Here’s how Time magazine columnist Joe Klein described Brownback’s digs at the Aug. 11 Iowa GOP straw poll: “a massive air-conditioned tent that looked something like the Denver airport and featured nonstop evangelical preachers and a Christian rock band that strip-mined Stevie Wonder for songs like ‘Signed, Sealed, Delivered, Jesus, I’m Yours.’” When it was over, third-place Brownback and second-place Mike Huckabee won 33 percent of the straw poll vote to Mitt Romney’s 31.5 percent, noted another Time scribe, “suggesting that a single social-conservative candidate could be the one to beat when the Iowa caucuses take place in January.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
34 Comments
Iowa Poll – who cares?
Every time Brownback proclaims that he is an angel, the Eagle gets excite and fails to notice his pointed tail wagging.
“Brownback get back to work!”Earn your keep.
It’s very scary the melding of religion and politics so blatant in Brownback’s campaign. Good thing Americans are onto him.
I am sure Stevie Wonder is happy that the Republicans are butchering his songs for their own use!
Former Abilene, Kansas high school graduate, West Pointer, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces, five star general, 34th President of the United States … DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER … must grind his teeth everytime he looks down at the Kansas landscape and sees Sam Brownback presenting himself as a presidential candidate.
By comparison, Sam Brownback waves his law degree certificate earned while hiding from military duty by working as a disk jockey at a Topeka radio station. Like most presidential candidates, Brownback was elected U.S. Senator by an apathetic public giving him an untested entre as presidential candidate.
Has it come to that in the U.S.? No outstanding accomplishments required to become president. I guess it has become literally true … anybody can become President.
So lets expect the downward spiral to continue.
Presidential elections have become nothing but beauty contest. It will serve the country well by just getting rid of Presidential Elections all together.
Can we make that retroactive to November 2000, Joe?
Go Brownback go!
He’s the Republican party’s only hope.
Brownback is the only Republican candidate that can deliver the 28% that Bush counted on.
Hold your nose if you like but Brownback is THE man.
Those are the facts.
Kev,
“Strip mining,” indeed.
When candidates belonging to the party that supported South African Apartheid (that’s the GOP, kids) start using Stevie Wonder’s music as campaign background din, the world is seriously upside-down.
Dear Stevie Wonder: has ASCAP/BMI notified you as to whether the Brownback Campaign paid the performance/mechanical royalites for using your songs?
Duh, God doesn’t need to pay royalties.
“By comparison, Sam Brownback waves his law degree certificate earned while hiding from military duty by working as a disk jockey at a Topeka radio station.”
What military duty was he hiding from? He would have been 16 or 17 when the draft ended in 1973. Brownback graduated from K-State in ‘79 and KU Law in 1982.
“Joe Williams” –
Just when I was beginning to think you were merely insane, you post something that convinces all the world you’re bats#it insane.
For any American to propose, “It will serve the country well by just getting rid of Presidential Elections all together.(sic)” is prima facia proof of idiocy.
George WMD Bush, President for Life!!
Yeah, that’s the answer. It’ll mean we’ll all go to Heaven since we’ll spend our time in Hell right here on earth.
LTPFTL,
Indeed. I’d missed that pearl of wisdom from Joe Williams.
Joe Williams,
You’re a nice guy and all. But it doesn’t become you, this pretending to be an American and all.
IOWA – idiots out wandering around – Now I know why this saying has hung around for so long!
Disputing CF2K’s lies about Apartheid and Republicans
CF2K wrote:”When candidates belonging to the party that supported South African Apartheid (that’s the GOP, kids) start using Stevie Wonder’s music as campaign background din, the world is seriously upside-down.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_v86/ai_4517352First, a little history–for a quarter century now, the American Government has been separating itself from the South African Government. In 1962, President Kennedy imposed an embargo on military sales. Last September, I issued an Executive order further restricting U.S. dealings with the Pretoria government. For the past 18 months, the marketplace has been sending unmistakable signals of its own. U.S. bank lending to South Africa has been virtually halted. No significant new investment has come in. Some Western businessmen have packed up and gone home.
The Call for Sanctions
And now, we’ve reached a critical juncture. Many in Congress and some in Europe are clamoring for sweeping sanctions against South Africa. The Prime Minister of Great Britain has denounced punitive sanctions as “immoral’ and “utterly repugnant.’ Well, let me tell you why we believe Mrs. Thatcher is right.”
I guess CF2K is a liar and it is known that he has spread false information before for political talking points.
Don’t trust this guy CF2K who talks to himself in the third person.
That was Reagan’s speech, btw.
If Reagan said it then it must be straight from the mouth of God – right Kansas?
CF2KSouth African style Apartheid was a bad thing.I think we got that.
However, why is America or Conservative to blame for South African Apartheid when we simply had a different idea of how to deal with that historical evil?
The truth is, Africa has been a bloody mess for quite some time lately.
I do see a correlation between the liberal arguement that:
“Saddam was a bad guy, but Iraq, after a power vaccuum, without Saddam, is even worse than it was with Saddam”
and:
“Apartheid is a bad thing, but the tribal divisions and bloodshed that will happen in the power vaccuum, when White rule ends, will be even worse.”—–Unintended consequences happen all the time, where foreign policy is concerned.
Africa has been the bloodiest continent in the world for quite some time now.
White people had virtually nothing to do with any of that bloodshed.
Sam Brownback has spoken up against Genocide in Africa. One of the few politicians to do so.
CF2K, your credibility is greatly diminished by your posts on this thread.
You don’t like Brownback, we get that.
However, if you wish to make Africa an issue, you are ethically, morally REQUIRED to mention Brownback’s efforts, concerning Africa, as far as I am concerned.
Do you have a “pro-Apartheid” Brownback quote?
If not, you are a political hack unworthy of much notice here.
I give credit to those I disagree with, all the time.
So to many of the posters here.
To in any way imply that Brownback is a racist is beneath contempt.
To in any way imply that those of us who were worried about the end of Apartheid are “racist” is beneath contempt.
Rawanda, Ethiopia, Sudan, Angola, the Tutsi’s vs the Hutus, the list of carnage goes on and on.
I do not hold Liberalism responsible for the tribal bloodshed and genocide in Africa, I only wish that liberals would give the “unintended consequences” arguments, that you use so often, concerning Iraq, at least a little consideration where Africa is concerned.
Hey WS, please spell check for me, whould you??lol
Nice try maidmarion. Since you have nothing of substance to add, let me help you out.
CF2K’s statement was patently false. The U.S. has had a position on Apartheid since the 1960s, that’s both parties. It is not to be tolerated and it wasn’t tolerated. As people became more aware of what was actually happening in South Africa the pressure was stepped up.
Mandela was released at the beginning of President Bush’s election to office. It was through the efforts of the Thatcher and Reagan Administration that help convince DeKlerk to release Mandela.
I learned long ago that not much that comes from the mouth (or fingers) of CF is worth reading.
Typically, he makes up his own facts.
If our country is so concerned about the conditions of those unfortunate in other countries, then why are so many wealthy (usually Republicans) still holding stock in companies that DO promote genocide? Such as in Darfur?
I will give Browback credit for saying that he was disposing of his stock tied to Darfur but saying it is one thing and actually doing it is another.
And it was the pressure of the surrounding world population that led to the release of Mandela – not thanks to the Reagan God.
Nelson Mandella never condemned his Wife, who practiced “neclacing” —
this is a form of torture/execution where a tire is placed around a rivals neck, filled with gasonline, and set on fire!
“I only wish that liberals would give the “unintended consequences” arguments, that you use so often, concerning Iraq, at least a little consideration where Africa is concerned.”
The difference Econ is that each and every one of the horrible ‘unintended’ consequences in Iraq were well foreseen. Bush knew or should have known that they would happen. In fack, Powell, Cheney and Rumsfield ALL said it would be a disaster.
Brownback’s proposals for Darfur have not been predicted to create the sort of disaster that Bush deliberate invasion of Iraq has caused.
Maidm
I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of “divesting” — the issuing company does not give a rip about WHO owns their stocks or bonds.With the exception of original issues, or IPO, Initial Public Offerings, the company never sees a dime of the money when stocks or bonds change ownership.In fact, when those who have moral reservations about a company and SELL that stock, it can reasonably be assumed that the stock is being purchased by someone without the same moral convictions.In other words, the company will, over time, have fewer and fewer shareholders who might object to their policy.
Perhaps a nice gesture.
Perhaps, also, counterproductive if you wish to force real change.
“I do not like what my country is doing, therefore I won’t vote”
Shareholders who SELL their stock give up their voting rights.
BenYou have a point, in Darfur.
However, CF2K injected the Apartheid issue.
In that case, many of us were worried about the slaughter that occured, elsewhere in Africa, at the end of colonial or White rule.
Well. From the looks of things, CF2K spent substantially longer in church this morning than did certain self-righteous Wingnuts.
KSGolfnut,
How’s that “decision” for heterosexuality workin’ for you in this hot weather, what with dudes wearing fewer clothes and all?
Econ101,
Really? How about Dick Cheney in 1985, voting as a member of Congress against a measure that urged the release of Nelson Mandela?
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/col/cona/2000/08/01/south_africa/index.html
How about Jack Abramoff meeting with Jonas Savimby, leader of UNITA, and fronting a group called the International Freedom Foundation, which was actually a front for the South African army? Here’s a bit from Rolling Stone:
“The creation of the IFF officially marked the beginning of the silly phase of Abramoff’s career. According to testimony before Democratic South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1995, the IFF was not a conservative think tank but actually a front for the South African army. Testimony in sealed TRC hearings reportedly reveal that the IFF was known by the nickname “Pacman” in the South African army and that its activities were part of a larger plan called “Operation Babushka,” designed to use propaganda to discredit the ANC and Nelson Mandela at home and abroad. Among other things, Abramoff managed during this time to funnel funds and support from the IFF to a variety of stalwart congressmen and senators, including Rep. Dan Burton and Sen. Jesse Helms, all of whom consistently opposed congressional resolutions against apartheid. These members of Congress would deny knowing that the IFF’s money came from the South African government, because that, of course, would have been illegal; Abramoff himself denied it too, although he has been largely quiet on the subject since the TRC testimony in 1995.”
Here’s Jack Abramoff helping to break the “I won’t play Sun City” cultural boycott of the 1980’s by partnering on a movie that was produced and filmed in Namibia: “Red Scorpion.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9519825/meet_mr_republican_jack_abramoff
Moreover, CF2K is old enough to recall a certain South Africa policy, “Constructive Engagement,” engaged in by a certain Republican President, namely Ronald Reagan. This consisted of a hands-off approach, allowing the minority White government impunity in continuing to puruse its policies of segregation and oppression.
Here’s an ANC document from 1984 that gives the flavor of Reagans’ initial “look the other way” attitude toward Pretoria:
“The Reagan administration’s policy of constructive engagement has already led to a significant relaxation of the arms embargo. Stressing the goal of regional stability the American government has now adopted a policy which they see as an “even handed” approach to all countries in the region. Thus the Reagan administration seeks to blame all sides equally for the violence in the region, ignoring the fact that the violence stems from apartheid. In reality there is no even handedness in the U.S.’s engagement in southern Africa; policy in the last three years has resulted in an increased South African ability to harass and dominate regionally.”
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/embargo/rknight840403.htm
And, when Reagan finally got embarrassed enough to impose sanctions in 1984, these were more symbolic than substantive. Here’s a nice summary from an article in Foreign Affairs:
“But the sanctions, applied at once with fanfare and apologies, do not represent a fundamental change in American policy toward South Africa. Nor do they portend or promote a meaningful evolution in the South African political and social system. On the contrary, they continue the recent American practice of attempting to reform the South African system by working entirely within it and honoring its rules. “Active constructive engagement” (the new, impromptu name the President seems to have given his policy during a press conference) is still a policy that engages the attention and the interests of only a small, privileged stratum of South Africans. It relies almost entirely on white-led change, as designed and defined by a regime that is becoming more embattled by the day. And it ignores the needs, the politics and the passions of the black majority in South Africa. The policy will continue to fail.”
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19851201faessay8458/sanford-j-ungar-peter-vale/south-africa-why-constructive-engagement-failed.html
I’d say the facts are on my side. Reagan was lukewarm, AT BEST, about officially taking a position, and at worst, elements of the GOP continued to support the government in Praetoria. Why? Well, the ANC was supported by communists: Rush Limbaugh told us that a couple of days ago.
http://halfricanrevolution.blogspot.com/2007/08/limbaugh-on-apartheid-at-least-theyre.html
So, Econ101, READ my post again. Or maybe read it for the FIRST time. I never said Sam Brownback was a racist: I said that his political party, the Republican Party, was the American political party that supported South African apartheid. I believe I have provided facts that support my case.
As for Senator Brownback’s good work on Darfur, you are quite correct to point it out. However, it is all the more exceptional precisely BECAUSE of the GOP’s record with regard to African and to African-descended Americans.
Oh, and Brownback took some Abramoff money as well.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9178374/gods_senator
Sigh. Isn’t it convenient, Econ101, that there’s always the concern for “the slaughter that occurred at the end of the colonial era” to keep existing structures in place, whether they be occupying armies or oppressive minority governments? White man’s burden. Always the white man’s burden.
Finally, Econ101, by all means continue with the pronouncements regarding my “credibility” if they make you feel important. I’ll let my posting speak for itself.
Actually CF2K, Sunday School starts for me at 09:30. Your last post was at 09:56.
So you are in error when you claimed to have been in Church longer.
Reagan was lukewarm, AT BEST, about officially taking a position, and at worst, elements of the GOP continued to support the government in Praetoria.Posted by: CF2K | August 26, 2007 at 02:28 PM
Oh, so CF2K meant to say that Republican’s stance on Apartheid was merely a temperature check rather than what CF2K wrote below:
CF2K wrote:”When candidates belonging to the party that supported South African Apartheid…”
So, I guess CF2K is saying that his words that Republicans supporting Apartheid was incorrect , rather that there was some foot dragging – whatever that means.
Appears to be Liberal(sic) misinterpretation of the actual events.
I wonder if God counts the minutes one is in Sunday school as compared to their fellow blogger?
I would think God would be more concerned as to how the person is living throughout the week than the number of minutes he/she is in Sunday School.
What strikes me about Klein’s short piece is the on-going commingling of Christian religious groups that heretofore never exactly ran along in harness. It should be noted, of course, that we have all been around the sun more than twenty times since I went to Mass on anything resembling a regular basis, so perhaps I’m out of touch. In any case, the Catholics I grew up with and went to school with never really trended toward the evangelical point of view. As I remember it, people went to Mass, but by and large, the participants were never that strict. Brownback signed up with the Catholics but seems to approach it from more of an evangelical angle, whereby the emphasis is placed on the literal meaning of The Bible. The priests of my recollection focused on the New Testament in their sermons and often tried to identify and illuminate every day spiritual truths. I never remember being advised on how to vote by a Catholic priest. Perhaps this was done back then and I never paid attention. Entirely possible. You do wonder, however, if some of the less than strict Catholics from the past have transitioned to an evangelical viewpoint. If such is the case, you also wonder if a bit of a divide is brewing in the American Catholic Church between the more laid back types that I remember and the newer breed of evangelicals.
“By comparison, Sam Brownback waves his law degree certificate earned while hiding from military duty by working as a disk jockey at a Topeka radio station.”
The draft was abandoned in 1973 before Brownback, who was born in 1956 was elegible.
Unless you were suggesting “hiding’ from military service means not enlisting.