Sen. Brownback Considers Bid for U.S. Presidency

Sen. Sam Brownback, who is considering a White House bid in 2008, said Monday the Republican field has room for a 'full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative' and pledged to make a final decision next month.

The Kansas senator said he was not discouraged from running by the Democrats' strong gains in this month's midterm elections, including majority control of the House and Senate.

'It does not make it less likely,' he said in an interview. 'I really believe that the basic conservative ideas and ideals were not repudiated. Our execution was.' . . .

'I think there's room for a full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative in the field,' Brownback said. 'I fully agree that other people have much higher name identification than I do. No question about that. But I think what you have to look at is the policy positions they get out once you have an effective campaign.'

Brownback, who was elected in 1996, is a forceful foe of abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. He also has taken a prominent role in the fight against genocide in Sudan's Darfur region.

Source: Kansas Republican Eyes Presidential Bid, by Sam Hananel. Associated Press. (Via RedState.

More Brownback info from Jay Anderson @ Pro Ecclesia

I support the U.S. Catholic Bishops on Iraq

The nation's Catholic bishops on Monday (Nov. 13) called for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq "at the earliest opportunity":

"Our nation's military forces should remain in Iraq only so long as their presence contributes to a responsible transition," the statement reads. "Our nation should look for effective ways to end their deployment at the earliest opportunity consistent with this goal."

Got to hand it to the Bishops -- they've managed to come up with a position that President Bush, Congressman Murtha, and Noam Chomsky could agree on.

Hat tip: Domenico Bettinelli.

President Bush's Choice for Family Planning Post Criticized

According to the Washington Post, liberals aren't very happy with President Bush's appointment for the head of the family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services:

The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women."

Eric Keroack, medical director for A Woman's Concern, a nonprofit group based in Dorchester, Mass., will become deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the next two weeks, department spokeswoman Christina Pearson said yesterday. . . .

Marilyn Keefe, interim president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents 4,000 family-planning clinics, said Keroack's work "seems to really be geared toward furthering anti-choice, anti-contraception policies." She added that despite the congressional election results, the appointment "goes to show you the importance of controlling the White House and how important federal agencies are in the delivery of health services."

Deal Hudson on "What the Election Means for Religious Conservatives"

Deal Hudson brings another perspective to the elections (What the Election Means for Religious Conservatives Nov. 15, 2006:

In a national conference call with religious conservatives, Sen. Sam Brownback said that President Bush squandered the mandate of the 2004 election by pursuing social security reform when he could have taken action on an important social issue, such as the federal marriage issue.

He also rejected the idea that the election represented a repudiation of social conservatism because the Democrats who were recruited to beat incumbent Republicans were precisely that, social conservatives! Six of the Democrat freshmen are pro-life -- the biggest group since the eighties.

Pro-abortion Republicans, Brownback pointed out, were the biggest losers. A dozen of them are not coming back and that represents about half their total. Congressional Democrats, as a result of who won, are slightly more conservative than before, while Republicans are significantly more conservative.

Patrick Hynes, author of In Defense of the Religious Right, asked Sen. Brownback what religious conservatives can learn from their five losses on ballot questions: Arizona's same-sex marriage amendment, California's parental notification initiative; Oregon's parental notification initiative; Missouri's embryonic stem cell and human cloning initiative; and South Dakota's abortion ban.

Sen. Brownback stated that in Missouri, social conservatives were out-spent 20-to-1 and every major Republican state office holder, including the governor, supported the measure. Nevertheless, the measure only passed with 50.3 percent of the vote.

Regarding South Dakota, Sen. Brownback suggested that going for the full ban with no exceptions for rape and incest may have been a mistake. Nevertheless, he applauded the initiative as a courageous effort to launch an important national debate.

Sen. Brownback agreed that the failure to pass the same-sex marriage amendment in Arizona is of great concern. Arizona, he said, became the first state in the country to reject such a ban by democratic means. Sen. Brownback echoed a previously expressed sentiment that religious conservatives need to work especially hard in the interior west Sunbelt region to counter a vibrant libertarian sentiment. . . .READ THE REST

Republicans Chastened in Typical 6th Year Mid-Term Election

The election results as of this hour follow. Democrats gain 27 seats in the House and so control. Now, the House consists of 229 Democrats to 198 Republicans. Republicans can win the House again with new leadership and with dynamic, forceful, and imaginative opposition to the Democrat lunacy you can expect over the next two years. One key factor last night that the media will likely not focus on: the Democrats won in some places by running candidates with conservative Republican views. That means that in some districts where Democrats gained seats conservatism still is the reigning political philosophy. It will be interesting to see if House Republicans can form a strategic alliance with those conservative "Democrats," as was done during the Reagan years.


Senate control is still undecided. It looks like the results in Montana will decide if we get a Republican Senate to review the next Supreme Court nomination. Pray for Montana. The big shocker last night was the loss in Missouri. The great blessing in the Senate races was the win in Tennessee. So, as of now, the Senate numbers are 49 Republicans and 47 Democrats, with 2 undecided (Virginia and Montana). The other big disappointment last night was the apparent loss of Michael Steele for Maryland Senate. Steele would have been a great addition to the Senate as an African-American Republican. The Republican Party deserves credit for recruiting him as a candidate and for also recruiting African-American candidates for governor in Ohio and Pennsylvania. One day we will break the dysfunctional Democratic stranglehold on the African-American vote.


My observations on the election:


1. It's time, as noted before, for dynamic and forceful opposition based on a consistent, bold conservative philosophy. The Democrats offer nothing constructive for the nation. It will be easy to expose that.


2. Build a working alliance with new and old conservative Democrats in the House, as in the Reagan era.


3. Put pressure on the Iraqis to stop the sectarian fighting soon, or seriously consider partition once and for all. With partition, the U.S. can support its real allies in Iraq and take specific aim at its enemies (those who harbor terrorists), instead of continuing to wait on dysfunctional Iraqi politicians to get their act together. Partition may be the key to separating the sheep from the goats and thus bring clarity to the conflict. Partition may also deny terrorists the chance to take over an intact nation-state with great oil wealth.


4. Note that a two bans on "gay marriage" passed-- in Tennessee and in Virginia. Also, note that a conservative Christian Republican Sarah Palin won the Senate seat in Alaska against a veteran Democratic politician. She is a great fresh face for true conservatives. And, speaking of true conservatives, it is a good thing that a Republican liberal like Chafee lost in Rhode Island. It's a welcome purging of a pro-abortion Republican. Also, note that in Michigan, a proposal to ban traditional affirmative action approaches passed. That means that public institutions will be forced to find creative ways to help the economically disadvantaged of all races without creating racial conflict. The fact that Michigan, a state that tilts Democratic, passed the ban is a sign that we need to leave racial preferences behind in the quest for social justice. School vouchers are the best way to attain the just goals of genuine affirmative action. So Republican losses don't necessarily mean a defeat for conservatism.


5. Now is a great opportunity for the President to come out swinging and take bold, challenging initiatives. He will hold a news conference today at 1 p.m. The losses for the Republicans in the sixth year of a Republican White House are historically typical for the incumbent party. It's the typical price you pay for winning the presidency twice in a row. The presidency is worth that price. Here is the historical perspective from a Washington Post article from earlier this year (January 29, 2006):


History appears to favor the Democrats. Midterm elections in the sixth year of a two-term presidency have proved particularly difficult for the party in the White House. Republicans suffered significant losses in the midterm elections of 1958, 1974 and 1986, the sixth year of presidency for Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon and Ronald Reagan, respectively. Democrats took a bath in 1966, the sixth year of the combined administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.


But there was a notable anomaly. In 1998, aided by public backlash against Republican calls for impeachment, Democrats gained seats in the House and held even in the Senate in Bill Clinton's sixth year in office.

Whether that was an aberration or the disintegration of the pattern of the "six-year itch" will not be clear until November. Nor will it be clear, even if the Democrats gain nominal ground in November, whether that signals a broader shift away from the Republicans that could carry over to 2008 or was merely an outcome typical of midterm elections.


"Bush's Midterm Challenge," Washington Post, Jan. 29, 2006, by Dan Balz, at this link.


Adversity breeds character, initiative, boldness, dynamism, and clarity. Take the gift and run with it.

Elections 2006

Just a brief roundup of posts, perhaps updated as the evening progresses. Oswald Sobrino has a post as well. And of course ongoing election night chatter from the National Review.

• Voting with Michael Steele, by Sonny Bunch. Weekly Standard Nov. 7, 2006, on the woes of being a Black Conservative Republican:

  Standing in line to vote with his wife, the pair wearing matching blue Under Armour windbreakers, Steele was surrounded by folks who clearly had no desire to vote for him. They made snide comments behind his back. "They're just trying to trick us, but we know better," exclaimed one elderly woman. She went on to explain that Steele's great "trick" was not cutting to the front, but instead choosing to stand in line like everyone else. . . .

• For Orson Scott Card, there is only one issue this election day RealClear Politics Nov. 6, 2006:

  [A]s a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

  But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

  (Response & discussion over at Jimmmy Akin's)

• Paul Zummo ("The Cranky Conservative") mirrors my thoughts -- "Ideologically this election is a clear choice.":

  Steele is a true blue, Catholic conservative. I was impressed by him the first time I saw him speak at a Knight of Columbus gathering last winter. He's an engaging speaker who has full command of the political scene, and he's on the same page as me on the issues that truly matter. So, there was never any doubt as to whether or not I would vote for him.

  But as the campaign has progressed, it's become much more important to me to see him win. This morning I saw a picture of Ben Cardin, and I think it was the first time I had seen his face during the campaign. That should give you an indication of the absolutely atrocious campaign that the invisible man has run. On the other hand, Steele has run one of the most magnificent campaigns I have ever observed. Sure, the puppy add might have been a bit of fluff, but it was also a smart ad that showed that Steele was a little different from the rest. His campaign has accentuated the positive, a stark contrast to Cardin, and especially the pathetic Webb-Allen fiasco (more on that in a second).

  Cardin's basic line of attack is basically to accuse Steele of actually liking George Bush. While that sort of campaign makes copious amounts of sense in a heavily Democratic state, and I can't really blame Cardin for taking advantage of Bush's unpopularity, the lack of substance truly aggravates me. On every level I want Steele to pull this out.

• Domenico Bettinelli, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have much of a choice (Whither the Catholic Voter?" ):

  There’s the dark warning that if you don’t go to the polls and vote for your Republican candidate, then the evil Democrats will win. On the other hand, what if there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two on issues that matter to me? In Massachusetts, both the Republican and Democrat candidates are pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research, and effectively pro-gay marriage. (The Republican supports civil unions which are gay marriage in all but name.) So what’s left? Taxes?

The Wall Street Journal is providing An hour-by-hour guide to tonight's Election results. Stay tuned. . . .

Seven principles to use in the public square

What we claim to believe as Christians must inform all aspects of our lives.

by Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

In his comments to the 2006 Gospel of Life conference on Oct. 28, Archbishop Chaput outlined seven simple principles that Catholics should use to inform their actions in the public square — this year and every year, whether elections loom or not.

1. Relationships have consequences. If we claim to love someone or believe something, we should act accordingly. A married man should be faithful to his wife all the time, every day, in every way. In like manner, a baptized person should seek to be faithful to Jesus Christ all the time, every day, in every way.

2. Jesus gave us the Church as our mother and teacher. She speaks for Jesus Christ and teaches in His name. Therefore, we owe the same fidelity to the Church that we owe to Christ.

3. Jesus told us to “make disciples of all nations” and to be “leaven in the world.” The Epistle of James tells us to be “doers of [God’s] word, and not hearers only,” and that “faith without works is dead.” What we claim to believe as Christians, we need to then prove by our actions — in every aspect of our lives; our families, our friendships, our work and business dealings, and also in our political choices. Otherwise we’re just lying to ourselves and others.

4. Catholic teaching has two basic principles we should use in judging every public issue: First, does this issue advance the dignity of the individual human person; and second, does this issue promote the common good? We can never choose one of these principles to the exclusion of the other. We need to follow both. A public policy can’t truly serve the common good if it violates, or allows to be violated, the sanctity of someone’s fundamental human rights, from conception to natural death.

5. We should bring our faith to bear on all public issues. But not all public issues are equal. Many are important. But some, like the right to life itself, are foundational.

6. As Catholics, we need to think and vote according to our consciences. But a human “conscience” doesn’t suddenly happen out of thin air. It needs to be cultivated, grow and be formed in the light of truth, so that we can understand the difference between good and evil in a genuinely Christian way. Conscience is never simply a matter of personal opinion or preference. It’s not what we want to do, but what we know we should do because of God’s truth in our hearts. We discover that truth by thinking and praying seriously over what Christ’s Church teaches, and trying to conform our actions to her moral guidance.

7. Jesus tells us to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” That means we have a serious duty to respect and appropriately serve public authority. But Jesus doesn’t tell us how much actually belongs to Caesar — and in fact, all of the important things about our lives belong not to Caesar, but to God. God should always come first. When we seek first to be “faithful citizens” of our real and ultimate home — heaven — then we naturally become better citizens of this world, because we become sources of virtue and character and justice for the people around us, even when our message is unpopular. The more truly and faithfully we live as Catholics, the more truly and faithfully we serve our nation’s best ideals and deepest needs.

Pope Benedict Outraged by Actions of Pro-Life Catholic Laity.

Perked your curiousity? -- Check out Fumare.