Bring It On!

Sam Brownback for President?

August 9th, 2005 | by Tom Harper |

We’re close enough to the 2008 election for everyone to be speculating about who it’ll be.  Some of the favorites (or worst nightmares) include Jeb, Hillary, Condoleezza, Frist, Kerry (forms his 2 index fingers into a cross), among others.

The name Sam Brownback doesn’t usually come up.  Even if you’ve heard of him, you probably don’t think of him and “president” in the same sentence.  But it’s a strong  possibility.  If you’re salivating at the thought of Evangelical Christians establishing a pure blissful sin-free government, Brownback is your savior.

If you’re not in that group — Red Flag!

Brownback is a senator from Kansas; he got elected in 1996.  During his run for the Senate, his campaign staff played heavily on the fact that his opponent was Jewish.

Brownback is    Pat Robertson’s favorite candidate     for the White House.  Millions of Christian Right voters got whipped into a frenzy during the 2004 campaign, and they’re still champing at the bit over abortion and gay marriage.  And Brownback is in a good position — with Uncle Pat’s help — to reap their votes.

Where does Brownback stand on abortion, stem cell research, abstinence-only education?  You can pretty much figure that out — just pretend you’re asking Pat Robertson or James Dobson.  One of his campaign backers has publicly compared gays and lesbians to shoplifters and drug addicts.  Yup, this guy is White House material!

Brownback has a 100% approval rating from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Christian Coalition.  He gets a 0% rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and the AFL-CIO.  The ACLU gives him 20%.

Here’s a glimpse into Brownback’s devotion to the Almighty Fetus.  Referring to voters 18 to 25, he said “They were born when abortion rates were highest, so many of them feel they’re the survivors of a holocaust: one in four of their compatriots are not here.”

Wait, it gets even better.  Brownback is a member of Opus Dei.  Yes, there really is such a group, and they’re way more secretive and ruthless than “The Da Vinci Code” makes them out to be.  They’ve worked closely for decades — behind the scenes of course — with Fascist governments and movements, including Francisco Franco, Spain’s dictator from WWII to the mid-1970s.

And speaking of secretive Christian/Fascist alliances:  The Fellowship    is also closely allied with Brownback.  (They’re also known as The Family, among other names.)  This group is so secretive and below-the-radar, a lot of its members won’t even admit the group exists.

The Fellowship was founded in the 1930s.  Even though their founder was a minister, this group mostly just used Christianity as a front — they were closely allied with various Nazi organizations in the 1930s and ‘40s.  The Fellowship also engineered the anti-Communist hysteria of the late 1940s and ‘50s, which paved the way for Joe McCarthy’s reign of terror.

Brownback is The Fellowship’s favorite candidate for the White House.  What’s this say about him?

Brownback is also one of the sponsors of the Constitutional Restoration Act.

The Constitutional Restoration Act will reduce the “tyranny” of godless federal judges and “acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law.”  One of the authors of the Constitutional Restoration Act is former Chief Justice of Alabama Roy Moore.  You remember him — he’s the one who insisted on displaying the Ten Commandments at his courthouse no matter how many judges ruled against him.  Alan Keyes (the anti-abortion fanatic who insulted Dick Cheney‘s daughter in front of millions) is also one of the authors.

This bill is quietly working its way through the Senate (SB 520) and the House (HR 1070).  As usual, our “liberal media” is too pre-occupied to bother mentioning it.

If you’d like to have the Taliban replace our centuries-old system of laws, the Constitutional Restoration Act is just what you’ve been clamoring for.

So what do you think — Sam Brownback for president?  Some of the most powerful Christian Right groups want to put him in the White House.  Do you?

cross-posted at Who Hijacked Our Country

  1. 36 Responses to “Sam Brownback for President?”

  2. By The Bastard on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    The funny thing is that if Jesus was walking the Earth today these freaks would probably call him a liberal faggot. And demand he cut his hair and shave!

    Hell, they would probably say that Jesus has no clue what God really wants from us and then tell you to make a donation to them.

  3. By Joe Snitty on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    If Jesus were walking the Earth today, Bastard, he wouldn’t be nearly white enough for the Bible Belt.

  4. By The Bastard on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    ::snort::

  5. By Kris on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    You wrote: “Opus Dei. Yes, there really is such a group, and they’re way more secretive and ruthless than “The Da Vinci Code” makes them out to be. They’ve worked closely for decades — behind the scenes of course — with Fascist governments and movements, including Francisco Franco, Spain’s dictator from WWII to the mid-1970s.”

    Would you mind citing your source(s) for this contention?

    http://gopliberty.blogspot.com

  6. By The Bastard on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    Tom is on the west coast and probably sleeping so I thought I would help out…….

    here, here, here, here, here, and here

    If you need more just let us know.

  7. By The Bastard on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    Oh, I’m not speaking for Tom but I thought that he probably had a source but, well, it’s not that hard to find this stuff out.

    Matter of fact sounding how defensive you are about it I’m wondering if you are a card carrying member and you can’t tell anyone without killing them?

  8. By TheChosenOne on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    Who the fuck even cares. Got to be the most stupid post I’ve read on this site. Tom, please find a better way to waste your time.

  9. By The Bastard on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    Nevermind the ChosenOne he hates freedom!!

  10. By TheChosenOne on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    Please be quite TB I’m trying to research Elmer Fud incase he runs for president in 2008. Want to make sure everyone knows where Elmer stands on all the issues. He’s kind of the front runner for the democrat party just in case you didn’t know.

  11. By Tom Harper on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    TB and Joe Snitty: Hell, he’d be crucified if he ran into Dobson or Falwell or any of their ilk.

    TB: Whew! That’s a lot of links.

    Kris: My source was the second link in the post — where “The Fellowship” is highlighted. It’s a long article; about a third of the way down is where they mention Opus Dei. (They don’t mention “The Da Vinci Code”; that was just my own comparison.)

    Chosen One: Speaking of wasting time — you read every post on this blog and leave negative comments after each one. How much time do you have?

  12. By TheChosenOne on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    Tom, thank you. I do enjoy reading this blog because I believe that some day I will actually read something I agree with.

    As for negative comments. I’m so glad you want a blog that all the people think the same I guess.

    Please continue making me laugh. It gets me thru the day.

    Last but not least Mr. Harper. Please don’t lie, ok. I DO NOT leave negative comments after every post. Matter-a-fact, last week, the hole week, I left nothing but NICE comments after every post. So, like I said, please stop lying like the liberal spin press and the likes of most all of you here at Bring It Down…opps Bring It On! do.

  13. By Gun-Toting Liberal on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    Tom:

    “So what do you think — Sam Brownback for president? Some of the most powerful Christian Right groups want to put him in the White House. Do you?”

    Obviously not. Do we not have enough of these buffoons in power already? I was hoping they’d all join that stupid Christian Exodus dot org movement to take over South Carolina and leave the rest of us in the other 49 states alone.

    Also, thanks for the “heads up” on the Constitution Restoration Act :-)

  14. By Dr. Forbush on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    I know some people in Opus Dei, and I was invited to join Opus Dei. But once I read the first chapter of the book they hand out to “prospects” I knew that I wasn’t into the fraternity cult scene…

  15. By Tom Harper on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    Chosen One: That’s right, I forgot to compliment you on all those warm fuzzy comments you were leaving here all last week. What happened? Now you’re back to your old self again.

    Gun-Toting Liberal: Yeah, I thought we had more than enough wingnuts already vying for the White House. I also hadn’t heard about the Constitutional Restoration Act until I found the article about Brownback. I doubt if it has a chance but it’s still unnerving to know that our “representatives” are actually considering this.

    Dr. Forbush: Wow! Your life would have surely gone in a different direction if you’d joined Opus Dei. Just think, you might’ve been just like Silas in “Da Vinci Code” :)

  16. By The Cranky Liberal on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    I say we all donate heavily to the campaign. Hell I’m willing to work the phones for him because there is NO WAY he wins the generaly election. Every fence sitter in this country would freak. I think even Kerry could come back and beat him.

    That aside, what I want to know is how this kind of crazy f**** gets elected in his own district. I mean honestly have the people of this country lost their perspecitve and sense of reason? Hmm wait, katherine harris just announced her Senate bid, so yeah, yeah we are.

  17. By political pie on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    The guy is not going to be president. Anyone can run only one wins.

  18. By Tom Harper on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    Cranky, Political Pie: I don’t think it’s safe to write anybody off. That strategy can backfire.

    In the 1960s the Democratic governor of California was up for re-election. He pulled some strings to make sure that the Republican nomination would go to that rightwing nutjob and ex-actor, Ronald Reagan. He’d be a pushover. Who’s gonna vote for that nutcase? And then…

    So as unlikely as it seems, future headlines could read “President Brownback announced…”

  19. By Dr. Forbush on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    Tom, you are correct. You can’t write anyone off. When Reagan ran no one thought he stood a chance, but he came back and won the second time around. Look at how many votes a guy like Ross Perot came up with. Then, remember Nixon’s election stratagy - Go after the conservatives during the primaries and go to the middle durring the general election. This guy could be a nut and go after the extremists, but change his tune after the primaries.

  20. By The Cranky Liberal on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    Well I am not saying to take him lightly, but he is more alienating than someone like Reagan was. He will have a harder time winning because his views are far from the mainstream - he can’t even pull of that “compassionate conservative crap.” What worries me is that

    He is scary. The problem would be if he is so scary people would dismiss that as a crazy exageration.

    Is anyone else missing Bob Dole?

  21. By Dr. Forbush on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    What frightens me the most is the conservative talking points organization. They create a message and get it out to their people. Then, people hear the BS coming from all directions and suddenly its a fact. When those guys get to pushing the issues with whoever the crazy is people fall for the lies and deception, because they heard Rush say it…

  22. By Tom Harper on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    Dr. Forbush: This seems to be standard now (for both parties). They go way to the right (or left) to get the nomination, and then when they get nominated they have to modify and “clarify” everything they said so the mainstream will vote for them. If Brownback or Santorum or Frist gets the nomination and then tries to pretend they’re “moderate,” we’ll have to hope the public doesn’t fall for it.

    Cranky: That’s not a good sign when we’re looking back on Reagan and Dole as the good old days. They were both so moderate, so sensible…

    Maybe in 10 years we’ll look back on Bush and Cheney with nostalgia and think how reasonable they were…

  23. By Tom Harper on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    Dr. Forbush: Yup, it’s that Big Lie technique. Just get hundreds of columnists and announcers to repeat the same thing over and over and over, and soon it becomes “common knowledge.” Both sides do this, but the Right just seems to have more automatons who are perfectly happy to do everything in unison and just repeat the same thing over and over.

  24. By Joe Snitty on Aug 9, 2005 | Reply

    I agree with Cranky on this one. My gut feeling on the nomination of someone like Brownback or Santorum for the presidency is that either would be the new darling of the ‘Clean my AK-47 While I Watch The 700 Club’ crowd, but wouldn’t ever be a true contender because he’d alienate most moderates.

    Santorum’s said enough stupid shit that he could easily be flayed alive by his own sound bites, if the need arose. He’s been able to fly under the radar here in PA so far, but I doubt he’d last in the national spotlight. From what I’m hearing about Brownback, I’m guessing he’d fall into the same category.

  25. By pia on Aug 10, 2005 | Reply

    Really scary post Tom. I hope you’re all right for very selfish reasons, not being a Christian and all.

    This week’s New Yorker (unfortunately not on line) had a very interesting piece about how Thomas Jefferson took apart the New Testament–took out all the obvious myths and lies. Was left with a very small Bible.

    But hey if the radical right and Brownback want to pretend that they’re acting in the spirit of the founding father’s let them.

    And if we have to look back to the good old days of Bush and Reagan I just might take the advice of all the people who told me to move to France

  26. By Tom Harper on Aug 10, 2005 | Reply

    Joe Snitty: I sure hope you’re right about Santorum and Brownback. Frist has done so much flipflopping, I don’t think anyone will ever take him seriously again no matter what he says.

    Gore and Kerry had totally inept campaign managers in 2000 and 2004, but hopefully whoever is running the show in 2008 will be smart enough to publicize the Republican candidate’s previous statements and hold them against him/her.

  27. By Tom Harper on Aug 10, 2005 | Reply

    Pia: Yep, it’s scary. But that’s a good thing. If the populace is scared they’re less likely to be subdued by a would-be dictator.

    Thomas Jefferson was right. The Bible is pretty small without all the myths and the fire and brimstone. Where’s Thomas Jefferson when we need him?

  28. By LiberPaul on Aug 10, 2005 | Reply

    Why is that religious zealots use some form of logic to descredit all other religions but use a completly different standard for their own religion? Why, oh why, do the religious folks in this country think its time to impsoe their beliefs on the rest of us through legislation? It amazes me that people can not see how this overt religiousness can backfire on many of the believers. After all, which sect’s dogma should be embraced. There are hundreds of christian sects in this country and precious few hold the same beliefs. Robert Ingersoll said it best, “Each sect is a certificate that god has not plainly revealed his will to mankind. To each reader the bible conveys a different meaning.”

  29. By The Bastard on Aug 10, 2005 | Reply

    LiberPaul said,

    Why, oh why, do the religious folks in this country think its time to impsoe their beliefs on the rest of us through legislation?

    Because they are so fucking frustrated with people ignoring them. They tried the door to door. They tried the God fearing thingy. They tried the find redemption with us line.

    And people are just not biting. So now, short of picking up an ak-47 and putting all our women in burka’s (which will be next) they thought they could try legally making us find god.

    Thank whoever that our forefathers where smart to their ways and muddled the constitution with all kinds of pesky road blocks for them to get over.

  30. By The Cranky Liberal on Aug 10, 2005 | Reply

    Is anyone else missing Bob Dole :)
    Tom your right about the campaign manager issue. Both guys could have won (well at least one guy DID win) but they picked the wrong strategy.

    The startegy needs to be “here is what I beleive in, here is what will help this country”

    No opinion poll crap, no watered down half answers. And a willingness to pummel the living crap out the Sam Brownback’s and Rick Santorum’s of the world if need arises. Nice guys fnished last, or have their votes not counted.

  31. By Tom Harper on Aug 10, 2005 | Reply

    LiberPaul: Yeah, it’s weird. A lot of Christians hate other Christian sects at least as much as they hate Moslems and atheists. It sure doesn’t seem to me like the way to convince other people.

    TB: I’m glad the Constitution is full of roadblocks. I just hope they stay there and don’t get deleted by the Patriot Act III.

    Cranky: That would be nice, if someone would just come out and say “this is what I believe in and this is how it’ll help the country.” Who knows — maybe the public is so tired of spin doctors and attack ads that this new tactic of honesty and bluntness could actually work.

  32. By Vulture 6 on Aug 10, 2005 | Reply

    Yup, can’t have anybody with faith run.

    Do you really think any extreamist, of any camp would be elected?

  33. By Tom Harper on Aug 10, 2005 | Reply

    Vulture 6: I used to think an extremist couldn’t get elected, but I’m less certain now.

    Faith isn’t the issue; it’s whether someone tries to force their faith on the “unconverted.” The Christian Right is getting more shrill and more powerful. It’s unlikely that someone like Brownback would get elected, but I’m not letting my guard down.

  34. By Jim Guthersby on Aug 12, 2005 | Reply

    I’m British, but I pay close attention to American politics. I can tell you that a McCain-Brownback team would be perfect for the White House. McCain: President, Brownback: Vice President.

  35. By Tom Harper on Aug 12, 2005 | Reply

    Jim Guthersby: Well, we agree 50/50. I like John McCain — I don’t always agree with him but he has a lot of “star” power, and if he gets elected in ‘08 the wingnuts will be out of business for at least four years. Brownback — I don’t want him for vice president of the pawnshop down the street, let alone vice president of the United States.

  36. By Brian Noonan on Dec 12, 2005 | Reply

    First off, those of you who think Opus Dei is some sort of secretive luminari or devious are way off base. I know a number of guys in Opus Dei, including my father-in-law, and they’re all on the level reasonable people who lead normal lives. Nor are they all diehard Republicans. Like many Christians though, the anti-religious sentiment from the left that presumes if you have faith you’re a nut who would impose it given the chance pushes them right.

    Brownback at the least has a very good shot at the Republican nomination given the likely field of candidates. Neither McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Pataki or Rice could possibly win given (1) there are a limited number of Republicans willing to vote for a Pro-Choice candidate, (2) there are too many Pro-Choice candidates in the field if most of those run & (3) social conservatives dominate the GOP.

    In the general election, a Clinton-Brownback faceoff could be interesting. They worked together on several pieces of legislation, including increasing efforts to ban human trafficking. Both are fundamentally concerned with the protection of human dignity and human rights, which the media would likely pick up on, and both will have served all or part of 2 Senate terms, and she is as far left as he is right, though both would move to the center in a general election.

    All that said, the GOP will likely in 2008 still dominate both the Senate, the House, most Governorships, an even larger fundraising gap than in 2004, and the Iraq war likely will not be as powerful an issue given three years to finish it up and spin it.

    While those on this blog (myself excluded) generally favor abortion, the increasing trend in the country over the past 10-15 years has been a growing trend towards Pro-Life support. This is born out in election results during that period, the miserable failure of Emily’s list candidates, and according to Rasmussen Reports, (which was the most accurate pollster over the past few cycles), of the 13% of the voting population who make abortion a litmus issue in how they direct their vote, its a 10%-3% advantage for the Pro-Life candidate. Even Clinton is trying to move more to the center on this issue, although I don’t see how she would survive the Democrat primary if she did anymore than a pro-abortion republican could survive the primary.

    Gay marriage and gay rights, while currently on the news often, will likely not be as big of issues in 2008. Neither candidate would want to centerpiece the issue, and most of the states that will take a stand one way or the other will already have done so.

    Perhaps most importantly, the more Dems like Dean try to villify Christians, the more moderates are driven right, I’ve seen it with a lot of people. The vast vast majority of Christians do not wish to use the law or political arena to advance their religion, but rather, religion is instrumental in forming their sense of right/wrong which impacts every area of life, including social issues. I may disagree with you, but I respect your right to believe what you will. Only the intellectually dishonest should be villified in civil discourse.

    Last, Clinton will have to make some big time revisions to her health care, the Dems would have to unite in specifics as to how national health care would work, the plan could not include the special interests of NARAL or the like, (moderates and potential cross-over voters will not stand for paying for abortions or other people’s contraception), and she will need to start making a splash with important legislation on at least a couple of issues to make her look like a true leader of her party, which she has not yet achieved. Absent a major shift in control of Senate (Dems would have to win 24 of 33 Senate races in 2006 to reclaim control of the Senate and even more seats in the House and still have to deal with the veto power), she will need to find centrist issues to work with Republicans to do it with. All the more difficult because she cannot alienate the left while doing it.

    Given, most of these reasons Brownback could win could be easily cross-applied to many GOP candidates. My guess is look for a southern governor, maybe Huckabee, (not Jeb) or maybe former congressman Watts to get the nod on the right.

  37. By Why Brownback could win on Dec 12, 2005 | Reply

    First off, those of you who think Opus Dei is some sort of secretive luminari or devious are way off base. I know a number of guys in Opus Dei, including my father-in-law, and they’re all on the level reasonable people who lead normal lives. Nor are they all diehard Republicans. Like many Christians though, the anti-religious sentiment from the left that presumes if you have faith you’re a nut who would impose it given the chance pushes them right.

    Brownback at the least has a very good shot at the Republican nomination given the likely field of candidates. Neither McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Pataki or Rice could possibly win given (1) there are a limited number of Republicans willing to vote for a Pro-Choice candidate, (2) there are too many Pro-Choice candidates in the field if most of those run & (3) social conservatives dominate the GOP.

    In the general election, a Clinton-Brownback faceoff could be interesting. They worked together on several pieces of legislation, including increasing efforts to ban human trafficking. Both are fundamentally concerned with the protection of human dignity and human rights, which the media would likely pick up on, and both will have served all or part of 2 Senate terms, and she is as far left as he is right, though both would move to the center in a general election.

    All that said, the GOP will likely in 2008 still dominate both the Senate, the House, most Governorships, an even larger fundraising gap than in 2004, and the Iraq war likely will not be as powerful an issue given three years to finish it up and spin it.

    While those on this blog (myself excluded) generally favor abortion, the increasing trend in the country over the past 10-15 years has been a growing trend towards Pro-Life support. This is born out in election results during that period, the miserable failure of Emily’s list candidates, and according to Rasmussen Reports, (which was the most accurate pollster over the past few cycles), of the 13% of the voting population who make abortion a litmus issue in how they direct their vote, its a 10%-3% advantage for the Pro-Life candidate. Even Clinton is trying to move more to the center on this issue, although I don’t see how she would survive the Democrat primary if she did anymore than a pro-abortion republican could survive the primary.

    Gay marriage and gay rights, while currently on the news often, will likely not be as big of issues in 2008. Neither candidate would want to centerpiece the issue, and most of the states that will take a stand one way or the other will already have done so.

    Perhaps most importantly, the more Dems like Dean try to villify Christians, the more moderates are driven right, I’ve seen it with a lot of people. The vast vast majority of Christians do not wish to use the law or political arena to advance their religion, but rather, religion is instrumental in forming their sense of right/wrong which impacts every area of life, including social issues. I may disagree with you, but I respect your right to believe what you will. Only the intellectually dishonest should be villified in civil discourse.

    Last, Clinton will have to make some big time revisions to her health care, the Dems would have to unite in specifics as to how national health care would work, the plan could not include the special interests of NARAL or the like, (moderates and potential cross-over voters will not stand for paying for abortions or other people’s contraception), and she will need to start making a splash with important legislation on at least a couple of issues to make her look like a true leader of her party, which she has not yet achieved. Absent a major shift in control of Senate (Dems would have to win 24 of 33 Senate races in 2006 to reclaim control of the Senate and even more seats in the House and still have to deal with the veto power), she will need to find centrist issues to work with Republicans to do it with. All the more difficult because she cannot alienate the left while doing it.

    Given, most of these reasons Brownback could win could be easily cross-applied to many GOP candidates. My guess is look for a southern governor, maybe Huckabee, (not Jeb) or maybe former congressman Watts to get the nod on the right.

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel