Every presidential candidate eventually comes to New York to
raise campaign money. Last Wednesday, I attended a fund-raiser
for one I had completely forgotten had announced: Senator
Brownback.
Shame on me, because the Kansan is well known to the pro-life
community as a great defender of the unborn. He is also against
gay marriage. Regardless, the headlines in the mainstream news
outlets are constantly crowing about the right's search for a
candidate, and most local coverage concentrates only on Mayor
Giuliani vs. Senator Clinton.
Mr. Brownback seems unperturbed by the lack of local reporting on
his candidacy. I asked him what he thought his chances were, and
he said quite confidently that they are pretty good. "I came
in third in Iowa," he said. Last week's Conservative
Political Action Conference drew negative attention because of
Ann Coulter's inauspicious remark about Senator Edwards, but in a
straw poll of the GOP candidates, Mr. Brownback was third, only
five points behind winner Governor Romney.
At his Manhattan fund-raiser, I posed the following question to
the senator: Should he win the Republican primary, would he
consider Mr. Giuliani as a running mate? The senator said he
wouldn't rule out any of the other candidates because they're all
good men, but he qualified this by adding that everything is very
speculative right now. It is still very early in the race.
Of course, that question was somewhat moot because the odds are
heavily in favor of Mr. Giuliani running as an Independent should
he lose the GOP nomination. New Yorkers familiar with Mr.
Giuliani's ego can't imagine him stepping aside to support the
Republican candidate selected in a primary. As I wrote in a
previous column, if Mr. Giuliani runs as a spoiler, the
Democratic candidate will win the White House.
Mr. Brownback is certainly on the "right" side on all
the major issues, and has a sterling reputation in Congress. He
has the hardliners' vote, but as I said before, it's still too
early to endorse anyone until all the candidates have debated one
another on the issues.
Messrs. Giuliani and Brownback each support the president on the
Iraq war, although Mr. Brownback is not a fan of the surge. The
senator also told me he is for a tri-partite division of Iraq as
a solution to the region's conflict.
When it comes to abortion, the senator, a Catholic father of five
(two adopted), has always been a champion for the cause of life,
and has stated that he wishes to see the 1973 Roe v. Wade
decision overturned. This position makes him a long shot to the
moderate Republicans who see Mr. Giuliani as having a stronger
chance for the presidency. What overturning Roe really means,
though, is taking back the government for the people.
When questioning Judge Alito at his confirmation hearing, Mr.
Brownback noted that bad precedents should be overturned, even
taking the principle of stare decisis into account. "The
Supreme Court has gotten a number of things wrong at times. And
the answer when the court gets things wrong is to overturn the
case," he told Judge Alito.
"Is that correct?" he asked. Judge Alito agreed.
Citing Plessy v. Ferguson, the infamous decision that allowed for
"separate but equal" facilities for blacks, Mr.
Brownback made the point that even if a decision has been
precedent for years, it does not trump its fundamental
unconstitutionality. Even those who support abortion rights can
agree that Roe does not have a firm constitutional foundation.
Turning it back to the states would give the people a chance to
vote on the most divisive social issue in our history since
slavery.
Here's hoping that more candidates will be approaching a serious
look at what our judiciary system has wrought. Far too many
social issues are determined by the courts due to cases brought
by trial lawyers and the ACLU. Americans have become used to
having their values trashed by judicial decisions, and what is
now needed are judges who recognize exactly what the Bill of
Rights stands for. Then they can tell the American Library
Association that watching pornography on library computers is not
a right protected by the Constitution; that taxpayers are not
obligated to pay for sex-change operations; that felons in prison
do not deserve more perks than ordinary citizens, and that
eminent domain is supposed to benefit citizens, not private
developers.
It's still too early for endorsements, and I'll reserve mine
until next year for the primaries, but it would benefit all of us
if we paid more attention to the issues that resonate with the
public than to who said what at which political gathering.