Brownback Rounding up Support in Iowa
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 — Comments (80) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
CNN is reporting that Sam Brownback has locked up the support of Iowa Right to Life director Kim Lehman:
"For those who care about protecting the unborn and supporting the right to life, Senator Brownback is the clear choice," Lehman said in a statement. "While other candidates are in the process of defining and refining their position at the start of this campaign, Senator Brownback has been principled, consistent and unwavering in his support for the right to life."
Brownback - who will enter the primary season with smaller coffers than McCain, Giuliani or Romney, has been drawing positive reviews in a number of places for his early spadework efforts in Iowa - where ad buys are less important than the ability to connect well with small groups of voters, which is Brownback's strong suit. At this point, the buzz about Brownback among conservatives is that he is easily the candidate most closely aligned with conservative interests, but he doesn't deserve any support because "he can't win." If Brownback can successfully manage a top-3 finish in Iowa and New Hampshire, this conventional wisdom may have to be revised somewhat going forward.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | My write-in vote. — Comments (63) »
Brownback Rounding up Support in Iowa 80 Comments (0 topical, 80 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I`m on the Brownback bandwagon, but he`s got to win Iowa. Second or third won`t do it. If he wants the money to compete in the Super Tuesday states, then he needs the top spot. It`s a long shot, but and endorsement like this makes it seem more of a possibility.
will continue to hit the fence, er, wall, until he renounces his previous support of Kennedy-McCain amnesty. If Schreiber's article in TNR from a month ago is right, he may be planning to do just that.
Anyone think Keating or Gilmore have a legit shot?
_______________________________________________
"Tradition is the democracy of the dead. It refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around"
-G.K. Chesterton
You wouldn't want someone who, you know, voted for the border fence.
Or who actually read McCain-Kennedy. Or understands the meaning of the word "amnesty." Those qualities are unacceptable in a Presidential candidate.
------------
Fnord.
get even for perceived shots at their guy. Have a fun day... :>)
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Red State has already had the debate over McCain-Kennedy and "amnesty." In my mind, any bill that has a pathway to citizenship for people who came here illegally, without having to leave the country and wait in line at home, is amnesty in my book. I presume your position is different, and that you view the fines and waiting periods as substantive and appropriate. But I'm not trying to rehash that debate.
The point of my comment was that there are a lot of SoCons who feel the way I do about McCain-Kennedy (and you know it since read the threads), and Brownback needs to have near unanimous support among SoCons if he's going to have a real shot, IMHO.
_______________________________________________
"Tradition is the democracy of the dead. It refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around"
-G.K. Chesterton
"For those who care about protecting the unborn and supporting the right to life, Senator Brownback is the clear choice,"
I just don't understand how making the Democrats the majority party for the next few generations is going to lead to protecting the unborn. Perhaps you can explain it to me.
Maybe Brownback is convinced that Mexican immigration will lead to a pro-life culture in this country. But if so he is tragically wrong.
Jon Sandor, you might already know that Rep. Duncan Hunter received a score of one hundred percent (100%) from the National Right to Life Committee for his votes cast in the 105th, 106th, 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses. Rep. Hunter has an extremely strong pro-life voting record.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
but I too would support Brownback (and was a supporter a year ago) until he came out for the amnesty plan. If he were to come out against amnesty and against any plan that made provisions for citizenship, he would be my candidate. But I will support no one who supports Bush's and the democrats so called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" bill.
If a candidate whose strongest claim is as a social conservative, loses a good number of social conservatives over illegal immigration, how can he possibly win the primaries?
I've no doubt of Brownback's good intentions. But good intentions are not enough; we need a man with ability and understanding. I'd like see some demonstration of that. If Brownback didn't want a near-amnesty, and he supported the bill anyway, that's not a good sign.
Perhaps someone more familiar with Brownback's accomplishments can fill me in?
I think that both Keating and Gilmore WOULD have a great shot IF they had started about a year ago.
They need moneyed and connected backers. The kind of backers that the Big 3 (McCain, Giuliani, and Romney) have been snapping up for the last 3 years.
To jump into the game this late is impossible.
I'd love to see a really Reaganesque conservative, like Jim Gilmore or Mark Sanford, emerge from the pack and trounce all of these fence-sitting moderates.
Unfortunately, the game is about finding connectors. It is not about purety of ideals. If it were, GHWB and Dole would've never been nominated.
Too little, too late for these guys.
The closest thing that we have to a conservative who could win the nomination and the general election is Romney. He may not be Reagan. But he's closer to the mark than either Rudy G or McCain.
Another social conservative thats going to expand the role of government. NO THANK YOU.
He is another social, religous conservative in the Bush mold thats going to lose big in a general election. The guy is boring, not that eloquent IMO, and is going to push stupid ideas like the "gay marriage amendment". There is absolutely no indication he is for limited government. Brownback = Bush
Generally, people do not advance a proposition (Brownback is a big government conservative) and then demand that their opposition provide evidence to refute their own proposition. But just to humor you, I'll point out that Brownback was one of the 25 freshmen congressmen to participate in the Newt government shutdown.
Now you go.
------------
Fnord.
A limited government guy wouldnt have voted for "No Child Left Behind" and the medicare prescription drug bill.
what name do you post under on the liberal blogs?
Anyone who thinks that using a constitutional means to reign in rogue state judges is "stupid" is obviously playing for the other team.
I'm conservative/libertarian, not a liberal. I just happen to think the federal government should stay out of business that clearly belongs to the states. If you don't like the decisions that state judges make, then change the politcal climate there to fix the unjustices.
It does not clearly belong to the states. If you understand anything at all about the law you know that it actually belongs to the Federal courts, who will make gay marriage a national "right" as surely as the sun rises unless something is done to stop them.
I suspect that you do know this, and that "federalism" is just a cute way of saying "don't you dare interfere with the courts giving me what I want."
Not. The problem with you big government conservatives is you think your brand government interference is "better" than the liberal brand of government interference. In reality, big government conservatism scares me only a little bit less than big government liberalism.
do you have anything to offer here?
Where is your reasoned explanation why what I said is incorrect? Are you saying that the courts will not give us gay marriage by fiat, or that you do not care if they do, as long as those "big government conservatives" lose?
Why is one branch of government acting to restrain another branch "big government" in any case?
Unless you're a heck of a lot smarter than you've appeared so far I'm going to get some more hot air in response to this.
Just like the imperial court gave us abortion on demand, I suspect court-mandated gay marriage is not far behind unless we act now! How can anyone say it is not a federal issue when the precedent for Supreme court interference is so clear boggles the mind.
I do not think the courts will give us gay marriage by "fiat", I think they will give us gay marriage by their "interpretation". I think very few judges (outside of the 9th circuit :) ) insert their own preferences as a substitute for the law. I do believe, however, that conservative and liberal judges view the law in very different ways and that accounts for most of the differences.
I'd be happy to debate you in another more relevant post or through PM, because we are jacking the thread here (unless Leon doesn't mind).
As long as the courts create national law by "interpetation", striking down state laws in the process, that is perfectly consistent with federalism and limited government, right? Right.
I think very few judges (outside of the 9th circuit :) ) insert their own preferences as a substitute for the law.
Then you don't pay very close attention to the law.
would make him a very big spoiler because one of the big three would be fourth or worse and that unfortunate chap would be finished. However, Brownback would need to finish second to get out of Iowa with a chance of his own. Brownback simply will not raise a lot of money between now and Iowa. Third Place won't open any wallets.
A second place finish would devastate two of McCain, Romney, and Giuliani, and then Brownback would be seen as a genuine giant-killer and he might be able to raise some cash. But a Brownback third place finish would leave the surviving "Big Two" with the real tickets out of Iowa.
The McCain-Kennedy bill, which Brownback voted for, is in fact an installment amnesty plan, plus it would unleash a massive increase in already large-scale legal immigration. We can argue all day long about what is and is not amnesty (as McCain self-righteously did during the Senate debate over his monstrous bill), but I find the bill's gigantic, and unadvertised, impact on legal immigration much more interesting.
Why is it that McCain, Kennedy, et al, were so reluctant to inform the American people of how their bill would enormously increase permanent legal immigration? Why did they not brag about that? Why do they feel the need to keep the public in the dark about this little nugget? Would any of them, including Brownback, be willing to go before the American people and tell them that we must admit tens of millions more legal immigrants on top of the millions current law would admit? For some reason, I doubt it. And why should they, when they can just deceive and mislead the public, confident that the media will go along with the deception?
As to Brownback voting for the border fence; well, didn't that bill pass with something like 80 votes in the Senate? That meant that many senators who are otherwise terrible on immigration nonetheless made this tough-on-border-security vote. I imagine their vote was influenced by the fact that the elections were fast approaching, and because many suspected that the fence would never be built anyway. Sadly, the veracity behind that last motive will likely be borne out.
Finally, when considering Brownback and immigration, one must not forget his seeming hypocrisy on the settlement of refugees, namely in how he is eager to settle them in states other than Kansas, and with little or no imput from the communities that will receive them. Its easy to establish humanitarian credentials when its others who are bearing the brunt of the expenses involved.
While others call it being right.
------------
Fnord.
Its hard for me to understand how any conservative -- even if they support leftwing bills like the McCain-Kennedy one -- could view McCain's behavior during the debate with anything other than disgust.
For one thing, it was a supreme show of chutzpah for McCain to take exception to his opponents' use of the word amnesty on the grounds that it was misleading when (as I said earlier) his bill is in large part a subterfuge on behalf of an enormous increase in permanent legal immigration. Before McCain even begins to argue about the accuracy of the 'amnesty' label, he should at least be upfront about the truly humongous, yet hidden, parts of his bill.
For another, McCain sunk to despicable lows when he likened objections (by Senator Sessions I believe) to granting various benefits to amnestied (I'm sorry...legalized) aliens, to keeping black people at the back of the bus! I mean, really, who talks like that? Who uses such ridiculous, over-the-top, inflammatory, guilt-ridden rhetoric?
Didn't we use to call such people liberals? Or leftists? Or leftwingers? Now its the Republican frontrunner for 2008 using such absurd and insulting rhetoric!
...that just because a Republican/conservative decides to champion liberal positions once in a while, that doesn't mean they should stoop to using leftist tactics.
"Who uses such ridiculous, over-the-top, inflammatory... rhetoric?"
Gee I don't know. Maybe those who think anything this side of Tancredo-style policy is amnesty and those who use the word to attack any efforts at compromise, comprehensive immigration reform. But gosh no, only McCain ever says anything inflammatory. No Tancredo and his followers never offend anyone with over-the-top rhetoric.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
Well, I wouldn't object so much to the 'comprehensive reform' label if at some point those pushing it would at least be honest about what exactly it entails. If the public knew that comprehensive reform does in fact mean that current illegal aliens will be citizens someday, and that future 'guest workers' would in fact be future permanent legal immigrants, and that taken together, these two factors would unleash a massive increase in permanent legal immigration, then I would be okay with your side claiming the honorable-sounding 'comprehensive reform' label.
As to Tancredo and his followers never offending anyone; of course they offend people! They do so almost everytime they open their mouths. How can they not when there is an entire industry, comprised of individuals and groups, who are in the business of being offended, and whose entire existence revolves around finding and stamping out non-PC speech, and punishing those who dare utter it (just ask Larry Summers). As such, the expression of what is actually very mainstream ideas will be damned as inflammatory and divisive when its spoken by someone like Tancredo. If it falls short in any way of the borderline open-borders policies favored by groups like La Raza or the Southern Poverty Law Center, then you can be sure someone will be offended. With McCain's shameful Senate floor rhetoric, however, no such denunciation will follow, because his guilt-ridden, unmistakably leftist nonsense about comparing the witholding of public benefits for legalized illegals to putting black people at the back of the bus is the type of rhetoric the media and professional ethnic grievance groups love. Its right up their alley.
As to me, I was not offended by McCain's leftist rhetoric. I'm not one who is easily offended, so his stupid remarks didn't bother me on that level. It is a bit disheartening, however, to hear the GOP frontrunner saying things indistinguishable from something you'd expect to hear from Ted Kennedy, or read on DailyKos.
Despite our manifest disagreements on immigration policy, I would hope that you don't like the idiotic comparison McCain made about illegals and the back of the bus. I mean, aside from it being substantively false, it also has the inconvenience of appeal, namely the fact that the type of person who responds to this type of language is not going to vote Republican anyway.
You can be pro-amnesty and not be over the deep end like McCain. The poor guy wants to give them everything without paying back taxes, etc... I am pretty rational on this and realize you cannot send these people home, but you should not make it easy on them either.
McCain dropped the ball on this one.
This may end up hurting him more in the Iowa primary than his ambush on judges or his support for liberal Republicans in conservative districts (see my many comments on his ambust of John Campbell for more on that).
McCain wants to be seen as a natural leader. Someone who picks up the ball and runs with it. Someone who doesn't wait for someone else to step into the leadership spot.
So be it.
But he's turned his back on conservatives to get that image. He teamed up with Kennedy to support an immigration change so liberal that it had no chance of passage, and was guaranteed a veto if it did.
Now McCain's coming back to conservatives and saying, "I've been one of you all along". Eh, I'll take Romney or Giuliani any day over someone who stabs me in the back and then comes back for my support.
...unfortunately, I think you're mistaken about the McKennedy bill facing a veto had it passed the House. President Bush is terrible on immigration too, and he would have certainly signed that bill into law had it ever reached his desk.
Sen. Brownback is one of the Senate's strongest supporters of S.6211. That bill rewarded millions of illegal aliens with legal status and a path to citizenship. Sen. Brownback voted with Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Mikulski, Charles Schumer and Russ Feingold, as well as many other Senate Democrats when he voted for that amnesty bill.
Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code provides as follows:
Section 1325. Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.
(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the
purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be
imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than
$250,000, or both.
(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise
for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws
shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance
with title 18, or both.
Any illegal alien that improperly enters the United States of America is committing a federal criminal offense. Depending on the circumstances of the case, it can be either a misdemeanor or felony offense.
The bill proposed by John McCain and Ted Kennedy that rewards millions of illegal aliens with legal status and a path to citizenship would forgive millions of illegal aliens of the federal crime of improper entry. Millions of illegal aliens could not be prosecuted for that crime under the provisions of the McCain-Kennedy bill. The millions of illegal aliens that deliberately violated an important federal law would pay a fine.
I'm sure there are hundereds of thousands of criminals in this country that intentionally violated a federal law and were prosecuted for it that wish the only punishment they received was a fine. I'm quite sure that those criminals would love to pay a fine and not receive any conviction, any incarceration nor any supervision by a probation officer.
Not only does that McCain-Kennedy bill give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens it rewards their criminal behavior by allowing them to achieve legal status and gives them a path to citizenship.
As for the vote on the fence, Sen. Cornyn said on October 3, 2006, that the 700 miles of fencing approved by Congress would probably not be built because of a lack of money and other practical considerations. He told reporters the following: "It's one thing to authorize. It's another thing to actually appropriate the money and do it".
Sen. Vitter was right when he called S.6211 an amnesty bill on the Senate floor. Sen. Sessions was also correct when he called that bill an amnesty bill. The bill that Sam Brownback, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry voted for was an amnesty bill.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
Millions of illegal aliens could not be prosecuted for that crime under the provisions of the McCain-Kennedy bill.
Well, "millions" of illegal aliens cannot be prosecuted now, under existing law, because the federal criminal justice apparatus can't possibly deal with "millions" of extra criminal cases. Tancredo -- and you -- know it. If existing policy is quite literally creating a vast number of criminals out of otherwise hardworking, tax-paying, peaceful and productive residents of the United States, the sensible thing to do would be to change policy so that they're no longer criminals under the law -- provided something is done to shut down the machine that continues to add to their number. It is this latter -- and critical -- component that president Reagan's immigration reform failed to accomplish. Had his plan addressed the ongoing surge in illegal immigration, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Unfortunately, it didn't do so -- it merely preserved the status quo (weak levels of enforcement, irrational family reunification-based legal immigration quotas, etc.) while legalizing the status of those who had successfully evaded the INS up to that point.
Anyway, what you call amnesty I call a repeat of the repeal of prohibition. I doubt either of would agree the federal government should have spent resources in the 1930s prosecuting the millions of formerly criminal boozers.
provided something is done to shut down the machine that continues to add to their number.
Constantly giving amnesty to everyone who comes here against the law is the machine that continues to add to their number. It tells them that all they need to do is get here, because (a) the dumb Americans will tell themselves that they cannot do anything about it and (b) sooner or later, they'll grant another amnesty.
Trying to cure the illegal immigration problem by giving amnesty to those who sneak into the country is like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it. Rewarding bad behavior gets you more of it. Conservatives understood this, once.
That being the irrationality of the family-reunification visas. Not limiting them to spouses (i.e. male husbands of women, and female wives of men), minor children, and parents, has resulted in never-ending chain migration.
Brownback's candidacy will hurt Mitt Romney the most, as Mitt is trying to cast himself as the true conservative alternative. The more candidates that vie for this voter bloc, the more it helps Giuliani and McCain.
I think the primary field is waiting for a candidate to take up the immigration issue. If someone like Romney comes out strong on an enforcement first platform, it would be very likely he could capture the nomination.
Even though I strongly back an enforcement first solution to our illegal immigration problem, Republicans need to be careful that we're not cast as a xenophobic or racist party.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
whether it's Newt, Brownback, Hunter, Huckabee, Gilmore, Keating, etc., is a major problem for Romney. This thing is going to come down to McCain vs. one conservative. I think very favorably of Romney, but if SoCons abandon him for Brownback, we're just going to have a McCain nomination, IMHO.
_______________________________________________
"Tradition is the democracy of the dead. It refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around"
-G.K. Chesterton
I would disagree. If you look at the supporters Romney has got on his steering committees and such, many of them are strong economic conservatives first and social conservatives second. I doubt many of his strong supporters would bolt because of Brownback.
That being said, I think a strong Brownback candidacy just eliminates the social conservative element from the table and makes the focus be more and more other domestic issues like the budget, immigration, and health care. These are areas where Romney can point to his record and contrast himself to McCain who has been all over the place on all three of these issues.
Remember McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts, has not fought domestic spending as much as he claims he has, voted against Medicare Part D because it did not go far enough for him, supported NCLB and expanding the Dept. of Education, and we all know where he is on immigration.
and the business community are a natural constituency for Mitt given his background, I'd agree. But can he win without SoCons? Especially since McCain has a huge advantage in free MSM praise and name recognition? I doubt it. I think Mitt does too. Hence, all the running to the right on marriage and abortion that Mitt's been engaged in (which, BTW, doesn't preclude the possibility that it also reflects his actual beliefs).
I think Mitt's going to have a hard time going against McCain if he's relying solely on moderate Republicans and ceding the conservatives to Brownback. I'm not sure what you mean by a "strong Brownback candidacy eliminates the social conservative element from the table." That's 180 degrees from what I'm seeing.
______________________________________________
"Tradition is the democracy of the dead. It refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around"
-G.K. Chesterton
pick a consensus candidate?
When we do, we get Reagan.
When we don't we get Ford.
Let's just get everyone together that contributes time and/or money to conservative causes and/or candidates and have an early caucus.
McCain is ineligible because he has so little support among conservatives.
Every other Republican is on the table.
The winner of the caucus can then call himself "the conservative candidate". All other conservative candidates should either bow out immediately or wait until after they choke in Iowa and then back out.
We need someone other than McCain to carry the conservative banner in 2008.
The guy I'm supporting is hardly on the top of the list of conservative candidates. I like Rudy. I think he'd be a great president based on the job he did in NYC. I know he supports some things I'm against but he's also a guy who's shown he can get things done. I also happen to think he's the most electable candidate of the bunch. So just pick him and be done with it.... no?
Which guy are you supporting? Romney? (with similar issues as Rudy, and who?)? Brownback? (who?) Newt? (I'd love to have him but he's sure to give us Pres. Hillary if we pick him.)
I'll bet whoever you're supporting has some conservatives who are violently opposed to him. I'm going to wait and see who makes it through the primaries and back him.
I'm not worried that McCain will become our candidate despite the press's annointing. I don't believe he has enough Republican support to win the primaries.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
From what I have read and heard about Guiliani's Iowa campaign, there isn't much there. I have actually heard that he might even skip it.
It could be that Brownback coming in 3rd might not be so far off base, but wouldn't mean very much. If he came in second, he could do some damage. 3rd? I don't think it would mean too much.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com
***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***
The stolen - err - leaked documents from Rudy's campaign indicate some doubt about going forward, and he hasn't exactly been out there campaigning yet. It would be pretty easy for him to decide to back out. It seems to me he is keeping his options open at the moment. Doing what he has to do if he wants to have a chance, but not going too far out on a limb, either.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I hope he does't. Frankly he would be the strongest (after Romney) in my opinion.
My main problem with Brownback are two fold:
1. Immigration
2. No exectutive experience.
And I would say number two is the most important. Does he have the ability to keep moral high and use the bully pulpit? Does he have the ability to run a tight, honest and loyal adminstration? I really couldn't say.
I think when bigwigs who have money and status look at backing a candidate they need to ask these questions and I think they do. I could see Brownback picking up some important backing from grassroots social conseratives, but beyond that I don't know who would trust that he has ability to be President.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com
***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***
I know. My first line was meant for Rudy. Than I went off on a tangent about Brownback.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com
***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***
AS a big Brownback supporter, I think you're right. Third place in Iowa won't give him the boost he needs to be the McCain alternative. Second place will show that Guiliani and Romney just don't have the conservative support to make it.
I could support Brownback, if Romney drops from the race. I see his flaws as immigration, fundraising/network, and appeal during general election. He might be able to harmonize his position to appeal to immigration only voters. Fundraising will be a real issue for him, I don't think he's ever had to raise over a few million dollars at a time. Bush has really set the standard for massive fundraising/networking in 2000 and 2004. I just don't see Brownback at this level. Finally, if he did win the GOP ticket, then what? Yes, he's worked on bipartisan legislation, but this will mean little up against the Clinton machine and MSM. With articles like the Rolling Stones "God's Senator", he will be made to look like a fanatic (no worse than Romney). Also, will he be able to articulate conservative values like the "Great Communicator" or will he be a "Bush Junior".
He could be a "Great Communicator" and a "Bush Junior" although Romney is the best at articulating conservative principles. A Senator from Kansas whose been Bush's ally in the Senate is going to have a hard time distinguishing himself. People will make a Brownback candidacy a referendum on Bush. I see Obama go to NH and draw huge crowds. Whether its justified or not, Hillary and Obama can raise cash and have a buzz about them. They energize and mobillize people. What really has Brownback or Huckabee done to display fundraising or star power. I just on't see Brownback being the energizing force and face of the GOP.
I have seen Romney and Brownback speak at the same function once and the response of the crowd tells the difference in their personality. Romney had the attention of the crowd while they continued to eat through Brownback.
Maybe Senator Brownback can really sew up one segment of the Republican Party early by naming his VP early.
How’s about the dream, or is it a nightmare,team of Brownback and Representative Virgil H. Goode?
I’m now refraining from any movie references to pictures featuring Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
Goode is a clown. He made Republicans look like bigots and gave a Democratic congressman from Minnesota more attention than he deserves. He galvanized any portion of the Muslim vote we still had against us purely because he cannot handle someone being a Muslim. Sorry Virgil you and constituents need to grow up.
Do you think that fear of an ever-growing Muslim population is irrational? Do you think that opposing mass immigration, at least in part, as a way to limit the growth of the Muslim population is an automatic and definite sign of bigotry? Even if the number drawn to extremism is as small as we are constantly told by defenders of the Religon of Peace, why take the risk?
Putting Goode aside, is there anyway for someone to articulate and give political expression to the very mainstream public support for reducing immigration w/o being called a bigot, or a xenophobe by someone in the media or by some professional ethnic grievance group? I never grow tired of asking this question, because it usually seems as though those conservatives who despise Tancredo-types, or Goode-types, attack their style and rhetoric, but stop just short of declaring their underlying opposition to mass immigration as being off limits. That's understandable, seeing as how such sentiments usually enjoy plurality or majority support from the American people, but it seems to me that such critics would like to take that leap and declare verboten support for reducing immigration.
The point I'm trying to get at is that it is almost impossible to criticize mass immigration w/o being called names by somebody. I recall how Victor Davis Hansen, and Samuel Huntington, released books a few years ago that were critical of current immigration, and they did so with very mild language, yet it didn't protect them from name-calling. And Huntington was a self-professed liberal and Kerry supporter!
I'm not aware of anything that Brownback has done as stupid as what Goode did. I also don't see how a pro-amnesty guy (sorry Leon) is supposed to attract the hardcore anti-immigration types that Goode might. I assume that is what you are alluding to as the "one segment of the Republican Party."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The thing that might hurt Brownback is his attachment to compassionate conservative. Look what the current President has got us with compassionate conservatism. At this point, someone who is void of compassion would get my vote over someone who ties them to the compassionate conservative nonsense too much.
Romney and McCain both could go after Brownback for buying wholesale into the Bush compassionate conservative doctrine.
It's a dangerous world out there and I've had about enough of the soft hearted. I want someone who's about as compassionate at Patton or Pershing as Commander in Chief.
A very admirable guy, but you need charisma to be elected President in this day and age, and Brownback has none. Plus, he's just too far to the right on social issues to get elected. He could be the GOP majority leader one day. He might be excellent in that role, assuming he has excellent administrative and tactical skills.
Or is the Commander in Chief position during a time of war going to be his entry level position into the executive ranks?
I'm as pro-life as you can get, but there's a lot more to the Presidency than protecting the unborn.
There IS no executive post with foreign policy determination like the Presidency. Nobody has that kind of power. Everyone else in the Executive (not including the VP, since the only duty the VP has is in the legislature) answers to the President.
So I guess you'll have to sit out the next election, since Presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Carter won't be running again.
Run like Reagan!
That's like saying since Semi trucks are so big and expensive it's not necessary to have any driving experience to learn to drive one. After all driving an SUV is not as nearly demanding.
But you and I both know there are basic principles to driving that extend to every aplication. Therefor experience driving on smaller applications is a huge plus when learning to drive a semi.
He makes a fair point. I would like the person who will be in charge of the largest Buerocracy in the world to have some sort of a track record of moving an organization forward. It's a huge plus. Knowledge of orginizational behavior, how to inspire large amounts of people, how to assemble high functioning teams, how to speak and communicate effectively- all huge pluses in a presidential candidate.
Brownback is a wondeerful person and a great senator, I just don't know what his experience is in running a large organization.
Another point: all those you mentioned as past presidents had large amounts of executive experience on their resumes.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com
***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***
Having taken an oath to defend the Constitution for over twenty years, yes I've read it a few times. Thanks for the insult, now on to the issue.
Being an executive position like no other only makes it all the more important the candidate have some executive experience.
Mitt Romney is a former governor and ran the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, actually turned the mess around. Rudy was mayor of the largest city in America, and turned it around. That is proven executive experience.
I think before becoming Commander in Chief of the U.S. military and chief executive for the rest of the federal government (homeland security) you should have run something larger than an ice cream stand successfully. Experience in the middle ranks is a whole lot better than none at all, but I wouldn't expect any lawyers in the crowd to agree with me. Just the non-lawyer Republican voters that actually work in the private sector and run organizations which probably has something to do with JFK being the last sitting Senator elected to the White House.
I won't be sitting the election out and I'll be supporting the Republican candidate, who you can take to the bank isn't going to be Brownback. But I will be voting for the unitary executive.
but I'd like to see him run. Whatever one thinks of his various positions, he's not exactly your run of the mill platitudinous politician. I view his lack of nuance as a wondrous thing in this age of spin. If it merely raises his profile for a serious run in 2012 or '16, then I say: go for it, Senator (he's only 50, by the way).
I should say, a dispassionate, but far from comprehensive, assessment.
There seems little doubt that his background in Kansas - Agriculture Secretary, US Rep., US Senator - leaves him well placed to gain momentum in Iowa. I am not sure, however, that a top three position for him would necessarily eliminate one of the 'big three', as to some extent he is a local candidate, and a strong performance may be discounted. (This is a bigger issue for Vilsack on the Dem side).
He is very strong on 'the culture of life'. Plainly this matters to a great many people. However, he may find it a little problematic. In general, Roe has pushed Republicans to adopt (at least in practice) fairly moderate positions. A general ban on abortion is not on the (immediate) agenda, so Republicans often advance smaller measures such as banning partial birth abortion and parental notification. These positions are very popular. Democrats, by contrast, have been pushed onto the unpopular ground of defending all abortions all the time. James Taranto has speculated that from a purely tactical point of view, a repeal of Roe might damage the GOP, as the moment a general ban on abortion was in the realms of possibility the Democrats would force the debate into the arena of hard cases - such as rape and incest. The South Dakota initiative is an example of this in practice. Brownback has voluntarily put himself in a vulnerable position on these issues. He publicly opposes rape and incest exceptions, which may damage him with the wider electorate. Also note that his interpretation of the 'culture of life' includes a reluctance to support capital punishment, a position which may not position him well with caucus voters.
I don't generally comment on the immigration question (though I have had one or two run ins with Jon Sandor on some the personalities involved) but the discussion above suggests that Brownback's position leaves him exposed with people who might otherwise be his supporters.
Brownback is also passionate about relieving poverty in Africa. To my mind this is a wholly laudable cause, and I very much share his passion on this. (I am, after all, the guy who advocated giving goats as xmas presents). I am less convinced by his view that this is an area appropriate for government action. I also wonder how many votes this will move in Iowa.
Brownback's commitment to his term limits pledge seems strong, though it has not yet been put to the ultimate test, since he moved into the Senate before his self-imposed term limit in the House was reached. He is still maintaining that he will step down from the Senate in 2010 and there is no reason to doubt his sincerity on this.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
a replay of G W Bush, not exactly what I am looking for.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
On life issues, for example, Bush rather defused the abortion question by talking about tackling the issue "one soul at a time". He did not leave himself as exposed as Brownback seems to have done. Bush also favours capital punishment, and the fact that he was heavily criticised for this probably counted in his favour.
Bush also came to the campaign with substantial executive experience and presenting himself as "a uniter not a divider" that is, frankly, going to be harder for any candidate in 2008, as levels of partisan rancour are very high.
Where you are probably right is that anyone seen as a continuation of Bush would probably not do well in the election.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
I look forward to the day he's chairing the Judiciary Committee. I just hope Pat Leahy is there to suffer through it.
_______________________________________________
"Tradition is the democracy of the dead. It refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around"
-G.K. Chesterton
It would be a replay of the Bush presidency and candidacy seeing he is a diehard compassionate conservative. Look what 6 years of compassionate conservatism has got us. We need something else because this compassionate conservative crap is not cutting it.
If Brownback leaves in 2010, then say hello to Senator Sebelius!
As bas as Brownback is on immigration, he is at least a dependable vote on judges. Sebelius, however, would never vote on behalf of Kansas values on Culture War issues.
He got a little bit of a late start here in Iowa, as did Rudy. Should be an interesting race!
no matter what happens in Iowa. Iowa is mostly irrelevant. Social Conservatives in the South are mostly war hawks first, economic hawks and social cons second or close third, immigration hawks a VERY close third or second. Moreover, South Carolina republicans also go for winners.
Brownback is simply not going to be a strong candidate due to his weak position on Iraq, his weak position on the border, his big government position on economics, and his unassuming persona. He also takes extreme positions on gays that come off as presumptuous towards the social conservative audiences he speaks to.
He is a loser in the Non-Iowa US.
Except for Newt, no candidate has staked out positions to the right of Romney. McCain will fade. This race will come down to Giuliani or Romney or possibly a candidate on the right that emerges if either falters. Possibly Hunter, Thompson or an unannounced or presently obscure repub. Huckabee is an impressive speaker and man that did a good job as governor, but I think he is too far to the left on too many things.
more later
But the bottom line is that Iowa social cons are unique. Iowa is unique.
In SC and the South generally, evangelicals do not follow so called or even actual evangelical leaders. rather, they, the rank and file do the leading. The Southern evangelical is very much a practical conservative which recognizes that we are at war and that the main issue besides that on the social side is judges.
The South is the most pro-military pro-war section of the country.
Brownback is going nowhere but Iowa, if that.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report. “One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
How has Brownback been bad on the war? I'm interested to hear since I've been leaning toward him since I dropped Romney.
Run like Reagan!
some talk radio shows I heard two weeks ago or so. I will get some links, etc later this weekend.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
The Michigan Republican State Convention (Feb.9-10) proved to be a massive win for Brownback. Only Romney (a Michigan native)showed up, and that was a quick in and out that fell rather flat. One would have expected more with the State Party Chair so intimately tied to his campaign. Romney's support for state funded abortions and history of flip-flops has cost him.
McCain has the early lead, but it is to be expected. He has been working the state of Michigan for years and even beat President Bush in the 2004 primary.
Brownback utilized his advantage by making strategic connections in the Conservative west side of the state. His convention speech was on target and appealed to the fiscally and socially conservative. If measuring applause lines, the clear winner was Brownback. Should he survive Iowa etc., He should be well placed to score big in Michigan
Maybe you were at a different convention, but I was on the floor and remember how the campaign had to keep the people from running up to Mitt, the crowd being filled with Romney placards, and the crowd going nuts during the Romney speech in a fashion nobody else got. Even one of my friends in the McCain camp told me they were impressed.
I did not see crowds running around Brownback. I did see Romney and McCain both have nearly fifty volunteers each compared to Brownback's 10 to 15.
There are a lot of conservatives who are waiting for a viable alternative to Rudy, McCain and Romney. Brownback seems to be the best option for those people.
The question will be whether Romney can win over cultural conservatives who don't like some of his pre-mid-00s statements on the issues. If not, there's room for an alternative, and Brownback may well be it.
Some folks might long for Newt, but he'd rather be thought of as a possible candidate rather than get his hands dirty and run. He'd have a hard time lasting in the current media environment.
Red Staters might remember Brownback's oppostion to Harriet Meirs back before it was cool for elected officials to do so. It might be time to give him some props for that and other issues.