Brownback is making social issues a centerpiece of his campaign.
DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) - Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback kicked off a three-day series of events in Iowa on Friday with Bobby Schindler, the brother of the late Terri Schiavo, whose death sparked controversy over a person's right to choose to die.
At a campaign stop in West Des Moines Saturday, the Republican senator from Kansas said the name for the "Pro-life, Whole-life" tour was created because it "applies to everybody at every stage in life."
"It's about life in the womb being sacred, unique, the child of a living God, but it also applies to Terry Schiavo's situation," Brownback said.
He emphasized that the best way to change the current situation surrounding pro-life issues on all fronts is to appoint judges who have similar ideals.
"We are one justice away from overturning Roe v. Wade," Brownback said. "I want to be the president that appoints that justice so that we can end this...It's a fight we're ultimately going to win because we're right."
Following the event, Brownback answered questions from the press surrounding recent calls for articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. House Resolution 333 alleges Cheney deceived citizens and Congress in matters dealing with Iraq.
"I don't see a ground to do that. Let's see what the evidence is to bring that charge, but I don't see what that evidence is for the House to bring that charge or for the Senate to find it," he said. "I think it'd be a far better thing if we'd spend as much time and effort trying to figure out how we could work together to solve this situation in Iraq and come up with bipartisan solution and philosophy with how to we're going to deal with this long-term fight with militant Islam that we're in, instead of doing these projects that only further divide."
– CNN's Chris Welch
I think liberals are more concerned with actual LIVING human beings as opposed to clumps of cells on petri dishes. If anyone wants to get into a debate on the merits of abortion, fine with me, but PLEASE try not to call yourself a part of the "culture of life" when you advocate the death penalty, have no qualms about bombing people "over there", thumb your nose at the issues facing the poor, and can't even locate Darfur on the map (plenty of children being murdered on that part of the planet).
The fact that you are foolish enough to believe this dribble about the "culture of life" leads me to believe that you also buy into the "moral values" of David Vitter as well.
As an aside – if it were men who actually got pregnant (had to face the consequence of their promiscuous lifestyle), how many of you want to bet that there would not even BE an issue when it comes to abortion??
Will, liberals are looking after children way more than most republicans. Do you know how many innocent children have died in Iraq? Afghanistan? Darfur? Do you realize the kind of federal deficits we will be handing on to our children's generation to pay for these wars? Do you realize there is a possibility our actions on earth are causing or helping global warming to advance faster and faster, something we will be handing off to our children. Liberals have a much better track record on helping impoverished families, giving children here in the united states a chance to eat and just be regular kids. So before you continue saying, where is the "Save the children" attitude with liberals, think again bucko.
Mike, it was a "liberal" LBJ that got us into the Vietnam War and it was a "liberal" FDR that presided over WW II. War is not a Republican or Democratic issue.
Also, there is no "right" or "wrong" on the abortion issue or the death penalty issue. We have to obey the law of the land while respecting each others thoughts. Meanwhile, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Personally, I believe abortion is wrong and I have my own reasons. But I will defend your right to believe what you believe even though I may disagree with you.
Why, especially with the world's population out of control, should parents who DON'T want kids have them, subjecting them to particularly psychologically tormented life?
If you don't want kids you SHOULD have an abortion and saving your family and the world a lot of pain.
Abortion is not "murder."
Reasoning that abortion is "because giving birth would be an inconvienient [inconvenient] result of a promiscuous lifestyle (in many cases)" is faulty in almost all cases.
I happen to support death with dignity, the death penalty and the medical option of abortion and, yes, I still think I value the sanctity of life.
It's funny how they spin the abortion issue. You are either pro-life or you are pro-death. The sad part is that most pro-choice people I know aren't always pro-abortion. There are some situations that call upon it as an option and others were personally I believe it should be illegal. I know that everyone preaches about adoption, but if you haven't been watching the news lately, there are problems there as well! The entire morality issue is irrelevant because this government should not be one to impose religious morals on the populace. This wonderful nation we live in is one of laws that are established by all of the people and for all of the people. Not a religious group.
If you want to live in a nation ruled by religious doctrine and law, then move to the middle east.
Oh wait... that goes against your own personal faith, doesn't it Senator Brownback?
And in a further question to you Mr. Senator, if the evidence is presented as being blindingly obvious, will you vote to impeach? Or do you and your ilk only raise a stink when a stain is found on a dress?
As I said, rape, incest or if the mothers life being in danger should be the only parameters used with someone having and abortion (basically ending an innocent babies chance at life)and not for the reason being that it is is not CONVIENIENT to have the baby?
Even pro-abortion people should be against the taking of an innocent life, when the single reason for doing so being "convienience".
Now also being pro death penalty is not the same as those gulty people are not innocent little babies who had no chance at life.
You can be both of these and it is rational as hell.
You missed my point. I'm suggesting that you have no credability to "preach" peace or the idea that the United States should help save anyone (ie. Darfur) if you are in complete support of the murdering of a child. And don't give me the stupid bit about a fetus not being a child. We all know that's just a something people tell themselves to try and make it easier for them to live with what they do.
By the way, in case you didn't know, organizations like Planned Parenthood are making MILLIONS to kill children. It's not a moral issue with them – it's a MONEY issue. Wake up people and STOP THINKING THAT IT IS OK TO KILL BABIES!
My request is simple. Every one of the pro-life religous nut cases must, in order to be true to their faith, adopt at least one child before they are allowed to have one of their own.
No woman jumps up and down and says "Oh goodie...I can have an abortion!"
The reasoning of the religous right makes me nauseated. We force animals to breed, not humans. the moment you regulate a woman's right to choose, you reduce her to being little more than a breeding stock animal.
Why would a pro-life person be against the death penalty? If you are truly pro-life, you would favor saving the innocent and punishing the guilty. If a murder is committed the land cries out for justice because of the burden of innocent blood until it is atoned.
The life of the innocent must be protected. If your significant other were about to be killed and you could only stop the killer if you used deadly force, would you? If you say yes, then you can not condemn the death penalty. Hundreds of murders are by repeat offenders. When we repealed the death penalty crime went rampant during the 70's. A new book estimates that the death penalty saves 8,000 innocent lives a year.
Now what about abortion? It is the taking of innocent human life. Obviously, the baby should have the protection of law like any other human.
You asked how does someone else's abortion affect me? How does my neighbor's murder affect me?
He's right. I'm now out of work, the factory is closed, my mortgage payment just skyrocketed 'cause I didn't know about ARMs, but if they overturn Roe vs. Wade I won't have to worry about any babies being killed on my street. I'll eat worms to protect the sanctity of the life of little babies.
An overall assurance of rural America's 'heart land' votes from Republicans to Democrats indefinitely rests solely on exposing how their religious convictions have been used against them by crafty and cunning Republican strategists in Washington D.C. – on a host of domestic and foreign policy agendas. Chief among them that hits home would be how much pharmaceutical corporations and their lobby have at stake in America faithfully but blindly opposing stem cell medicine; anti-abortion legislation; comprehensive, affordable, and humane health care; how legislative loop holes favoring insurance and pharmaceutical corporations offset costs by exploiting teen parents raising children who, at pandemic proportion, are afflicted by any or all degrees of behavioral pathologies. I wonder if rural Americans would stand up collectively by the same impetus and moral indignation counted on by the Republican Party for the Republican Party, if they knew Republicans have disenfranchised America's mentally ill to save American tax payers from paying out more in State and Federal income taxes, or higher insurance premiums? The irony is: by and large, rural America can not afford health insurance at present rates.
Expose to rural America how Republicans are unified in opposition to overturning FCC legislation that would cease the media from being a partisan propaganda machine geared to manipulate their voting bloc.
Explain to rural America how their Republican votes unwittingly had been used to eliminate all clauses within the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Illustrate how religious rhetoric used to craft foreign and domestic policies adversely affect American lives and is a threat to National Security. Further, reach out and delicately force introspection on rural America that genocide on Muslims is antithetical to a pro-life stance.
Finally, explain to rural America that Democrats after a three year long media spin extravaganza struck dead the immigration reform bill because there was a provision within that would have eliminated the utter sovereignty of the United States of America by forming the North American Union, consisting of Canada, America, and Mexico. You'll then reach the loyal N.R.A. advocates as well.
Democrats will expose this pro-life issue as insincere.
What a dissapointment! I thought Senator Brownback could be a wiser conservative candidate. Choosing to be affiliated with the whole Terri Schiavo related fiasco should be the end of Senator Brownback's political life. This was intensely private family matter that congress and Senator Brownback have no business messing with. Senator Brownback and his supporters only polarize voters and other candidates distracting from the very real and important issues of the day such as the war in Iraq where thousands of Americans are losing their lives every year, health care, education, energy policy, environmental issues just to name a few! Senator Brownback will have no chance in reaching across to political moderates across the country.
One and a half issue President: no abortions and gays cannot be married. Awesome.
Why do I want to vote for you?
What will he do on day two of his presidency, after he 'fixes the courts' by imposing his morals on a woman's body? There are four years dude, what else do ya got Sam?
The only difference between these extremist Christians and extremist Muslims? A book.
They're pushing the exact same ideas: All countries should be ruled by a one-view religious dictatorship, where no one is allowed to have differing views; If you don't believe in my God, you deserve to be bombed; My interpretation of the Bible/Koran is not an interpretation, it is fact and if you don't agree; burn in hell.
I have an idea that Brownback might like: abort the gay babies, Mexican 'Illegal' babies, black babies who have parents that might not vote republican, the 'mixed-race' babies, because the races should be pure, the non-Christian babies, because who cares they're going to burn in hell anyway...etc. etc.
What do you think Sam??
I'm religious and pro-choice, although I struggle with the whole "pro-life" mentality, like many people do (at least like those who care to admit it). If people (i.e. Republicans like Brownback) are going to go all pro-life, whole life preaching, they better be in support of affordable and available birth control. Don't dare tell me I can't have an abortion and not allow me to have any control over my body.
Why should anyone tell me when I can die. I support euthanasia for my pets, why not for me?
I don't tell Brownback what to do.
It's amazing that everyone talks about people have babies because of the Promiscuous lifestlyes they lead, yet we won't let someone buy condoms or get on birthcontrol without the consent of a parent unless they are of a certain age. It's obvious that their mind is made up on the choice they want to make when they ask for the birth bontrol or condom. How can we step in and say "no you can't have birth control or a condom, but if you get pregnant, you have to keep the baby." We as a country want to control the lifes of everyone here and everyone in other countries. I don't think we fully understand the concept behind Pro-Choice.
My point is this: many pro-life Republicans, Sen. Brownback included, state that they believe in the sanctity of life from conception until natural death. Please explain to me what about the death penalty is natural? What gives us the right to decide who lives or dies? Suggesting that I may not oppose the death penalty if I do not oppose the use of deadly force in the case of self-defense is a very poor argument. People locked away in prison for life pose no threat to me. Executing them is not self-defense.
Again, if people believe in the sanctity of life from conception until natural death, then the death penalty should be out. If it's not, then they are using their flawed human logic and judgement to decide whose life is sacred and whose is not. If they believe it is acceptable for human beings to decide whose life is sacred, then how can they oppose other people exercising that judgement, eg in the case of choosing to have an abortion?
By the way, in case you didn’t know, organizations like Planned Parenthood are making MILLIONS to kill children. It’s not a moral issue with them – it’s a MONEY issue. Wake up people and STOP THINKING THAT IT IS OK TO KILL BABIES!
Posted By Will – Miami, Fl : July 15, 2007 6:04 pm
Planned Parenthood is a NON-PROFIT organization, so it's hardly a money issue. You'd better sit down and make up some new rationale to spread your views since the facts aren't really helping you with this one.
I hate when people have no idea about the topics that they choose to dicuss.