Letters to the Editor

Real candidate

January 30, 2007


To the editor:

I wonder if the Democratic National Committee would tell me who a "real" person is. This was their response to Brownback's candidacy for president: "Brownback places 'his uncompromising ideology over the needs of real people' " (Journal-World, Jan. 21).

We already know that they don't believe a preborn child is "real." But Brownback also spoke of "somebody in poverty" and "a child in Darfur" (also Jan. 21). Are those not "real" people? It sounds like the DNC stopped listening before they started talking, or perhaps didn't listen at all, because they "knew" what Brownback would say.

Secondly, when did an uncompromising ideology become a character deficit? I thought Democrats in the past have been critical of those who "waffle" on the issues.

For whatever other reasons they dislike Brownback, uncompromising ideology, even if it differs from theirs (which I hope is uncompromising in itself), should not be one of them.

Verna Froese,



deec 11 years, 4 months ago

Uh, no its your side that constantly harps about "waffling", although brownie is waffling about Iraq. What legislation has brownie sponsored to help Katrina victims? Has he voted to send aid to Darfur? How about expanding anti-poverty programs in the U.S.? Or maybe he felt it necessary to throw that other stuff in to camouflage his tighty righty christofascist agenda?

Jamesaust 11 years, 4 months ago

Maybe they just figured out that they didn't merit being the "One" in Brownback's "Constituency of One."

After all, if Sam doesn't give a flying fig about this author's opinion, then why does she admire the "uncompromising" nature of this fact?

Or was Sammy-B against listening to the voters before he was for it? FLIP-FLOP!

(The only question is: will any GOP competitor take him seriously enough to bother to nail him on it? And would the author just consider this to be a later-day crucifixion of a saint?)

(Maybe Brownback should be less egotistical and focus on a 'Draft God!' effort for the GOP Convention - imagine the acceptance speech!)

imastinker 11 years, 4 months ago

deec - get over yourself! Both sides complain about waffling.

deec 11 years, 4 months ago

Stinkie: citations, please. The Goofy Old Puritans regularly use "waffling" as a campaign tactic rather than addressing issues. See the election of 2004. Brownie is a one-horse candidate who is counting on the pro-life, anti-homosexual crowd to carry his water. What legislation has brownie sponsored to help Katrina victims? Has he voted to send aid to Darfur? How about expanding anti-poverty programs in the U.S.? Wasn't he for the war in Iraq until last month? I guess those thousands and thousands of civilian lives are not beautiful and sacred.

imastinker 11 years, 4 months ago

Deec -

I don't need to cite anything. Both political parties have skeletons in their closet. It's common knowledge. As far as the rest of it - you're changing the subject. Did Brownback pledge to do that? If not, then it's not waffling. He just didn't do what he said.

You listed Republicans doing it - here's one. Democratic senators voted for the war based on the same intelligence data that the President did, and now accuse him of lying to the public.

Both sides do it.

deec 11 years, 4 months ago

Not changing the subject at all. brownie claimed he's for all the people, and specifically cited Darfur and poverty here. What's he done about them? Nada. He's about abortion and persecuting gays. brownie was one of shrub's loudest supporters up until he got ready to run for pres. It is a misstatement to say dems had access to the same info as the shrub, since shrub ied to congress about his evidence for war. The dems in Congress did not have access to the true info, just the doctored version.

bearded_gnome 11 years, 4 months ago

no evidence that George W. Bush lied about the several reasons for going to war with Iraq. just a lot of noise. note, even the lefties in charge of the house and senate aren't even investigating your alleged lies, wonder why that is?

Verna, Sam is indeed a refreshing exception among the current crop of politicians as he, like GWB, doesn't swing in the wind and change his "leadership" based on the public's mood. however, I can never vote for him again, and generally conservatives will not be supporting him, because of his dozen or so votes regarding illegal immigration. he voted to give them earned income tax credit FGS! voted to give them social security benefits, and give the lawbreakers (who broke the law by breaking into our country) a kind of amnesty. voted against building an effective physical barrier. voted against making english our official national language. and, there were more such dreadful votes.

he has done a lot RE Darfur. of the Senators, he's probably spent the most time speaking and studying the problem in order to raise awareness.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.