In report on Brownback, CNN did not mention reported shift in abortion rights position
CNN chief national correspondent John King reported on the February 13 edition of The Situation Room that Sen. Sam Brownback's (R-KS) message to Christian conservatives was "I've been with you all along," without noting Brownback's reported inconsistency during his political career on the issue of abortion rights. For example, in a December 18, 2006, New Republic article (subscription required), senior editor Noam Scheiber reported that Tim Golba, a former president of Kansans for Life, met with Brownback in 1994 to discuss a possible endorsement in a congressional primary but, according to Golba, Brownback said, "I think you'll find me more in line with the view of Nancy Kassebaum" -- a pro-choice Republican then representing Kansas in the Senate.
Brownback himself has acknowledged a previous lack of clarity in his statements on the issue. On the January 28 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Brownback about his consistency on abortion rights, reading from a December 7, 2006, article in the Lawrence (Kansas) Journal-World and an October 27, 1996, Kansas City Star article. Brownback replied: "[M]y position has become more clear, but it's not evolved. And you look at the record. Look at how I voted. ... That record is consistently pro-life. I wasn't as clear in my statements at that point in time, but he record is absolutely 100 percent." That same week, Brownback told Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) News, "I was in the same position in 1994 as I am today as far as being pro-life. I didn't articulate it then. I thought ... that I would be better off saying the specific areas of the issue rather than 'Are you pro-life or pro-choice?' " According to CBN News, in response to questions about his consistency on abortion, Brownback's campaign sent out a letter to supporters that ask for "those that are capable and willing to send me a testimonial quote highlighting Senator Brownback's work on pro-life issues."
Other news reports have also suggested that Brownback changed his opinion during the 1994 primary or misled Republicans during the primary:
- The December 7 Journal-World article reported former Kansas Republican Party chairman Tim Shallenburger left a 1994 conversation "with the impression that Brownback 'was not pro-life.'" Additionally, according to the Journal-World, David Gittrich, then development director for Kansans for Life, said, "He didn't know whether he was pro-life or pro-choice."
- The October 27, 1996, article in The Kansas City Star reported that Gittrich said, "When [Brownback] first ran, he took a pro-choice position." The Star added that "[e]ven when he came out clearly on the side of abortion opponents, [Brownback's primary opponent Bob] Bennie and others in that movement didn't believe it."
- An October 8, 1996, Kansas City Star article reported that "[q]uestions about Brownback's abortion stance have dogged him since 1994" and that Republicans felt that Brownback "seem[ed] to favor abortion rights":
"There's an awful lot of people who supported him who were very disillusioned," said Jim Braden, former speaker of the Kansas House.
Republican Linda Richter, a Kansas State University political science professor, questioned Brownback in a 1993 meeting in Manhattan. "I remember asking him one question on abortion, and I'm pro-choice, and I was satisfied with his answer," she said. "I got no feeling that he was anti-abortion."
Part of Brownback's defense in the October 8, 1996, article was "that he really didn't have a stand on abortion before [the 1994 race] because it was never an issue in his seven years as Kansas secretary of agriculture."
- A September 18, 1996, article in The Hill reported that "[m]any prominent Kansas Republicans say that Brownback ... surprised them with an unexpected lurch toward the right after his 1994 primary victory." The Hill cited Dixie Roberts, an early adviser for Brownback in his 1994 congressional campaign, who said:" I feel betrayed by him. ... When he first ran for Congress in 1994, he indicated, and led many people to believe, that he was the pro-choice candidate." Additionally, former Kansas State House Speaker Jim Braden (R) said: "The impression that I had, before his 1994 primary, was that he was a moderate ... There's no question in my mind that the reason he changed is that he checked to see which way the winds were blowing, and felt that he should move to the right."
King was contrasting Brownback and former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) with former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) on social issues. As the Associated Press noted, Romney said on January 10, "I was wrong on some issues back then," referring to a 1994 Senate debate in which Romney said that "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country."
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the February 13 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
WOLF BLITZER (host): He's [Romney] got some problems, though, even with that conservative base, John, of the Republican Party, because he's changed his views on several of the most sensitive social issues.
KING: And that is, Wolf, where we could see the so-called second-tier candidate -- candidates come into play here, Senator Sam Brownback, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, especially.
As the Christian conservatives put it, "has Governor Romney truly had a conversion on the road to Damascus?" Does he feel differently about abortion, does he feel differently about gay rights than he did two, four, or five years ago, or is he doing this just for politics?
They're very suspect. They do applaud his early efforts, his outreach, as [CNN senior political correspondent] Candy [Crowley] noted, meeting with ministers, meeting with activists. They say he's done a very good job of being open, to say: Ask me any question you want.
But Governor Huckabee and Senator Brownback are meeting with these same meeting, saying: You know me. I've been with you all along.

















Out of all the Republicans running, Brownback is the scariest one running. The man looks pure evil.
Doris have you heard his views on some of the issues? Its scarier than just how he looks.
(possible news paper from 2008-2009)
Nov. Brownback wins the Presidency!
Dec. President Brownback establishes "protective" camps to house all gay and lesbians.
Jan. Anyone having/talking to/thinking about/standing next to an abortion provider will be shot on sight by the new Homeland security officers (commonly known as Brown Shirts).
Brownbacks stance on issues are as scary or scarier than he looks.
Seriously , he is a very dangerous figure.
Even today in the Senate he is very dangerous, the fact that he will be given a national audience and platform to run his hateful ideas on makes it even worse. This is someone who I agree would open up “Re-education” camps homosexual people and religious training for all. VERY SCARY.Wow, and I thought the only fear mongering and scare tactics were done by the "rightwingnuts" over Muslims and terror?
This is someone who I agree would open up “Re-education” camps homosexual people and religious training for all. VERY SCARY....by Doris & the chorus;-)
Yup Tommy I gotta agree this does sound suspiciously like the VERY fear mongering & scare tactics the Right is often accused of doing by the Left when Muslims and terrorists are the topic.
Pot meet kettle....
Now maybe y'all see how silly you sound when you do it.
Agree, I will ask the families of the 3000+ 9/11 victims of Islamic terror right after I visit my gay friends in the re-education camps that are being force fed religion.
See? Silly.
Media Matters claims that Brownback has made a "shift" in his position, but all they have to show as evidence is a bunch of unconvincing newspaper articles.
Their case would be better if they could show that Brownback voted the pro-choice position on any legislation. Unfortunately, Media Matters is unable to show this.
Therefore ... A pretty weak case by MMFA, IMHO.
Thank you.
Be sure to include it on your headache-inducing blog.
Can't argue with that Rusty.
Unfortunately creating boogiemen to scare voters has worked in the past for the Right.
I'd hate to see the Democrat/Liberals employ the same tactics.
Of course there are REAL Islamic terrorists out there. The chances of anyone opening “Re-education” camps for homosexuals and enforcing religious training for anyone is more than a tad far-fetched.
Considering that Doris is the only person I've ever heard say that thing about the "re-education camps," I think you don't have too much to worry about.
And ADifferentMcCain
So therefore I because I am liberal or progressive am attacked because I share my opinion? Wow how tolerant, ah but of course he's a republican and if I or Doris say anything bad about him we must be attacked.
I've heard this guy talk in person and I just didn't like him. Beyond his views, there was something that just bothered me about him. So therefore I agreed with Doris and expanded on what she had to say.
You missed my point, I wasn't attacking you - I was clarifying an incorrect post which identified Doris as the only person who thinks Brownback would "house" or "camp" homosexuals. Despite Brownback's apparent dislike of the homosexual lifestyle, the chance of your scenario every becoming reality is nill, obviously.
Somewhere in my post I missed the point where I said
"Today Brownback, announced he would start camps...etc"
Because I did not say that, I was trying to create an impression of my feelings regarding this man. Of course such subtle shades of gray are beyond the average conservative. (and some liberals)
it's the tommy and doris tag team. she claims she's a liberal, makes some statement and then tommy argues against it and they go back and forth.
Suggestion - perhaps you should find a partner, then you might finally be able to muster up a complete and sensible post.
i don't need a "partner". because i'm not on here trying to disrupt threads like you. make a statement, deny you made it, go right on past when someone refutes your point. i also notice doris seems to have taken over your habit of being the first to post on many threads. and she has a habit of saying "why are we discussing this?" or calling it a joke. almost like she was really.......
I dont claim to be anything other than Doris.
Well if I suggested something silly I have a feeling someone here would be quick to point it out.
Doris and a DifferentMcCain went a bit overboard...but demonizing anyone that doesn't embrace the Gay lifestyle as normal or Gay marriage as a right or professes their Christian beliefs are often targets of fear mongering among those on the Left.
Yeah kind of like the US starting a pre-emptive war and invading another country for no reason. Also like an attorney general who does not think the constitution provides habeus rights. And an executive branch that feels warrants are a nusisance. Also completely farfetched that we would deny civil rights to an entire segment of people due to their sexual oreientation. All that stuff could never happen.
Can you be more specific on how this issue of Brownback relates to Terrorism and exploits by the Right wing on this issue?
Doris,
Many on the left are often whining about the right and how it manufacturers fear and scare tactics by reminding people of the threat of Islamic terror on this country.......which, by the way, is a real threat as evidenced by the terror related events of recent years.
However, when the left manufactures fear and scare tactics about homosexuals being sent off to reeducation camps and forced religious training on all citizens.......which, by the way, is a ridiculous scenario that ain't never gonna happen and everyone knows it
Therein lies the hypocrisy from some on the left.
Tommy, I hear NASA makes a 12-hour diaper now. Just FYI, for when you're watching a Glenn Beck marathon.
Ok Alex, I'll take "Quips with no substance" for $100.
Tommy
Its not the left doing it is me, some on here do not think I am liberal enough. Maybe I am being hysteric however I fear Brownback more than any other candidate, I do not think he welcomes diversity at all. Call me a fearmonger, I call myself a sane observer of the American Ultra right in the year 2007.
Doris, The American Ultra right in 2007 has as much chance of housing homosexuals in camps and force feeding people religion, as the loony left does in outlawing Christianity and mainstreaming the ACLU in this country. Some have fantasies of all sorts of stripes, but none of them ever see the light of day.
OMG! Which U.S. Supreme Court justice supports housing homosexuals in camps and force feeding people religion?
I'm guessing Scalia, or maybe one of the new guys.
Hey everyone, can you all stop and think for a second, just maybe? I know its hard when you get on a rant attacking people.
Do you think Brownback will win the Presidency? All those think so please speak up now.
Was my example of "protective camps" excessive? Maybe, but I really don't like a member of the senate who makes jokes and call me a "fruit" or talks about my relationships being on the same level as bestiality.
Was it maybe of something of a joke? Possibly, but like I said before, "this guy just strikes me as the type of guy to dream of doing such a thing." (Maybe its because I'm jewish and he's German, but who knows).
Sam Brownback will never be POTUS, in my opinion.
Brownbeck president? I think I have a better chance of playing lead guitar for led Zeppelin and they dont exist anymore
Some rightys have delusions also like yours about the ACLU
Was your post to me Solon?
Maybe you should label them, so others can figure out who you are talking to.
If it was directed at me, wow, I mean wow, now I know what some of the conservatives feel like on here. (not the trolls) "Hey everybody! McCain and Doris just shared thier opinions and one of them stated a belief! Lets attack them!" (by the way, I've heard him speak in person and included likes to various sources that include information from which I based my opinion, unlike the trolls.)
Can really feel the love in this thread today.
I think Solon was responding to Tommy's reflexive gibe about the ACLU.
I believe you are correct.
Hi McCain, please don't think that my post below is a jab at either you or Doris.
I used you two as a setup to my dig at the Bush administration.
In an age where a press secretary to the President of the United States can warn every citizen to be careful what they say, anything is possible, not probable, but possible.
aDifferent McCain / Wednesday February 14, 2007
I guess you are right I need to start labelling them. No it was as they guessed to tommy. Hey, you have tons of credibility with me. I wont be attacking you anytime soon. First we are on the same page politically and second, you dont often make nasty personal attacks. If YOU are even thinking I might be attacking you, especially about something you said about that fascist nutcase Brownback, maybe I need to dial back my hositilty a bit
Sorry Solon, I was just getting attacked by Jetter/Tommy and Rusty was making comments about my post and it just seemed everyone was jumping on me for my opinion. So I was getting a little annoyed
Yeah I caught the ACLU and Tommy thing after I posted.
BTW: do I believe the american public or the majority of our leaders would allow the "camps"? No. But if those elements were removed, I believe Brokeback would be the type of person to lead such a movement.
McCain, for what it's worth I knew that you were just using hyperbole to make a point.
Of course everyone knows this isn't going to happen. And of course it's just a few crazy posters from the left who speak about "protective"camps and religious "re-education' centers.
And form the right we had the same few posters who instilled fear of Saddam re-constituting his nuclear weapons program. It was some lonely poster from the right who waved around a little jar of white powder at the UN, it was a crazed right wing poster who tried to get us to imagine mushroom clouds over our country. It was just a lone wingnut who claimed that Iraq was importing aluminum tubes for centrifuges to make atomic bombs, the same few who say a vote for the democratic party is a vote for terrorists and if the democratic party candidate were elected to the presidency we'd be attacked again....
I'm sorry, I've just been informed that those attempts at instilling fear from the right were not perpetrated by lone posters but by the entire Bush administration.
I stand corrected.
Lets talk about your hypocrisy. Why are you talking about US whining. YOU are the biggest crybaby I have ever seen. WWAAAAHHHH, why does MMFA have this up here, WWAAHHHH, slow news day, WWWAAAAAHHHHH. You snivel like a six year old girl then whine about us whining, you DEFINE hypocrisy
Well sorry Tommy, but this guy jsut gives me the creeps, in a sort of "he's the son of satan" way. I've trying to think of the best way to express what I mean, but I can't.
Did you ever see hte show Carnival on HBO? He reminds me of that evil preacher. (if you missed it, too bad it was really good)
Here is some info on Brownback (including the Federal Judge from my state that he attacked because she attended her neighbor's daughter's lesbian commitment ceremony.)
http://www.alternet.org/story/37668/
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2006/12/3146_brownback_judic.html
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/02/brownback_cant.html
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/01/012706brownback.htm
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid40537.asp
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=18778
http://www.counterbias.com/824.html
even liberal states like Oregon have banned gay marriages. Why do you get so worked up over a guy like Brownback from a conservative hayfield like Kansas?
Well because maybe, he's so self rightous that he decided to create a back log of cases in the federal court system, just to attack an appointed federal judge.
He attacked her, because she attended the commitment ceremony of her neighbor's lesbian daughter.
Here in Michigan we now have a 8-9 month back log of cases because he wanted to by-pass the law to make a point (and possible get on tv)
Ah, you have to love this GOP re-allignment of positions. (Wait! who is our largest political base now! Well I better switch my position and argue that I was against (or for) it from the beginning.)
I know all political figures do it, but the latest group of republican presi-wanna be's all seem so funny running around changing their image (ask Mitt about gay marriage? Before or after 2004?).
Here is a sample Republican speach,
Hello, I'm "blank" and I want to be your next president. I'm for or against issue A and very much in favor or against issue B. Remember my opponent "blank" supports or hates issue C, he's (we are talking about republicans, so no he/she) only trying to gain your votes. I've been in favor or opposed to issue C from the beginning! At least that's what my manager tells me!
Brownback is just like Giuliani, Mitt, Bush Sr., and countless other Republicans when it comes to abortion. Their "convictions" depend on whose vote they need, and how many sheeple their campaign strategists have determined are necessary for victory.
This thread appears to be just a name-drop of Brownback so you all can ridicule him, and that's cool. Not expecting you to be a fan.
MMFA did not dispute that he has voted consistently pro-life. That's the bottom line.
You're correct, that is the bottom line. His track record shows one thing, but since he's running for president, he'll say anything to get elected (but what politician doesn't).
It's like Ted Haggard saying he doesn't like gays.
You're right. His early 1990s insinuations about being pro-choice appear to have been only shameless pandering for votes.
Hmmm. Maybe he is the perfect Republican candidate.
Bruce, You're absolutely wrong on this, it was a Republican president back in the 90's that courted and shamelessly pandered to gay rights groups and then turned around and signed the DOMA. No Democrat would ever..............oops, sorry.
When did Clinton pander to gay rights groups?
You might want to ask the gay rights groups how they felt after Clinton signed it. You don't feel betrayed by someone who didn't court you in the first place.
So, can't support your original statement? Color me surprised.
Check your color again. Or ask any gay rights group if "pandering" is an incorrect term?
You don't have any proof of Clinton "shamelessly pandering" to gay rights groups about gay marriage, do you? Why don't you just say so?
Tak, tsk, I didn't say Clinton pandered to gay rights groups ABOUT gay marriage, did I? I said he pandered to gay rights groups and then turned around and signed the DOMA - which they took as an affront to his public support of their rights. Big difference, but the little twist you manufactured looked good anyway.
I'll accept any evidence he "shamelessly pandered" to gay rights groups about anything.
Pandering is courting their votes and gratifying their desires with promised legislation (some of which he enacted to secure their support), and then when it came to a politically unpopular yet very important issue to gays and lesbians - he screwed them and signed a discriminatory law into effect. If you have a softer, more pc term than pandering, I would love to hear it. Otherwise, I am being kind to Clinton.
Still no evidence? (BTW, I know what "pandering" means.)
I know having the last word means to you that you win??.....??, so you have the last word here.
That's one way to look at it. Another is: you have no evidence, you lose.
Cheers.
Do you think it is pandering to talk up gay rights but institute don't ask/don't tell and then the Defense of Marriage Act?
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/11971prs19990114.html?s_src=RSS
Holy cow! LH is coming to Tommy's defense by citing the ACLU!
Tommy's got to love that.
Leather, I read the link but missed the part where Clinton ever promised anything to gay rights groups (the definition, I'm told, of "pandering"). Would you mind highlighting it for me? Thanks.
My apologies, I was incorrect in saying that pandering was promising, it is not. My bad. Leather's link to the ACLU and their summarization of Clinton's "anti-gay blows" is even worse than pandering, although it fits as a definition as well.
It's election season again (although a little early)...
Under the guise of refining or explaining their past positions, it's really about politicians trying to re-define themselves to suit particular voting blocks. Ideally, consistency should be a positive consideration (unless the candidate was consistently on the wrong side of the issues), but apparently it is no longer a prerequisite to gaining either the nomination or the presidency. The two guys who really crack me up are John McCain and (to a slightly lesser extent) Rudy Giuliani. McCain is sucking up to the religious right he once denounced... hobnobbing with Jerry Falwell and even giving an address to the "intelligent design" crowd. Now, Giuliani, who was openly pro-choice says he favors the appointment of "strict constructionist" judges... code words for "let's overturn Roe v. Wade". My pont is that Brownback isn't the only guilty party trying to wiggle out of past positions... but it's fun to watch them wiggle sometimes. So keep'em coming, MMFA...
Yes and no Rusty, Brownback, is not really like them.
They flip-flop over and over. He's different in a way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brownback
"He cites former Senator Jesse Helms as a model"
"He is strongly pro-life, having referred to the number of abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade as "a holocaust."
"limited the power of federal courts to rule on church/state issues."
"Brownback is an opponent of same-sex marriage and other legislation favored by gay rights organizations. He is in favor of an amendment to the Constitution banning not just same-sex marriage but civil unions"
"While believing there is no inherent right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution, he expresses disapproval of President Bush's assertions on the legality of the NSA wiretapping program"
True. Brownback is definitely more extreme. Strategically, he would be a terrible pick for the Repubs because a Brownback candidacy would mobilize Dems like nobody's business.
"...because a Brownback candidacy would mobilize Dems like nobody's business."
Then I'm writing my check to Brownback today! ;>)
That's why I wrote one to Hillary.
Brownback has zero chance of winning anything. It's a wasteof bandwith to even discuss him as a candidate.
If Brownback wins the nomination then I'll vote for Kucinich.
That was clever tommy
"That's why I wrote one to Hillary."
Hillary said to tell you "Thanks", Leather. The bumper sticker is in the mail...
Since I work near a college campus maybe it will keep my car from getting egged again because it has a Bush/Cheney sticker on it.
How do you know that was the reason? Maybe the eggers just don't like you (although I don't see how that's possible).
Don't blame the college students. Maybe the chickens have caught on.
I'd like to say that i thought that was a great link and that i really enjoyed it Rusty, but I'm afraid of being cast into the pit. I fear the eternal flames licking at my bottom.
I've already been cast out as a sinner today on another thread so until I can get me some absolution, I have to say publicly that the story was an abomination.
Well Worrier, it looks like the link is gone (it was off-topic). I guess we don't have to worry about others following us into Gehanna.
I'm not enamored with Brownback as a republican candidate for pres. However, his record on abortion is pretty clear.
He is consistently given 0 ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Since 1995 National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Assn has given him a 0 rating.
The National Right to Life organization consistently scores him at 100.
- And you look at the record. Look at how I voted. ... That record is consistently pro-life. - Brownback
It's not pro-life...it's pro-rape. Forcing a law into a woman's womb against her consent. The "pro-life" crowd are rapists.
I am just waiting for "brownbacking" to enter the gay lexicon as a term for something interestingly distasteful (cf. santorum).
Ah you have to love the real Savage, that's Dan Savage, he coined the term "Santorum."
But I think we already know what to call Brownback, after an editor made a little mistake in a newspaper (I think it was New York Times). Brownback sent in a nasty letter demanding they apologize for calling him Sam Brokeback R-Kansas. (I'll try to find his letter on-line to share)