Brownback is not my man – he’s pro-war, he’s waffling on immigration, and he’s tolerant of untrammled corporatism, & capitalist malfesance – he’s an American pol and a Repub after all – It’s still good to see you give him his props for what he’s doing well. Enough of polarization & demonization, already.. Enough of Marcotte & her ilk & their poison. Banish her to a desert island with O’Reilly, Hannity & Limbaugh. They deserve one another. Leave the rest of us in peace.

And can we stop obsessing about sex and gender, already? I mean, here’s to some prudery. Go bugger who you want, ejaculate into as many ascending colons as floats your boat, and then feed every fetus you may accidentally concieve through a food processor. I’m tired of hearing about it, and I can’t, and won’t, stop you. The ontological incoherence of it all blows my mind, and my heart, but then I am a simple man, and de Sade, Nietzche, Foucault & all the rest have never made much sense to me..

Oh, Calling Brownback a six day creationist, when in fact he accepts the evidence that micro evolution occurs, but only questions the orthodoxy that asserts natural selection and mutations can account for the abrupt- very stark – transitions in the fossil record between species. He says the evidence doesn’t seem to add up. For him, Darwin doesn’t click. I think that may be a position with some intellectual integrity.

He’s a Catholic anyway, and while all Catholics believe in creation, they tend to believe in science, too. As – for example – when that curial court condemned Galileo for challenging the then current Ptolemaic (Aristotelean) SCIENTIFIC orthodoxy. Catholics are not and have never been biblical “literalists..” Old Sam’s a convert, so he might not have it in his blood yet, but the paradox is everything, babe. It’s all we got. Poor Marcotte, what a twit, no sense of irony..

Also, whatever the clever Marcotte last name theory consists of – most likely assigning anyone who uses her last name some odious personality trait – I would point out the fact that I used Brownback exclusively also, so I must have whatever disfunction as relates to Brownback as well.

“Conceiving of the possibility that Brownback brought one yellow and one brown child (I believe that one or both have extraordinary health issues as well) into his home . .

If one is “yellow,” perhaps the extraordinary health issue there is jaundice. No doubt the child is in, ah, peril . . .

Alec’s Leamas first paragraph, otoh, seems simply incoherent – it’s not at all clear how supposed binary thinking has anything to do with supposed hypocrisy, let alone as making it particularly delicious (hypocrisy is a dish best eaten with whipped cream and strawberries?). It does, however, add another data point to Amanda’s theory about people using only her last name.

Conceiving of the possibility that Brownback brought one yellow and one brown child (I believe that one or both have extraordinary health issues as well) into his home, and that he actually has sincere convictions outside of her caricature of social conservatives would force an honest and honorable person to admit that though Brownback may be mistaken by her standards, he is most certainly not evil. But you see, then the world couldn’t be quite so binary, and one might be compelled to do some thinking rather than blindly adhering to a silly political ideology that provides one answer – misogyny – to explain all ills.

Specific, contingent alliances with a very right-oriented person can have other effects besides beyond the immediate issues that may have cooperation possibilities. It makes him stronger, for instance, when progressives should want to make him weaker because on balance he is a negative force for ‘good’.

Life and politics are two-way streets. You suggest working with Brownbeck because some of his positions are worthwhile. Have you considered if Brownback will support liberal positions that are worthwhile. I think not. His record suggests a consistent hyper-conservative world view across many issues – even if he may be doing good on Darfur – which is an issue that is easier to agree that something must be done even though few agree on what or how the something could be done.

Aside: The fact is that Sudan doesn’t want intervention, and therefore intervention is an act of war. The mild to non-existent slap Bush now is making on Sudan (with some sanctions) is almost intentionally futile. Surely US or EU troops in Sudan is not a solution. Sudan refuses troops from other African nations. So what’s the solution to the genocide? Relocation to another country might work, but the neighbors don’t really want that either. Surely, neither you or Brownbeck wouldn’t suggest that we get into a land and air war in east-central Africa, right?

But back to Brownback. I’m not defending Marcotte – she is fully capable of doing that for herself.

But surely you’ve noticed that we have a highly partisan divide in DC, and the Republicans don’t show evidence they want to cooperate bi-partisanly taken as a group. Brownback is a loyal party-line voter that has shown little or no history or working across party lines. Why should the Dems support him and he never supports the Dems?

What I specifically object to in Marcotte’s post is her lazyness in describing Brownback – specifically her calling him a racist. I wrote above that any connection of Brownback’s conservative social views to racism is just a sign of pure ignorance. She offers up no examples of this racism and instead just provides some vituperative snark that her readers eat up out of disdain for Christianity and social conservatism.

Additionaly, your characterization of Brownback’s views towards increased spending and governmental aid towards the third world is another example of this reflexive ignorance and arrogance towards Christian conservatives, he doesn’t make an “occasional charitable contribution” he wants the government to do something, the same way liberals conceive social problems.

Tyler, do you really think politics are effective when you apply litmus tests for the leaders and people you ally yourself with on specific issues? We can’t always be pure, not everyone that supports increased aid to africa or intervening in Darfur also supports a liberal abortion regime and same sex marriage.

I’m not saying we have to agree with Brownback on nearly anything, but just that Christian conservatives support a few things us liberals support to, and since they are a powerful political force, we should try to form these specific, contingent alliances. And baselessly calling them and their religion racist isn’t helping anyone.

It’s extremely naive to say that we should or even feasibly could “form alliances” with people who overwhelmingly support a platform antithetical to secular liberalism because they happen to be of the opinion that we should apologize for expropriating huge numbers of indiginous people to build our nation. Brownback could be William Jennings Bryan, for all I care. His antebellum stances on social issues, derived from ancient superstition and ignorance, are primarily what gets in the way of an “alliance” of any sort. Why should we defer to such a belief system?