a judge went to a gay wedding, which he was forced to rescind when it became public.
There is his very militant pro-life position which will turn off a lot of voters.
I don't want to attack Brownback. I was simply pointing to his electability issues.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
"There is the fruit comment he made a year or so ago regarding people."
I assume you mean his comment about Sweden's marriage laws to Rolling Stone. After a bit of googling, it looks like a standard prefab outrage.
"There was the judicial hold that he put in place because a judge went to a gay wedding, which he was forced to rescind when it became public."
Is this really a big issue to most voters? I seem to remember the popularity of state amendments banning gay marriage just a year or two ago.
"There is his very militant pro-life position which will turn off a lot of voters."
And will appeal greatly to an equal-sized number of voters. Anyone who's strongly pro-abortion isn't going to vote for any Republican candidate. Nice use of the loaded term 'militant,' though. Anyhoo, voters seemed to have elected an equally 'militant' pro-life George Bush twice.
Gimlet
"A real gimlet is half gin and half Rose's Lime Juice and nothing else. It beats martinis hollow." - Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
Is this really a big issue to most voters? I seem to remember the popularity of state amendments banning gay marriage just a year or two ago.
Gay marriage and respect for gays are two completely different issues. If he simply opposed gay marriage, that would be one thing. However he has said, in the past, that homosexuality is an abomination. And it's not that it's a big issue with voters. It is more that voters don't like Presidents to be openly hostile to Americans. They want Presidents to be leaders and conciliatory to his opponents.
And will appeal greatly to an equal-sized number of voters. Anyone who's strongly pro-abortion isn't going to vote for any Republican candidate. Nice use of the loaded term 'militant,' though. Anyhoo, voters seemed to have elected an equally 'militant' pro-life George Bush twice.
No. First of George Bush is not even in the same zip as Sam Brownback on the abortion is. Abortion is Brownback's raison d'etre. George Bush tended to keep the abortion issue on a slow simmer. Brownback has openly stated that he openly opposes Roe v Wade.
The abortion advoates on both sides are in the bag, election wise. It is the middle, that is looking for a reasonable compromise to the issue, that will be alienated by a Brownback.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
...many of our most ardent pro-lifers today have more than a few statements in their past that are at least pro-choice sympathetic - Sam Brownback, Ronald Reagan, Henry Hyde among them. So, attacking Romney as not sufficiently pro-life when he has governed as a pro-life governor is counterproductive.
If he didn't want questions asked about his past positions and statements, he probably shouldn't have posed the same questions about another candidate. Remember where this started.
No one, to my recollection, is questioning Brownback's certitude on life issues, only that he wasn't always necessarily that way, according to published quotes of people who encountered him in 1994, and that his public conversion came very late in a 1994 primary where his opponent was running to his right. That could be considered politically expedient.
If he himself had a conversion, then he shouldn't be questioning the conversions of his peers. You, the reader/citizen, can and should question Romney's conversion, but the Brownback campaign, on the other hand, probably should not.
And here I thought that that was an integral part of the political/primary process.
But what do I know?
I'll rephrase the end of my comment.
The Brownback campaign probably should not, unless they want the same questions asked of them.
But as long as it's based on information taken from a candidate's political rivals, and is totally contrary to over a decade of unbroken service, don't expect people to treat it as a serious question.
------------
Fnord.
I didn't want the labels?? Why? Were you embarrassed? Was pro-life not expediant for you? Just say this "I was had a change of opinion." It's fine. You would be forgiven in a heart beat.
At least Romney was honest about his past positions.
Because, you know, Mitt would never say anything weaselly like "I don't like labels," and he'd be straight up honest and admit he used to be "pro-choice," right?
That works fine except for this.
Life is NOT a malfunction!
------------
Fnord.
This is YOU, explaining your deitycandidate's reluctance to use the words "pro-choice":
I think (from reading others posting on this) that Romney would be making the point that although he has supported the Right of women to choose, he would not want the "Pro-Choice" label applied to him because it implies he is instep with the pro-choice movement which was far more liberal on the topic than Romney was when he was running for senator and governor.
I want to take this opportunity to thank you for being part of this site.
------------
Fnord.
Link:
You may not agree with someone's choices of labels, but you can hardly speak for every person who may support abortion's legalization.
With this in mind it has pretty much been shown he wasn't lying about his past in this interview. He was very open about it. I don't know why you and others would be so quick to put a label on the guy that is profooundly false. He never lied about his previous stances on abortion, only said he wasn't comfortable with the "pro-choice" label.
------------
Fnord.
It's obvious.
Romney didn't like the label pro-choice. Brownback apparently from his video didn't like the label of pro-life.
Why didn't Brownback like the label pro-life? That's the question of the day. Romney admits he wasn't pro-choice Brownback does the mexican hat dance around the question.
Thankyou for you kind words though. Redstate is an awesome place. It obvious has had an effect on the Brownback Campaign.
I take it as a compliment that you are actually doing research on me. Me, a musician with politics as a side hobby. All in all a good day.
Thanks Leon.
had several conversions. I just don't see it. From my viewpoint:
1994 - Romney was "personally pro-life/publicly pro-choice" (pro-choice), but you refer to that as a "conversion." I think it is not, much like announcers of football games confuse an end around with a reverse (one involves an actual change of direction, the other does not).
SLC Games - Someone characterizes Romney as "pro-choice," but not running for anything and not setting policy, Romney refers to his personal opinion. I don't see any conversion here, he's speaking as to his private life, not any public policy way. If he was in any public policy setting arena I think he would have still said "personally pro-life/publicly pro-choice."
2002 - To remove abortion as a campaign issue, Romney says that he won't work to change MA abortion law, this still fits into the "personally pro-life/publicly pro-choice" view, However, this looks like he is starting to have his conversion in the public sphere. Yes, he is "personally pro-life/publicly pro-choice" from a practical standpoint still, but conversions usually don't happen in an instant, they take time.
2003 on - The actual conversion (singular) happens. He gets into a position where the decisions he makes have consequences on the issue of life. For the first time, Mitt Romney has to do instead of just say.
I see a man who was pro-choice in 1994 and had one conversion happen over a decade, that when the chips were on the table, he governed in a pro-life manner.
Shorter version:
1994 - "personally pro-life/publicly pro-choice"
SLC - "personally pro-life/publicly pro-choice"
2002 - "personally pro-life/publicly pro-choice"
2003/4 - pro-life
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
in 2003. I didn't point to a single day in which the light switch went on - according to Gov Romney, it was the stem-cell debate. However, he governed pro-life - that is why I and I alone put the "2003 on" date there (As in, from 2003 on), just representing when he took office.
BTW, You need a new bloggyhorse TexasGringo.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
Becoming governor in 2003 leads you to believe Romney was pro-life then? That's utter nonsense! Was a pro-life committment part of the oath of office? Did the new Massachusetts governor become pro-life when he became governor?
You need to get your facts straight. Here's what you said: "2003 on - The actual conversion (singular) happens." Did the actual conversion begin to happen in 2003 or not? If so, show me a statement or action in 2003. If not, stop writing false Romney propaganda.
Read, then respond.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
and you need some reading comprehension as well, it seems. I told you it was MY decision to put the 2003 date on there because that's when he became governor (unless you are disputing that?). I did that because everything else up until that point was just words (campaigning). Now, on his first day he probably didn't have to deal with any life issues. I am not the arbitrator of the exact second when Mitt Romney became publicly pro-life (hint: neither are you).
Here's the thing you keep avoiding (which was my original point and you haven't disputed it at all) we know he had ONE conversion. We know it happened sometime in between campaigning for governor and acting on the life issue during his governorship. You want to throw out 2005 instead of 2003? Fine, it doesn't change my point AT ALL. Romney had ONE conversion and you can't haven't said otherwise.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
It's a simple question: "What did Romney do or say in 2003 that leads you to believe he was pro-life then?"
If you're answer is "he became governor" (your first post), then we'll just have to agree to disagree that the fact of him becoming governor is any indication of a pro-life position.
If you're simply ignorant of anything he did or said (you seem to admit this in your last post), then perhaps you shouldn't trace Romney conversion back to "2003 on" like you originally did.
The answer to when Romney first showed any signs of being publicly pro-life is actually an important one (and answerable since we're talking about public statements or actions; not private thoughts). There's no doubt that a strong pro-life stance would hurt Romney's standing among the Massachusetts electorate, but help him in the Republican primaries. Statements against interest are more credible. If Romney didn't make any public pro-life statements or take any public pro-life actions until he was planning a run for president, then it's reasonable to question whether it's a sincere change of heart or simply a politically expedient tactic. That's why I'm interested in whether Romney did or said anything publicly in 2003 (or 2004) to show pro-life support. Personally, I've looked and haven't found anything until 2005--after he was considered a potential presidential candidate.
everything else up until that point was just words (campaigning).
Why does this not surprise me coming from a Romney supporter?
I didn't read anything past the first sentence. You want an answer to that question? ASK SOMEONE ELSE or write a diary on it. I didn't bring it up, I have no intention of talking about it. I don't care whether you think it is an important point or not. It has absolutely no bearing on what I am talking about at all. Get that through your thick skull and then come back. Once again my point, which you have never disagreed with, is that he had one and only one conversion. Period. End.
We're done unless you have anything to add to that point and ONLY that point.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
Snipe via email if you must - the both of you - but this is degenerating into a waste of bandwidth.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
"So apparently, the many online supporters of Mitt Romney"
The reason that this has gotten any play on any blogs is because Matt Lewis from Townhall responded to Brownback's (holier than thou?) criticism of Romney's conversion. Yes, Romneyites have picked it up since, but they didn't start it. Unless of course you think Matt Lewis is a Romneyite.
Now, I did bring this up on Redstate a while ago but it was just a breif dissucssion on the facts.
"TNR attempted smear job"
Didn't you get accused of conducting a smear job by just reporting the facts. My, how times have changed.
"did not actually say that Sam Brownback used to be pro-choice"
No, but it did point to the fact that he didn't want anything to do with the pro-life movement.
"the fact that he's never been accused of serial lying/pandering"
Except on the war and earmarks.
"I'd still support Brownback even if he did change his mind in 1994"
I don't support him, but I agree with you sentiment here. He is definatly better (and most any other potenial canidate) than Romney on the issue.
"what Teddy Kennedy, Robert Reich and others have said about him?"
The problem here is that it was Brownback's own KS GOP that thought he was a moderate back in 1994, not his rivals.
"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
Unless of course you think Matt Lewis is a Romneyite.
Nooot gonna get into that. Let's just say that my concern is not that Matt Lewis has positive personal feelings towards Romney
No, but it did point to the fact that he didn't want anything to do with the pro-life movement.
No, it points out that he didn't know how to talk about it, and didn't make that his emphasis.
The problem here is that it was Brownback's own KS GOP that thought he was a moderate back in 1994, not his rivals.
I'm gonna assume that you didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday, and that you know what complete crap this statement is. You well know that some of the fiercest rivalries there are are intra-party; how did McCain and Bush get along in 2000? They went and asked those involved in the campaign for his primary opponent, for goodness' sake. We have two guys down here in Tennessee (Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary) who are both doctrinaire conservatives who threw the primary to the more moderate Bob Corker because personal animus wouldn't allow either one to drop out of the race like they should have.
Didn't you get accused of conducting a smear job by just reporting the facts. My, how times have changed.
Here is the difference between what TNR did and what I do. I take the votes, actions and words right out of Romney's mouth. I don't take them out of what other people say about him. I want you to notice, for instance, this story that I wrote here and tell me if you think there's a basic difference between the way I handle this, and the way that TNR and Matt Lewis handled it.
------------
Fnord.
It's a fact that people say Brownback came off as pro-choice. The people include Kansas Right To life. It's not just the moderates in the Kansas GOP
It's a fact that on Brownback said he didn't want to use the term pro-life in 94 in his video yesterday.
It's a fact he brings home pork while calling for restraint.
Lastly it's a fact that abortion isn't the only issue in conservative America. Brownback has some more explaining to do on other issues as well.
The Manhattan, KS newspaper endorsed Brownback in the 1994 primary as a moderate. Are they his "political opponents," Leon?
"No, it points out that he didn't know how to talk about it"
In other words, he ran to the left of a pro-life candidate. I'll assume that you weren't born yesterday and honestly think that a 38 year old lawyer/politician was unable to speak clearly on his position. Well,now that I think about it, this is Brownback and he isn't the best speaker in the world, maybe.....
"You well know that some of the fiercest rivalries"
If it were just his opponents's campaign then I might believe this, but it came from many that didn't have a dog in the fight.
"I handle this, and the way that TNR and Matt Lewis handled it."
I just don't think it adds to credibility to say that this is a "smear campaign". He changed his position, most probably for political purposes, but so what? He's still the most pro-life candidate out there. He's been a consistent and staunch advocate for the movement while in the Senate. His problem isn't abortion, it's several other issues.
"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
I don't really care that he claims to be right on life.
I am much more interested in his second guessing of the war, that he is soft on immigration, and that he is totally uncharismatic.
It is very likely that the winner of the 2008 election will not be a Senator of either party. It will certianly not be Brownback.
Why the Romney camp would want to bring up Brownback's abortion position at all. If they let this be about abortion they are finished.
I realize that you like him, Leon, but the man has no real shot at the White House and if he were to somehow get the Republican nod, which itself is highly unlikely, he would be crucified in the national elections.
I can respect Senator Brownback's beliefs, even if I don't agree with the many of them, though probably more than most people here think. IMO, he is a true social conservative whose beliefs derive from his religious convictions and those beliefs are often, in truth, more liberal than the vast majority of the FiCons social beliefs. So while I strongly disagree with him on most of the Fire and Brimstone issues I also see he holds beliefs on government charity that are akin to mine.
But he will never win the White House. Too many incendiary comments and actions in the past.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy