Redstate

I'm sorry, but Sam Brownback's chances of winning the general election in 2008 are slim to none. If we nominate him, it's like handing the presidency to Hillary on a silver platter.

If the field is not acceptable come September, then Newt Gingrich - baggage and all - is probably our only potential savior.

How on earth is some obscure Senator less likely to win than a Senator who has already nearly 50% unfavorable ratings nationally?

Run like Reagan!

If the public doesn't know who a candidate is, and currently doesn't have a well-developed opinion of them, a well-connected and heavily-financed opponent can define them instead. Brownback simply would be tarred and feathered by the Friends of Hillary, and would probably be slaughtered in a general election (6-8 percentage points, easy). Not to mention that, if Brownback were to win the nomination, it would be in a rather ugly primary fight, which would further damage him. He's a good Senator, but the time isn't right for him to be President.

To be honest, the best thing for these "Brownback for President" people would be a McCain presidency, as it would be highly unlikely that he could run again in 2012... (maybe a McCain / Brownback ticket, as there is a chance that a President McCain, at his age, wouldn't live through a full four-year term.)

I'm still pretty "blah" about the Republican field, but I do still like (of guys who have announced or are expected to announce) Gingrich, Romney, Brownback, and Giuliani. However, I doubt that either Brownback or Gingrich could ever get elected, and I think Romney will probably be eaten alive in the primary fight by other Republicans. Giuliani isn't my first choice, but, at this moment, he seems to be the strongest horse in the Republican field, personal issues and all (which should say something about the GOP's candidates).

"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."

Then why wasn't the well-financed and well-connected Vice President Gore able to do that to the little-known Governor Bush?

Come on.. ANY Republican ends up well funded. We all know that. Just like any Democrat does.

Run like Reagan!

People may not have "known" George W. Bush, personally, but they knew the name "Bush" so they thought they knew something about him. And Dubya was heavily financed. I think he consistantly raised more money than Gore. If I remember correctly, he was setting all kinds of fundraising records at the time.

Brownback doesn't have the Bush machine. Heck...he doesn't have the Dole machine. He's not particularly telegenic or energetic, and he doesn't have the charisma to make up for what he lacks in organization. He would get absolutely slaughtered by the vicious, tenacious, and disciplined Hillary campaign.

Oh right, because if Bush lost the nomination, his grand machine could have won anyway... come on. Winning the nomination is all for all of these guys, in terms of being able to have a 'machine' working for them.

The party loyal ARE the machine.

Run like Reagan!

I think what he's saying is that you need a machine to get the nomination. You need financial, logistical and volunteer support in huge numbers to get the nomination. Of course the GOP machine will get behind the eventual nominee, but if you're Brownback, you need to raise a ton of money to introduce yourself to voters in NH and SC and convince them to vote for you over a better-known commodity.

I seem to remember a guy named Howard Dean being in a similar position. Big difference, though, is that I can`t see Brownback blowing it like that other guy did.

Brownback needs to first have a lead in the polls and incredible momentum before he can blow them like Dean did. However, it is still early, just I don't see him winning, or even being that competitive. I could be wrong, but he's never really struck me as a hot commodity.

"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."

In early 2003, Dean was seen as a fringe candidate with zero chance of winning. Don`t get me wrong, he ran a helluva campaign to change that, but Brownback`s current position is not all that different from where Dean was at this point in the last cycle.

On everything you said. I probably give Gingrich slightly better odds at winning a general election than you do, but that might just be wishful thinking on my part.

At least Hillary will excite some people - not good people, but voters nonetheless. Plus, people tend to vote for people they know and are familiar with over people they don't know and are unfamiliar with. I mean, people figure that they can forsee the worst it could get, and often feel that they could live with that. The other guy, however, they don't know. They don't know how bad he could be.

And Sam Brownback won't excite anyone. Sam Brownback would be Clinton v. Dole all over again - except perhaps an even bigger disaster. I think it would be best for him to just hold onto his Senate seat for a good long while.

On the other hand, when I listen to the clips on Mitt Romney's website...it's just hard to NOT get all excited and hopeful and optimistic, and think "wow...this guy is great!"

Then stuff like this comes out, and you ask yourself, "Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?"

Honestly...Romney easily draws comparisons to Reagan and JFK (another tax-cutter whose Supreme Court nominee was a dissenting vote in Roe.) I just hope that his latest campaign rhetoric is more than positionin and sloganeering.

First of all, name ID in the general election will be a non-issue regardless of who the nominees are. This isn`t a race for dog catcher, it`s a race for President, and both major party candidates will have all the name ID they need.

Second, about the only think that Bob Dole and Sam Brownback have in common is that they`re Republican Senators from Kansas. Dole was an old good-ole-boys type who fit well in the most exclusive country club in the world, the US Senate. Brownback is a young conservative who actually believes what he says and says what he believes rather than believing he should say whatever he thinks other people believe. Brownback would make an especially good candidate against someone whom everyone thinks was concerned only with becoming President from the day she was born. This guy deserves a better look than he`s getting.

Ronald Reagan was deemed by the pundits (and the Ford campaign) a definite, laughable loser against Carter in 1976. So what?

Now I'll grant you that Reagan's name I.D. was far superior, that many thought they "knew" him because they'd seen him in a few movies and on T.V., but if we have to "win" with another huge disappointment like Dubya or lose with a reincarnation of Barry Goldwater, I'll take the latter, thank you very much. Does the G.O.P. believe in anything anymore? And most especially does it still want the size of the federal government to be reduced?

I see way too many clever comments and analyses about the horse race around here. Why don't we nominate someone who unequivocally stands for conservative principles, someone we're proud to call a Republican, and then work hard to elect him (or her)? There are worse things than losing, and in the long run we'll "win" anyway - only when we "win" with a candidate who has a core set of beliefs (decidedly unlike the president), the country "wins" too (unlike the current situation).

I don't think that there are many questions about Mitt Romney on fiscal and economic issues. On that, I think that he will be steller. The question has been on where he stands on social issues and on what kind of judicial nominees we can expect from him.

Also, I don't think Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater were ever quite as boring as Sam Brownback is. They had the energy, charisma, charm, and wit to combine with their ideas. They inspired others who were not true believers. It takes something special in order to do that. I think that Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani both have that, and I'm pretty sure that Sam Brownback does not.

For me, the difference between Mitt and Rudy is that I like what Mitt is saying a little better, all around, than what I hear from Rudy. That said, Rudy's cleaning up of NYC and applying those lessons to Baghdad is VERY persuasive. But it kind of makes me want Rudy named Ambassador to Iraq to succeed Khalilzad instead of President of the United States. Perhaps he can help get things under control in Baghdad in a Romney Administration. It would be a tremendous service to the country.

Others disagree
http://race42008.com/2007/01/21/reaganesque-not-so-much/

I have never met him, but every time I've seen him perform, he's been extremely impressive. In the presidential debates, I think that he would absolutely eviscerate Hillary Clinton. I think Giuliani would, too, of course.

The rest of the field...not so much. Dead-even at best. Flop completely as worst.

I have never met him, but every time I've seen him perform, he's been extremely impressive. In the presidential debates, I think that he would absolutely eviscerate Hillary Clinton. I think Giuliani would, too, of course.

The rest of the field...not so much. Dead-even at best. Flop completely at worst.

But considering she’s the one who apparently fed Eric the crap that is the topic of this post, you’ll understand if we don’t consider her an objective or credible source.

I think the key phrase here is "[A]s late as 2005". I'd like to see some backup for the charge, but 1994 is not the issue on this particular occasion.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

The bulk of the examples Mair quotes from are from (a) a 1994 Senate debate when he was pro-choice and (b) Romney’s 2002 gubernatorial pledge to maintain the “status quo” in Massachusetts in abortion law. The same examples are repeated several times but there is no new or current information there.

I was quoting from Liz's email.

Since you’ve declared your support for Romney* and Liz’s post doesn’t show any examples more current than Romney’s 2002 pledge to maintain the “status quo” in Massachusetts, until Mair provides some actual evidence beyond “she wrote in her email” it might be a good idea to take that out entirely and provide an update explaining that the examples from the flyer don’t go beyond rehashing things that we already know about, none of which is more current than 2005.

* Even if you hadn’t, we all ought to be particularly circumspect about repeating any negative information thrown at Republican candidates that isn’t fully supported by the facts regardless of whether we support that candidate.

And the first clause of your first sentence misuses the word "since" in creating a non sequitur.

Thanks again for your help, though!

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

that's not what state Republican Chairmen are saying...several state Republican Chairman have stated they are very likely to be Romney backers.

Remember, the goal is to nominate the most conservative candidate that can win. To win, the candidate needs to be sharper than Bush was in all areas he was weak, because people won't want to "suffer" through another Bush-like presidency. And with Hillary, people will have that same "tired" view, as if Jeb was running - they want someone new. So the candidate needs to exude contrast to Bush in positive ways, not necessarily different policies. Romney is a much better speaker, dynamic and charismatic, extremely successful outside of politics as investor/turnaround specialist, academically and analytically brilliant for business guy or politician, he speaks clearly and concisely and is fun to watch, he's outside the D.C. beltway, etc. Brownback, while on average as conservative as Romney, lacks in executive leadership, dynamic ideas and charisma.

Many people I talk to that are plugged into the Republican state parties say (I'm not exaggerating) that Romney will make the best President in 20 years.

I see greatness in Mitt. I hope that if he succeeds - especially if he does it with the help of conservatives - that he won't let us down.

Is this the same issue about Romney changing his decision to veto the Massachusetts legislature's decision to force all hospitals in the state, regardless of religious affiliation, to provide abortifacient information to rape victims?

The one where Romney decided that his veto was unsustainable and would be overruled by the incoming legislature on advice that he got from his lawyer? The one which seemed to me was the right decision to make legally even though it wouldn't please Conservatives outside Massachusetts, but who cares about what Conservatives outside Massachusetts think because they're not the people who comprise the Massachusetts Legislature?

It was discussed previously, in the correct context (i.e. having nothing to do with RU-486). IIRC it was an legal interpretative question, where Romney's Health Dept head and he originally said that it wouldn't force Catholic hospitals to dispense Plan B, then reversed himself a few days later (supposedly after talking to legal council about it).
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

made me wonder what would happen if Liz Mair and Katherine Lopez were in the same room together. Would the world spontaneously combust from the anti-thical Romney forces at play.

From what I can tell the only thing the examples show is that as late as 2005 (one is actually dated March of 2006) the Boston Herald and Boston Globe were writing stories about Romney’s position on abortion – not that the made a change that late in the game. I wonder if Mair misread the flyer or Eric (who I generally find to be a honest fellow) misread what Mair wrote.

Do you have a reference to his support in 2002?

'I don't really understand how it works or when it works but my understanding is it's an effective morning after pill, and I think it would be a positive thing to have women have the choice of taking the morning-after pill,' Romney said. 'I would favor having it available.' -Boston Herald, May 19, 1994

Not much of an endorsement IMO.

However, that was clear back in 1994. That was the time that Romney was pro-choice.

Texas Conservative made the statement that Romney backed RU-486 in 2002. I am still curious if there is a reference for that.

.

I also thought it interesting that the Liz Mair piece truncated off the part where Romney prefaced his remarks with “I don't really understand how it works or when it works but my understanding is it's an effective morning after pill” which qualifies his support for RU-486. If some people insist on parsing every frakking thing he said or wrote, they could at least be honest enough not to dowdify his quotes.

"In 2002, when he was a candidate for the office he now holds, he answered 'yes' to a question posed by Planned Parenthood about his support of 'efforts to increase access to emergency contraception.'" - Boston Globe 7/7/2005

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2005/07/06/a_bitter...

I believe that is referring to plan B not RU-486. See some of the comments below for the difference between the two.

After some research on the issue, I must admit that I did confuse RU-486 with Plan B. Although RU-486 can also be used as an emergency contraceptive, it is not the same drug as Plan B.

I apologize to all the Romney supporters for incorrectly stating that Romney supported RU-486 in 2002 and flip flopped on it 2005--it was Plan B that he supported in 2002 and flip-flopped on in 2005.

So let me see. Romney stated in 1994 that he supported a woman's right to choose. In 2002 he supported Plan B. In 2005 he has decided he can no longer support it. That certainly is a flip.

Where's the flop?

1. A flip-flop is a change of position or opinion. It's not necessary to change your position twice or more for it to be correctly labeled a "flip-flop."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flip-flop

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx...

2. At least with respect to abortion, Romney apparently has changed his position multiple times. In the 1994 debate with Kennedy, Romney stated: "Many, many years ago, I had a dear close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that or be a multiple choice." The emphasized language suggests to me that before his relative's abortion, Romney had a different position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

"The emphasized language suggests to me that before his relative's abortion, Romney had a different position."

Couldn't it just as well have been that he'd had an undefined position? This flip-flop talk seriously makes me weary, as do all silly debates about semantics (we're quoting dictionaries now!) but I'll hazard a contribution here:

Everyone gets to make up their mind, and that privilege doesn't constitute a flip or a flop. Couldn't it just as easily be that there was a catalyst in his early life that made him decide that a pro-choice political posture (while remaining personally pro-life...yes, a la Clinton, et al) was the moral decision to make? And then, upon further reflection and no small amount of political pressure, come to another conclusion? Question his sincerity, if you'd like, but I only count one certifiable flip, or flop, or flip-flop...if you'd rather [feels dirty].

I am interested in this, zuiko. So far every time some Romney opponent has screamed flipflop, when you look at the evidence, it just evaporates.

"Romney had poached eggs for breakfast instead of his usual scambled eggs. FLIP-FLOPPER!!"

Why is this 'Plan B' thingy any different?

But this attack is just BS. And it sounds like they are distributing fliers with this false information in DC. I am going to be generous and assume Liz and company don't know they are lying about RU-486 and are just confused... but it could just as easily be intentional.

Plan B is not a pro-life issue. Some (mostly Catholics) have a moral issue with it, along with any other form of contraception. RU-486 is most definitely a pro-life issue, because it's simply a chemical substitute for the vacuum cleaner procedure. Hopefully they will bother to correct their mistake, assuming it is indeed a mistake and not an intentional McCain-sponsored smear job.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I think he has a lot of appeal for people who think that the most important job of the President on the domestic front is to talk about a “Culture of Life” 24-7.

But for those of us who think that on the domestic front, the President would better spend his time trying to undo the decades of statism that has stuck future generations with trillions in unfunded liabilities, trying to expand access to health care through the free market, or developing power out of Washington and back to the States and the people, not so much.

Put it this way – if you’re happy with the job that Bush has done on domestic issues, Brownback might be your candidate. But if you’re not happy with how Bush has dealt with domestic issues and don’t think that the American people will be willing to support “four more years,” then maybe you may want to look elsewhere.

I don't see Newt Gingrich running. I don't see Jeb Bush running. I don't see J.C. Watts running. I don't see Dick Armey running. I don't see Rick Santorum running. I don't see ANY conservatives running yet.

Run like Reagan!

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

"Compasionate Conservative" is redundant. Conservatism is compassionate. But what it is not is Big Government Republicanaism.

I concur, but the term compassionate conservatism now equates with big government Republicans. As I always say, compassionate conservatism is big government and Bible. Seeing I am more of a libertarian bent, compassionate conservatism is the antithesis of my political compass.