October 19th, 2007
10:25 AM ET
11 years ago

Brownback shows at Values summit

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback also addressed the summit – despite accounts from sources close to him indicating that Brownback is on the verge of ending his quest for the Republican presidential nomination.

Brownback spoke of the need to fight to outlaw abortion, and to defend the role of faith in America's political and public life.
He made no mention of his candidacy, or his plans to end it.

Several sources close to Brownback have said he planned to make an announcement as early as later Friday in his home state of Kansas.

- CNN Chief National Correspondent John King

Filed under: Sam Brownback
soundoff (20 Responses)
  1. David, Arlington, VA

    Does anybody else find it ironic that the standard bearers for the Republican Party attend so-called "values" summits? How come the only values these people care about are imposing their religion on the rest of us, legislating what a woman does with her body, and denying gay people civil rights? Why don't they focus on values that matter, such as education, healthcare, poverty, war, and out-of-control (Republican-led) spending that is saddling future generations of Americans with debt? Oh, I know why, they're hypocrits who only care about manipulating bigotry and/or ignorance among reactionary conservatives to divide the American people and win votes.

    October 19, 2007 10:58 am at 10:58 am |
  2. Steve Ocala FL

    David have you actually looked at the platform of Presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul? Here are a few points of his 20 year record :

    1: He has never voted once to raise taxes

    2: Her has never voted once for an unbalanced budget

    3: he voted against the Iraq war

    4: He voted against the patriot act

    5: he never voted once to increase spending

    6: he believes all individuals whether black, white, gay, minority etc... are all entilted to personal liberty that the goverment should not dictate too or decide how they live thier lives.

    I think you should look him up because guess what he is a republican.

    October 19, 2007 11:53 am at 11:53 am |
  3. Bill USA

    sounds like this guys right out of the bible belt... Is he a minister or a politician?

    October 19, 2007 11:59 am at 11:59 am |
  4. David, Gilbert Arizona

    I'm not religious at all and I'm a values based republican. It is very short sighted to say republicans are pushing religion just because they tout American values.

    Abortion is wrong but not because of any moral or religious implications. Here is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of abortion. Scott Peterson was charged with the murder of his unborn child as well as that of his wife. If a person can be charged with murder of an unborn child how is it okay for a woman to have her unborn child aborted? The entire mindset is disturbingly wrong. That child also belongs to the father. It takes two people to procreate. The father should have just as much say in the matter.

    Brownback is one person out of 300 million United States citizens. He happens to be a republican with very deep religious beliefs. Just because Brownback is pushing faith based politics does not mean all republicans are peddling religion. I could just as easily stereotype all democrats as wack job liberals asking for free handouts from big government, which would be just as equally unfair.

    The gay issue has nothing to do with religion as far as I and many republicans like me are concerned. It is a matter of honesty. Gay people are not being denied anything. They enjoy the exact same rights to marriage as any other United States citizen. What they are asking for is a new right, the right to marry someone of the same sex. No one, and I mean no one gay straight or any combination thereof, has the right to marry someone of the same sex. The right to marry someone of the same sex is new. Let us please make that solidly clear. Gays are not being denied anything so stop playing the victim card on that issue. It does not help your cause at all.

    Hillary's universal health care is going to saddle present day U.S. generations with crushing debt not to mention future generations. How do you think such a program is going to be funded? Taxes. So get out your wallets if you choose to vote for such a candidate.

    I would applaud Hillary making a presentation at the Values summit. Unfortunately I don't think she has any.

    October 19, 2007 12:08 pm at 12:08 pm |
  5. roger, conway sc

    I find it ironic that in the year 2007 we are having VALUES SUMMIT'S if you are an adult or been taught right from wrong why does anyone need a bunch of religious right neo-conservatives telling you what is right and wrong and courting a politican to get them to spit out their message...and most of them are doing what they are telling everyone else not to do...hypocrites

    October 19, 2007 12:31 pm at 12:31 pm |
  6. c.godfrey, ny,ny

    Republicans apparently only care about a baby that is in the womb. The second it hits the air, it's expected to stand on it's own 2 feet and not dare demand the gov't who might have forced its birth deal with any problems it might have in its life.
    THAT'S their idea of compassionate conservatism. It's what they're conserving it for I can't figure out.

    October 19, 2007 01:14 pm at 1:14 pm |
  7. John, Toledo, OH

    It's like you're reading my mind, David. Well said.

    October 19, 2007 01:21 pm at 1:21 pm |
  8. Kate, Aurora CO

    David in Arlington: I couldn't have said it better. I find it ironic a party that claims to have the upper hand on values has had more controversy regarding closeted gays and cheating spouses than we could imagine for such a "pure" party. I also think it is sad there are so many Americans who think that gay marriage and/or abortion is an issue above the illegal war or the illegal actions of the current administration.

    October 19, 2007 01:25 pm at 1:25 pm |
  9. Steve, Redondo Beach, CA

    David, how, exactly, is a fetus with it's own heart, blood type, fingerprints, etc., "her body?" It would seem to be someone else's body residing in the woman, would it not?

    October 19, 2007 01:34 pm at 1:34 pm |
  10. Steve, Redondo Beach, CA

    Kate in Auroroa, there have been ~45 million abortions since Roe v. Wade, and somewhere over 3,000 soldiers killed in Iraq, and ~100K Iraqis killed. So, yes, I think abortion is a bigger issue than the illegal war. I happen to be against the illegal war and pro-life. That's why I'm supporting Ron Paul for president.

    October 19, 2007 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  11. Steve, Lyons, CO

    There's no need to fight abortion, because the majority of Americans want it kept legal and safe.

    Religious influences in public life are helping to destroy this country, because only the loudmouth extremists are heard.

    Brownback is leaving the race for a good reason: his views are so far out of the mainstream that people view him as a danger to this country – like Bush, Dobson and other religiously deluded hypocrites.

    October 19, 2007 02:07 pm at 2:07 pm |
  12. Mark R. Fort Lauderdale FL

    Sam Brownback does not believe in the separation of church and state. He believes Judeo-christian beliefs should be law in this country. This is terrifying, and I for one am glad that he is out of the race

    October 19, 2007 02:10 pm at 2:10 pm |
  13. ste

    Steve in Lyons: "There's no need to fight abortion, because the majority of Americans want it kept legal and safe."
    I suppose there was no need to fight slavery because the majority of southerners wanted to keep it legal, or to fight the holocaust because the majority of Germans were in favor of denying Jews equal status, or denying women the right to vote. What we are talking about is extending human rights (LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to the unborn. As a scientist, I do not understand the distinction that determines whether or not a clump of cells is a person or not based on their position relative to the womb. I will not give up the fight simply because I'm in the minority.

    October 19, 2007 02:23 pm at 2:23 pm |
  14. sean Metamora,IL

    republicans always say they want less government in our lives but then they talk about how we should be required by law to display their values, something doesnt add up there

    October 19, 2007 02:24 pm at 2:24 pm |
  15. Zeus Racine, WI

    And, another religious, faith based, fruit-loop rides into the sunset; can we get the entire fruit-loop religious right to follow?

    October 19, 2007 02:26 pm at 2:26 pm |
  16. David, Frisco Texas

    For ste
    You can fight abortion all you want, and maybe the right wing will be successful in overturning Roe v. Wade; however, you are never going to stop women and teenage girls from having abortions. They will just end up going to some back-alley clinic and not only ending the life of the fetus that they are carrying, but also endangering their own lives. Abortion, terrorism, and homosexualtiy have existed throughout the history of mankind. No matter how many laws, wars, constitutional admendments, or agendas of radically conservative judges that Republicans continue to push for and promote will stop any of these things from continuing.

    October 19, 2007 03:19 pm at 3:19 pm |
  17. Steve, Redondo Beach, CA

    David in Frisco,

    I grant you, we will never stop all abortions. However, that does not mean we have to throw our hands up and allow something to occur that is antithetical to our Country's founding principles (LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.) There are places where pregnant women can go (for example, His Nesting Place in Long Beach, Ca.) for support during and after their pregnancies. If abortion were to be outlawed, we as a society, would have the responsibility to see that places like these were more available and better funded. I do not view abortion as a "violent" crime in the sense that the perpetrators need to be locked up to protect the rest of society. Rather, I think abortion is a crime of ignorance. As an example, see the previous comment that it's "what a woman does with her body." That is untrue and intellectually dishonest. I don't believe that any one can claim that it is "her body" after viewing an ultrasound or listening to the baby's beating heart. That baby has the same inalienable rights that you or I have and I prefer to support and protect those rights. I think if we have a society that supports and protects the rights of all, the problem of back-alley abortions would pale in comparison to the 45 million babies already aborted.
    P.S. It's "Dr." Ron Paul, not "Mr." He's delivered over 4000 babies so I think he knows a thing or two about this issue. Ron Paul '08!

    October 19, 2007 04:36 pm at 4:36 pm |
  18. K, Florida

    When all of these bloody hypocritical anti-abortionists start adopting children, then, they may have a credible argument against the process! These are also the group of folks that advocate for the abstinence only programs to be taught. Teaching children that condoms have a high failure rate and that HIV can be transmitted through tears and sweat. Look, I don't go into your bedroom and tell you what position you should have sex in, so stay out of mine. I also don't come to your church and spew hate. Also, how would you feel if suddenly a law was enacted that said your spouse or significant other could make no medical or life decisions for you if you were incapacitated? Unfortunately, gays wanting to marry the person they love ARE being discriminated against. They are NOT asking for Special rights, just HUMAN Rights!

    October 19, 2007 08:05 pm at 8:05 pm |
  19. Chip Celina OH

    When the acknowledgement of a higher power fades, rights are no longer inalienable. They derive from a document that can be revised based on majority rule or an empowered court's decision.

    I believe I can say with a high degree of certainty that nobody posting here in favor of abortion has been aborted.

    On this topic about 2 months ago, I posted that abortion in the case of rape or incest (where the woman was not a willing participant) would be understandable, and I think many would agree. With such a case, the abortion could be permitted when accompanied by criminal charges for the molestor/rapist have been filed. Remember, the files for a rape should be filed when it occurs, and the pregnancy will not be evident for a while after that.

    In the same post, I mentioned that abortions for convenience, as a form of birth control are inexcusable.

    The "right to choose" starts with
    1) deciding whether or not engage in the act (the choice to have sex),
    2) Whether or not to use a contraceptive.

    With those two choices made, the participants have acknowledged that the act they are about to engage in has a predictable outcome.

    In response to that post, an irate woman that had had an abortion in the past got on her high horse and ranted to me that I have no right to tell her what to do with her body and that she endured the horror of an abortion. How dare me cast judgement on her and that her abortion was not for convenience.

    She went further to explain that at the time she and her live-in boyfriend (the father) had used a condom that failed and since only one of them was working at the time they didn't really have the funds to support another mouth to feed. It was hard enough making ends meet with the one out of wedlock child they already had at home. Day care for it was a big expense (which I couldn't comprehend if only one was working, why put your kid in day care?). So, her passion overtook logic and the brainwashing about 'choice' and a litany of excuses justified the act.
    The abortion was necessary and wasn't for convenience. I ask you, what more defines convenience than that? Realizing that, if I have MY CHILD, because of financial concerns and my comfort I will need to kill it so as not to impose hardship on my current lifestyle.

    Obviously, since she was posting on the "Ticker" she had internet service, probably a cell phone and cable tv too. But, in our society, for many, these creature comforts have become more valuable than our own progeny.

    The woman's right to choose comes well before the pregnancy (except in cases of rape or incest) yet the resulting future human being's rights are trumped because it would be an inconvenience and the one that brought it into being does not want to step up and accept the responsibility for the actions that led to the conception.

    Rather than legislating what a woman does with their body we should address the behaviors that get them in the situation in the first place.

    October 20, 2007 09:23 am at 9:23 am |
  20. K, FL

    And I guess "Chip" you have no part in the process as you seem to shift ALL of the Blame on the Woman! I suggest you and your fellow men start keeping it in your pants and we wouldn't have this debate at all!!!!

    October 23, 2007 05:33 am at 5:33 am |