Brownback was something other than pro-life?before he was pro-life:
“Kansas Republican Party Chairman Tim Shallenburger said he remembered having a conversation with Brownback in 1994 when Brownback was running in the GOP primary for the U.S. House.
After the conversation, Shallenburger said he left with the impression that Brownback “was not pro-life.”
David Gittrich, development director for the state’s largest anti-abortion organization, Kansans for Life, said when Brownback first ran for Congress in 1994 “he was ill-informed.”
Gittrich added, “He didn’t know whether he was pro-life or pro-choice.”…
…(Brownback) said in that 1994 race he probably failed to get his views across because instead of stating that he was “pro-life,” he would tell audiences where he stood on various abortion-related bills before Congress.
Asked why he did that, Brownback said he thought it was more appropriate to address specific legislation. He conceded it probably was a “poor choice of words at the time. I’ve learned that lesson.”
But Gittrich said he had heard from others that Brownback simply didn’t understand the issues at the time.
When anti-abortion advocates met with Brownback after he won the primary and after he studied the issue, it became apparent that Brownback was anti-abortion, Gittrich said.
“He had a strong Christian perspective, and when he put it all together he knew he was pro-life. He just didn’t know whether he would say he is pro-life,” he said.”
As the article notes, Brownback’s opponent in the primary for his House race was a strong pro-lifer.? Could it be that Brownback was simply positioning himself to get the votes of pro-choice Republicans in that particular race?? If so, don’t words like “opportunism” slip off the tongue?
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 pm
This seems like a really big stretch. Romney and Giuliani are clearly (or were clearly) on the other side of the issue. Not Sam Brownback.
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Political race in ’94. Equivocating remarks intended to appeal to more voters. 13 years to refine a position. My, it seems that Brownback is the political doppleganger of Romney. Why then is the great divide in coverage between the two? It’s because Romney has a better chance at getting the presidency, thus putting him under the microscope more. But it’s refreshing to know that other social conservatives can evolve and strengthen their personal convictions into their political positions. It’s certainly nice to know that one must not be calvinistically predestined to be Pro-Life since birth (or possibly before)! Attacking others for previously held positions of yester-decade is a sure recipe to help shrink the ‘Big Tent’. It’s suicidal and just plays into the hands of the Democrats. After all, a house diveded…well, you know the rest.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:57 am
Nathan,
In his congressional primary in 1994, Brownback initially rebuffed a pro-life group’s endorsement. Brownback described himself as “more in line with the view of Nancy Kassebaum”.
Of course nobody doubts where Brownback is now. But chalk his name on the list of pro-life converts:
George W. Bush (pro-choice 1978 congressional campaign)
Sam Brownback (pro-choice 1994 congressional primary)
Mitt Romney (pro-choice 1994 senate campaign)
Ronald Reagan (1967 signed the most liberal state abortion law in the nation)
We should celebrate the fact that these men changed for the better, not spend months on blogs berating them!
BarkTwiggs, love your comment about being calvinistically predestined to be Pro-Life!
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:46 am
murphy. . .you said what I’ve been saying for years about formerly pro-choice Republicans: as a party one of our goals is to convince as many people on the other side that our side is the right view. We shouldn’t then attack them because they were once pro-choice but have been pro-life now for, in some cases you mentioned, at least 12 years. We should be congratulating them and encouraging more people to embrace the pro-life platform. A candidate’s record in office, once he/she “sees the light” on abortion, is much more important to me, and is totally fair game in a campaign. One’s record will clearly show whether or not a candidate became pro-life out of conscience or out of opportunism. When we know the reason they switched, then we can make a fair and honest decision on whether or not to support them.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Hmmmm…there seems to be another Sean in our midst. I shall henceforth go by “Horace.”
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Sean,
If you examine the facts, you will find that Romney has an amazing track record at keeping his word. As for the differences with Romney and Brownback, Brownback has certainly been the historical leader. I don’t find much usefulness for pedigree, however, if both candidates are very clear about their intentions as President. If it is a tie in this respect, there are other parts of the platform to consider where (in my opinion) Romney is several heads and shoulders above everyone else in the race.