UPDATE: Rob Wasinger is running for Congress in the 1st Congressional District of Kansas. Please visit Rob’s website at http://www.robwasinger.com
**********************************************************************************************
I am proud to present this exclusive interview for Race42008 with Rob Wasinger, the campaign manager of Brownback for President. Wasinger worked as Sen. Brownback’s chief-of-staff in the Senate before becoming campaign manager.
BV: How long have you been working for Senator Brownback and in what capacities?
RW: I started with then Congressman Sam Brownback in 1996 on his campaign for U.S. Senate. It has been a deep honor to work for a man of such conviction and principle over the course of the past decade.
BV: Are you enjoying some time off from the Senate? Although I’m sure the campaign is in no way a vacation.
RW: It’s nice to get away from the partisan atmosphere in the Senate, especially when the Democrats are clearly more interested in scoring cheap political points rather than advancing a clear agenda.
The campaign is nice because it gives Senator Brownback a real opportunity to show the American people a positive, issue based agenda for a better tomorrow, and a stronger America.
BV: How does the campaign plan on moving Brownback into the 1st tier?
RW: Senator Brownback is going to continue reaching out to voters in the early states, and across the country spreading his message of lower taxes, and a strong national defense along with the very critical need that we must all face together as a nation — which is to begin the work of renewing our families, so that we can restore our culture.
BV: Where are you finding Brownback has the most support? And what issue(s) do you find Brownback most stands out on?
RW: Senator Brownback clearly has a strong level of support from fiscal conservatives and those committed to reigning in the reckless spending that has permeated the Washington culture. The Club for Growth recently gave him an excellent review based on his clear record in the House and the Senate. Also, committed pro-lifers and those that care deeply about the pro-family agenda in the country are strongly supporting Senator Brownback’s candidacy. He hasn’t had to re-make himself or “evolve” to fit into the conservative base of the Republican Party like other candidates have had to do; he’s always been there.
BV: Some are claiming Brownback would be unelectable in the general, and that is the only reason they are not supporting him. How do you respond to these claims?
RW: Senator Brownback is a Reagan conservative, with a proven track record of conservative accomplishments. The values that Senator Brownback talks about are American values, and they will always win the day.
BV: The Romney camp has claimed Brownback, like Romney, has not always been pro-life. Are these claims true?
RW: The mere comparison of Romney to Brownback is utterly absurd on the face, and laughable to anyone that knows anything about the track records of these two radically different individuals.
When it comes to policy, there is no similarity between Senator Brownback and the former Governor of Massachusetts on any issue of consequence. They are polar opposites.
BV: Fundraising. How is that going?
RW: Senator Brownback is very excited about our fundraising efforts; it’s obviously a tough game and it never comes in fast enough; but the response among grassroots conservatives has been overwhelming. We have a lot of low dollar contributions from people that really care about the same issues that Brownback cares about and they are rising up to support his efforts, and we are deeply grateful.
BV: Any other general thoughts or comments?
RW: Senator Brownback is going to continue running a positive issues based campaign, and is looking forward to the debates and the chance to get his message out.
**Update —
In response to on-going accusations in the comments section that Brownback has not always been pro-life, I asked Rob Wasinger to address it, to which he responded:
“Brownback is unquestionably pro-life and always has been.”
March 29th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
When it comes to policy, Brownback and Romney are “polar opposites”?
Maybe some big differences… but, “polar opposites”?
The campaign manager lacks credibility.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Ahh, it wouldn’t be an interview with Team Brownback without a few refreshing swipes at Romney.
Btw, Billy, nice softballing.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
David, the truth can hurt sometimes.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Billy,
It just shows that Brownback is running as the Anti-Romney candidate. Not a path to victory, because by reason, he could never score higher than Romney.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Nice try, Jason!
An interesting snapshot, Billy. I hope you can get a follow-up, perhaps with Senator Brownback himself.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Billy:
1. I don’t support Romney. I support Rudy. I saw this an an objective observer.
2. “Polar opposites” would be Ted Kennedy and Dick Cheney, for example. Are you seriously going to defend the statement?
March 29th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
“polar opposites” is actually kind of laughable. The Brownback loses in this exchange.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
make that the Brownback camp….
March 29th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
A nice interview if you ask me. Will be interesting to see where Brownback’s fundraising numbers end up it is between him and Huckabee with the cash fight. Hopefully Brownback will exceed Huckabee in fundraising numbers.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
A nice interview?
Geez. Softball questions. Mindless talking points answers.
Arent you guys at all interested in real information?
And even then, they screw up!”Polar opposites” Hah!
Where does that put me?
March 29th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Not the toughest interview out there. Brownback is a bottom-rung candidate; the Kucinich of the GOP. Where are the Q’s about his viability as a candidate? Or about whether his extremist views represent the country? “Enjoying time off from the Senate?” is not a legitimate Q. Give me a break.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
March 29th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
And Brownback continues to do the McCain campaign’s work for them. Not that I mind, of course.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
It’s interesting to finally be hearing from the Brownback campaign – kudos to R4’08 for taking on someone not supporting one of the big three (and I say that as a rabid Rudy suopporter)
Anyway – While I found the “polar opposites” comment to be quite extreme, I don’t think that it was the most imporatant part of Wasinger’s response to that question. It was what he DIDN’T say that counted, because he didn’t anwere the original question! Has Brownback always been pro-life or hasn’t he?! I personally don’t care, because I think it’s VERY obvious that he’s pro-life now – but I’m definitely concerned about a presidential campaign that thinks it can’t be totally honest about the candidate’s past.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
For a first interview it was fine. I hope there are follow-ups. Good job Billy for getting it in the first place and posting it here.
As to the answers, I gotta agree with Palin for VP here. I was disappointed on the pro-life answer. I don’t care what the answer is – the abortion issue is not as important to me as some others – but when a candidate or his people evade answering a question, particularly one that goes to the heart of that candidate’s base of support, I have to wonder what’s going on. Even the answer to the electability question received only a trite Reagan comparison.
Say what you will about Romney, at least he answers questions about the “controversial” positions he’s taken. Some may not like or accept the answers, but he at least doesn’t mask his answer with an attack on the question. Sen. Brownback is a respectable candidate. I expect more than this from him.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Friends– Brownback and Romney are polar opposites in that:
*Brownback is a consistent conservative who tells it like it is, in the Reagan tradition.
*Romney is an inconsistent ambitious politician who tells you what you want to hear, in the Kerry tradition.
Nough said.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
A great interview to have on the site, thanks. Anytime a contributor can get to one of the top people among the GOP presidential candidates on the record exclusively it is a coup.
But, for my money, the pro-life question was completely ducked and I have to agree with those who claim that Mr. Wasinger lost credibility in the exchange (and I am not going to blame the interviewer because at some point there is a risk that the dialogue becomes confrontational and then the ground rules for the interview are compromised). No objective person would conclude that Romney is an ideological polar opposite of Brownback. Such a conclusion is hyperbolic and is clearly meant to hide or divert.
When first running for the United States House of Representatives, candidate Brownback was not the pro-life Republican in that congressional primary; he actively courted pro-choice Republicans as his base of support. Those are historical facts. Ostensibly there has been a change of heart on the issue by the Senator. It seems to me Senator Brownback should admit it and explain his evolution in this area as a matter of full disclosure and character.
In this day and age, citizens are tired of being lied to and manipulated by politicians. Changes of heart based on conviction are acceptable; changes of position for expediency are unacceptable. Voters want to know which it is. And, it seems to me, denying there has been a change that can be substantiated is the worst possible position to take.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Good interview. Thanks.
The campaign manager seems to be in line with his candidate and has worked for Brownback for a long time. Brownback still has some real potential to chart a unique path…we’ll see. The debates will be interesting to see as far as how Brownback does.
The polar opposite comment makes sense to me in the context of the GOP field. They are on opposite sides on abortion, taxes, and socialized health care. Romney has moved to the right on the issues, but the long-term records are very different. So that comment makes some sense coming from campaign staff.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Republis:
Brownback has never said a single word (that I have found), cast any vote, or done anything else that is anything but
pro-life. He’s one of the most pro-life polticians in the country and always has been. It remains to be seen if he can parlay that into success, but anyone trying to revise history has an agenda. If I had to guess, it’s to provide cover for any number of other candidates that are trying to move to the right.
I bought into some of this talk early on, when the Romney campaign was sending it around to
supporters (another reason it’s no suprise the campaign manager answered as he did), but there is not a single quote from the candidate that backs this up.
There are other things to hit brownback on. Life issues are a strange way to go at him.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
GOPinFL, are you familiar with this article (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/dec/07/change_heart/?politics)? Or the lengthy article in the December 18, 2006 issue of The New Republic about the ideological changes Senator Brownback has undergone (“The Apostle: The Many Conversions of Sam Brownback”)? I remember viewing C-SPAN interviews of Brownback when he was a White House fellow and then a candidate for Congress, and he used to be much more moderate.
Again, I have no problem with a candidate becoming more conservative. That is the goal – to turn more folks into conservatives. What I am concerned with discerning is whether a candidate’s conversion is out of conviction or expediency. And you have to wonder about the answer when the candidate denies the conversion.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Seriously? They are polar opposites. One of them (Romney) changed his view on pro-life to court pro-lifers. The other, Sam Brownback, did not. That is in fact polar opposites. And unless someone can produce credible publication quotes or a televised interview where Brownback did the flip-flop that Romney did, I would probably hold my tongue because it is just mud slinging and voters will preceive it as such.
And quite frankly, everyone on the list of hopefuls is a bottom rung candidate unless he gets the nomination. And none of the candidates have my vote or my money until they start producing real solutions to the real problems that face the very real people of our nation.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
ReaganRevolutionist: “One of them (Romney) changed his view on pro-life to court pro-lifers.”
And you know this? How?
March 29th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
marK,
Seriously? The guy is a politician. And everyone knows that perception is everything in politics. When you make radical changes in how you think on issues, the voting population is going to perceive it as politically motivated. That is the reality and Romney has said and done nothing to convince me otherwise, and since I am the voter he DOES need to convince me otherwise.
And when a Governor does this:
“The cornerstone of Gov. Mitt Romney’s new universal health care law for Massachusetts is a program titled “Commonwealth Care”, a plan for thousands of low-income people who could not afford regular health insurance, funded by the taxpayers.
One of the stated benefits covered in Commonwealth Care is “abortions.” And Planned Parenthood is written into the law, as part of the “payment policy advisory board.” ” (FYI, I just did a Google search to back-up my point, not necessarily a supporter of this site though:http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/health_ins/)”
Whomever gets the nomination, all you have to do is look at the polling data to know it is going to be a tight race, regardless.
My vote matters and whomever I reward it to, is going to have to prove themselves worthy of it. And I am not alone in my thinking. Voters are very pessimistic right now with all candidates from both sides of the aisle.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
RR,
Don’t you find it ironic that on a thread where Brownback supporters are demanding direct quotes to prove that their man was anything but true-blue, died-in-wool pro-life, you are stating as a fact that Romney has changed his stance on abortion only to please pro-lifers? Where are the direct quotes?
A number of people who knew Brownback well remember him being mildly pro-choice. They certainly could be mistaken, but they come from across the political spectrum, and few have any ax to grind. Nobody who knows Romney well thinks he changed to pander to the pro-life crowd. On the contrary, a number of people who were suspicious who have taken the time to get to know him, ask him serious questions, make probing inquiries, all come away convinced that his shift in stance has been genuine and sincere.
Look, if you wish to doubt his sincerity, fine. I support you in that. All I ask is for you to actually study the man carefully and not just dismiss him out-of-hand as just “another” politician.
Part of the problem is that Romney has never been pro-abortion. He was pro-choice, as in the woman has the right to choose. He came by that honestly. There was a woman very close to his family that died because of an illegal abortion. He never liked the procedure. He has said that upon a number of occasions, but he wanted to keep the tragedy that touched his family from happening to others. You can see this in his run for Governor.
Then he got into the Governor’s office where he come face-to-face with the consequences of abortion-on-demand. He saw first hand the slippery slope that society has been placed on that cheapens life. It was no longer an intellectual exercise to him. It was real, with real people and real embryos. Those sorts of experiences turn people from mildly opposed to something to strongly opposed all the time. So they did him, as well.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Republius, I read the link you posted. That is a he said/she said situation. I would have to see something with an on the record Brownback quote–(i.e. not someone saying he said “this”)–where Brownback went from one extreme to the other regarding the abortion issue. And quite frankly, actions speak louder than words. Brownback has been consistent with his voting record on the issue.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
marK,
A word of wisdom: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck–it’s a duck!
The link I posted, states that Romney signed into law the universal health care for MA on April 2006 (this law is taxpayer-funded)and, “One of the stated benefits covered in Commonwealth Care is “abortions.” And Planned Parenthood is written into the law, as part of the “payment policy advisory board.”
What he had an epiphany while he was planning his exploratory committee???? Romney reeks of hypocrisy.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
David B: “”Polar opposites” would be Ted Kennedy and Dick Cheney, for example. Are you seriously going to defend the statement?”
Yes, I am.
Romney promised that he would do more for the gay rights community than ted kennedy.
Romney has been pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-gun right, for higher taxes.what more do you need to be convinced?
March 29th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
I just updated the post — Rob Wasinger emailed me and said “Brownback is unquestionably pro-life and always has been.”
March 30th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Romney promised that he would do more for the gay rights community than ted kennedy. Romney has been pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-gun right, for higher taxes.what more do you need to be convinced?
Oh, Billy. There you go again. Let’s do this piece by piece:
1. Romney claimed that he would be more effective at mainstreaming gay rights (employment, housing, etc) than would Kennedy. Kennedy being an uber-liberal maniac, just about anyone who believed in equal rights for gays (not talking marriage here) would be more effective, especially a Republican. Romney has always been against gay marriage and civil unions.
2. Anti-gun in that he supported and still supports the Assault Weapon Ban? Yes. But if you sum this up as generally anti-gun, you’re dreaming. Even with Romney’s support of the AWB he gets rated a “B” from the NRA.
3. Pro-abortion? Point to a single thing he did in office that was pro-abortion. As for his rhetorical support for RvW prior to his Governorship, history has shown us that a pro-life convert is quite acceptable to our cause, and Romney has had less converting to do than other notable pro-life champions.
4. Higher taxes? What a load! Closing corporate tax loopholes is enforcing existing tax law. This is no more a tax hike than sending an escaped convict to prison is a sentencing. And Romney’s raising of fees is nothing like a tax hike. First, it’s a usage tax which is perfectly avoidable. Second, Romney brought the fees for many government services in line with national, local, and inflationary levels. Before he raised the fees, you effectively had MA subsidizing services and paying for it through a socialistic income tax. And on top of that Romney reversed the legislature’s retroactive capital gains tax, made the investment tax credit permanent, passed sales tax holidays, gave tax breaks to medical manufacturing companies, gave real estate tax breaks to seniors, and in each of his last three years, Romney submitted a budget that cut the income tax.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:06 am
Murphy–
Seriously? A single thing he did that was pro-abortion? He signed into law a universal healthcare for MA that has taxpayers paying for abortions. He signed it into law in April 2006 right before he had his epiphany. “One of the stated benefits covered in Commonwealth Care is “abortions.” And Planned Parenthood is written into the law, as part of the “payment policy advisory board.”
So there is your one thing.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
ReaganRevolutionist,
What Romney signed into law was a continuation of the previous Medicaid funding for abortions. This is consistent with his pledge to have a moratorium on changes to abortion laws. Realistically, Romney’s line-item-veto of that provision would be overridden by the 85% Dem legislature. The only realy effect his veto would have in this instance would be to break his campaign promise. Nothing else would change.
By the way, other things that Romney did were to veto bills aimed at lowering the age of consent for abortion, veto the legalization of RU-486, and he actively promoted abstinence education programs in Massachusetts’ schools.
You’ve got your guns aimed at the wrong guy. I’m particularly surprised, considering your blogging namesake.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
ReaganRevolutionist,
Would you prefer that Romney go back on his campaign promise to have a moratorium on abortion laws?
Maybe you can answer this question for me. Why is it that when faced with a man who has shown over and over and over again that he keeps his word, there are still those who insist that he is lying through his teeth just be elected?
March 30th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Murphy,
First and foremost, Romney is no Reagan. None of the candidates are and couldn’t be. Secondly, as you said, his line-item veto would have been overriden so if he had chosen to exercise it–which he should have in this instance–a campaign promise, in essence, would not have been broken. But it would have spoken volumes for what he truly believes–similar to all the non-binding resolutions Congress does–they have no legislative meaning, they are political statements.
March 30th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
marK,
The man has no convictions–in my opinion. And in essence he would not have broken his campaign promise, simply made a political statement as Murphy pointed out that the 85% Dem Leg would have overriden.
I am glad for you that you like Romney. I don’t.
March 30th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
RR,
No convictions? None? Zippo? Nadda?
Obviously he has the conviction that a promise is a promise.
March 30th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Again, in essence he would not have broken the promise. He could have made a clear political statement by using his line item veto and while it would not have changed the law, it would’ve been more in line with his epiphany that he is prolife. Romney is a politician, not a leader.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
RR,
Of course it would have broken his campaign promise. A promise to not do something (in this case change abortion law) vouches for the candidate’s behavior…not what he expects to be the behavior of the supermajority legislature.
You’re advocating a game of semantic patty-cake that would be very similar to me promising not to rob any quickie marts, and then robbing a quickie mart where I knew half a dozen police officers were hanging out.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Karl G. Maeser.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
BTW, Karl G. Maeser was once the President of the University that Mitt Romney graduated valedictorian from.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
What Romney did and has done is pure politics and you are welcome to think otherwise, but voters aren’t stupid–they see things for what they are.
Again, glad you like Romney. I do not.
March 30th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
RR,
We are all stupid — just in different things.
Actually, in my experience I have found that very few people are actually stupid. Instead, ‘stupid’ is a word that is generally used by someone on the losing end of an argument.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:12 pm
marK the dialogue ends when Romney doesn’t get the nomination.
Voters aren’t stupid. We’ve entered a much more sophisticated age where spinning this and that has made the public very skeptical and pessimistic. And Romney’s camp is running faster than a hamster spinning a running wheel.