Politics

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, Republican candidates for president, have both been hard at work courting the Right Wing – from Romney speaking at “Liberty Sunday” to Brownback suiting up for the mythical “War on Christmas” to both signing Grover Norquist’s no-taxes pledge within a day of each other – and filling up their dance cards with endorsements from the Religious Right. Romney, though considered a more viable candidate, has been at a disadvantage in accruing right-wing points following revelations of his past support for gay rights.

Now, Brownback himself is questioning Romney’s right-wing credentials, reports CBN News:

“I think you have to look at where he stood on the issues and what he said publicly,"  Brownback said. “At times he's said different things on these issues. I think that's all going to come out during a long campaign."

Brownback wouldn’t flatly say if Romney is a reliable conservative. He said, “We'll see and that will be for him to discuss. I do think when we get out on the campaign trail and when the campaign really gets fully engaged, there's going to be a lot of discussion about where do people actually stand on the issues and where have they been and where are they now and how reliable are they to stay that way."

At the same time, CBN posted an article alluding to a similar problem haunting Brownback – his alleged pro-choice position at the start of his political career.

Presidential candidate Sam Brownback told CBN News that he's always been pro-life despite his decision to stay away from the pro-life label at the beginning of his race for Congress in 1994.

"I was in the same position in 1994 as I am today as far as being pro-life," said Brownback. "I didn't articulate then. I thought - and this is just getting into politics - that I would be better off saying the specific areas of the issue rather than 'Are you pro-life or pro-choice?'"

In particular, Brownback’s campaign said he had no recollection of telling Tim Golba, then president of Kansas for Life, that his position on abortion was “more in line with” that of pro-choice Sen. Nancy Kassebaum. The campaign has sent out a letter to supporters asking for job references: “Can I please ask those that are capable and willing to send me a testimonial quote highlighting Senator Brownback's work on pro-life issues?”

Both of these stories were reported by Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network. Robertson expressed enthusiasm early for Brownback, a point noted by conservative columnist George Will, reporter Jeff Sharlet, and others. Now, Robertson might be backing down a little bit, according to Sharlet.

Campaigning for president as “the full-scale conservative,” Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) has won the hearts of many right-wing activists for joining in the calls warning of a so-called “War on Christmas” and blocking a judicial nominee who once attended a lesbian commitment ceremony, but his candidacy has so far failed to establish viability. “Brownback has to prove he can win,” as Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention put it. Still, the senator is steadily expanding his base, as he demonstrated during Monday’s anti-abortion protests in Washington.

Brownback wrote an op-ed in support of the protests in The Washington Times, and he spoke at several events during the day, culminating in a “Brownback for President” reception. Washington Post’s Dana Milbank reports:

The Rev. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life gave the opening prayer: "We pray today particularly for a man whom we love and whom we admire, whom we look to and have looked to for leadership and have not been disappointed. We pray today for Senator Brownback and his family."

Two hundred march participants chanted: "Brownback! Brownback!"

Brownback also spoke at the Family Research Council’s Blogs4Life conference (covered by ProLifeBlogs, Townhall, and Human Events), where he predicted that “Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned” within a few years, as Milbank reported.

He announced his introduction of the "Unborn Pain Awareness Act" and vowed to protect all "children of a living God." Asking why disabled Americans are protected but not fetuses with abnormalities, he demanded: "What's the difference -- location?" For emphasis, he introduced a 4-year-old girl with Down syndrome. He urged the listeners to speak to abortion-rights supporters with "truth encased in love."

This is not the first time Brownback has used children as stage props. This past summer, the senator argued against embryonic stem-cell research by bringing out a 7-year-old girl, who had drawn a picture of herself as an embryo saying, “Are you going to kill me?” This particular rhetorical technique was previously used by former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), who brought a 4-year-old to the Senate chamber while arguing for the “Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.” ““What they wanted to do was kill this baby by stabbing her in the base of the skull and suctioning her brains out,” said Santorum, pointing to the girl in the audience.

Santorum’s extreme politics endeared him to the Right – not too long ago, he was the one frequently mentioned as a potential presidential candidate – but it cost him his Senate seat in November’s election. Brownback is hoping to find a growing Right Wing in Iowa that could give him the edge in the GOP caucus, but first he has to appeal to more moderate Republican voters, and convince them that he won’t meet Santorum’s fate. Otherwise, the difference will be location – the chasm between warm reception at a far-Right blog panel and disappointment at a real-life voting booth.

(Photo from ProLifeBlogs.com.)

“With some people, the issue of amnesty is a litmus test and anything short of a concentration camp is amnesty,” said Republican National Committee member Paul Senft Jr. of Florida. He was speaking of his fellow RNC members, a number of whom are plotting a party coup to prevent Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Florida), Bush’s pick, from assuming the title of general chairman.

Bush picked Martinez to head the Republican Party shortly after the midterm elections, in which the party lost control of both houses of Congress in spite of – or because of – the obsessive efforts by many to cement a Republican alliance with anti-immigrant extremism. Despite Martinez’s partisan and right-wing credentials – the Family Research Council gave him a perfect score – the Right reacted immediately by attacking the senator, who immigrated from Cuba as a teenager, for his support for comprehensive immigration reform. Pat Buchanan accused Bush of “pandering” to minorities only to alienate whites, and Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies called the pick “disturbing.”  Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) warned that if Martinez continues to support comprehensive reform he will alienate “rank-and-file Republicans” and cause “another shellacking at the polls.”

While the president’s selection seemed like a foregone conclusion, a group called English First unveiled a campaign to “defeat” the nomination, launching StopMartinez.com: “Wrong on English. Wrong on Amnesty. Wrong for the Republican National Committee.” In addition to immigration reform and declaring English as the national language, the web site decries Martinez’s use of Spanish in a Senate speech, as well as his alleged position on statehood for Puerto Rico. (“Think West Virginia or Alaska, only poorer,” warns the group ominously.)

Now, at the RNC meeting in Washington (which began today), many members are planning to vote against Martinez – and according to The Washington Times, some are planning to invoke parliamentary rules to disqualify him.

The conservatives -- one of whom accused the Bush White House of "outsourcing" party leadership -- say the general-chairman post does not exist under RNC rules, which can be changed only at the party's presidential nominating convention.

Unhappy committee members say that, in the past, Republican presidents and RNC leaders have successfully run roughshod over the rules, because the RNC officer presiding over votes at committee meetings have simply overruled points of order and other objections from the floor, with no accredited professional parliamentarians to exercise a check.

This time, the organizers of the rebellion say, their strategy will rely in part on having a parliamentarian present. And violations of Robert's Rules of Order and of the RNC's written rules -- adopted at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York -- could result in legal challenges. …

[RNC member Randy] Pullen pointed out that Mr. Martinez, who served as Mr. Bush's secretary of Housing and Urban Development before winning a Senate seat, is not an RNC member. RNC rebels say the rules are clear that the person who heads the committee must be a member of the committee.  "Outsourcing our leadership at this critical time is not an option," Mr. Haugland said.

While the anti-immigrant faction hoping to undermine Bush’s selection may not succeed in preventing Martinez from becoming general chairman, they may succeed in further distancing the party from Hispanic voters.

Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (which runs Voice of America and other overseas programming put out by the U.S.), has told the White House he is not seeking renomination to his appointed post. As the Washington Post notes, this is “something of a formality” with the Senate now controlled by Democrats. Tomlinson has been under fire recently over alleged ethical violations:

According to a report last summer by the State Department's inspector general, Tomlinson violated federal rules by running his private horse breeding and racing operations out of his government office and improperly put a friend on the broadcasting board's payroll.

In the letter, published by Human Events, Tomlinson writes that the charges “do not stand up to scrutiny,” but adds,

In recent weeks, however, I have concluded that it would be far more constructive to write a book on my experiences rather than to seek to continue government service.

"My critics will say this is an indicator that Ken Tomlinson is quitting public life," Tomlinson said in The Washington Times. "But I'm just beginning to fight. This book will be a much more effective way to bring to light the injustices done to me."

Indeed, with plans for a book, Tomlinson is well set up to continue his role as a martyr in the Right’s long-standing battle against public broadcasting. Human Events called him “A courageously outspoken conservative” who has been “fighting off constant attacks from the left to remove him from office.”

But neither The Washington Times nor Human Events mention what first catapulted Tomlinson to fame. Before his appointment to the board overseeing Voice of America, he was on the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and from that perch he fervently pursued a campaign to combat the supposed “liberal bias” at PBS. As PFAW reported in June of 2005:

Claiming to have concerns about the "objectivity and balance" of PBS, Tomlinson has used his position as head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to enact an agenda designed to ensure that public broadcasting favorably reflects the Republican agenda, such as

Hiring a White House staffer to draft guidelines for a new PBS ombudsman to monitor programs for bias.

Hiring a Republican lobbyist who had recently resigned from his position as a top aide to Senator Mel Martinez of Florida after writing a memorandum describing how to exploit the Terri Schiavo case for political gain.

Secretly hiring a consultant to monitor broadcasts of "Now with Bill Moyers" for "anti-Bush," "anti-business" and "anti-Tom DeLay" remarks. Just yesterday it was revealed that the consultant had formerly worked at the National Journalism Center, a right wing organization best known as serving as a training ground for figures such as Ann Coulter.

Pushing to appoint a former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee to be the CPB's president and chief executive, despite the fact that she has no experience with public broadcasting.

Now Tomlinson will be free to prosecute his extremely dubious “bias” charges without the burden of accountability that comes with government funding. No doubt he will have a receptive audience on the far Right for his forthcoming book.

Rep. Virgil Goode, Jr. (R-Virginia), in a letter to constituents obtained by a Charlottesville newspaper, joined a right-wing attack on an incoming Muslim congressman, and linked the presence of the Koran in Congress to a supposed need for draconian immigration laws to stop the influx of Muslim congressmen streaming across the border. "[I]f American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran," wrote Goode.

When right-wing columnist and radio host Dennis Prager lashed out against incoming Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) for “announc[ing] that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran,” he created a small firestorm. Wrote Prager late last month:

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

He added, “If you are incapable of taking an oath on [the Christian Bible], don't serve in Congress."

Not least among the criticisms were (1) that the Constitution specifically prohibits any religious test for office, and (2) that members of Congress do not take their oaths of office on the Bible at all. Instead, they raise their right hands as a group, and then pose for pictures after the fact.

However, Prager stood by his ridiculous attack, and a few right-wing figures came out of the woodwork to support him. WorldNetDaily wove a complicated conspiracy attempting to link Ellison to international terrorists, and Roy Moore – the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was removed from office for refusing to relinquish a two-ton Ten Commandments monument from his court – argued that Islam “rejects our God” and is “simply incompatible with our law.” William Donohue of the Catholic League and Don Feder, under the auspices of his obscure group “Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation,” issued a joint statement calling critics of Prager “scurrilous” and repeating the false factual claim that all congressmen historically swear an oath on the Christian Bible. Feder went further, writing, “It’s no coincidence that most terrorists on four continents are Muslims. Nor is it a coincidence that those who are killing U.S. servicemen in Iraq do so in the name of the bible of Islam. And it isn't by chance that Osama bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah and Imanutjob in Iran all cite the Koran as the source of their lunacy.” Feder added that he would rather Ellison swear on “The Pop-Up Kama Sutra.”

Now, at least one fellow congressman is joining this quixotic right-wing campaign against Ellison and the U.S. Constitution. Goode, a Republican representing the southside of Virginia, wrote his letter in response to constituents complaining about Ellison. One accidental recipient forwarded it to an alternative newspaper in Charlottesville. In it, he connects the anti-Islam message of the Right to the anti-immigrant positions that he has made his political hallmark:

Dear Mr. Cruickshank:

Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.

The Ten Commandments and “In God We Trust” are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, “As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office.” Thank you again for your email and thoughts.

Sincerely yours,
Virgil H. Goode, Jr.
70 East Court Street
Suite 215
Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151

UPDATE 12/21:

Tell Goode to apologize!  A spokesman for Goode says that the congressman “stands by the letter” and refuses to apologize for the letter he wrote to constituents despite universal condemnation from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Virginia Muslim PAC, James Zogby of the Arab American Institute, the ACLU, and at least one Democratic congressman. A spokesman for incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) called the remarks “offensive.”

Goode has made illegal immigration a primary target of his congressional career – introducing a bill to build a fence along the US-Mexico border and pushing to make English the official language of the US. 

Representative Ellison has the right idea about what it means to be an American - telling Rep Goode that he has “nothing to fear” because “the fact that there are many different faiths, many different colors and many different cultures in America is a great strength.” 

You can call Goode’s office at (202) 225-4711 and ask that he apologize for his intolerant and divisive comments about Muslims and immigrants. (Let us know how your call went here.)