Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Brownback Talks '08

In an interview with C-SPAN's Brian Lamb, set to run on Christmas Day, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback (R) left little doubt that he will be a candidate for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.


Sen. Brownback may be off to an early start in his quest for the 2008 GOP nomination. (Getty Images)

In a transcript of the interview obtained by The Fix, Brownback said he first began considering a presidential bid 18 months ago.  While he has made no "final decision," he told Lamb that "things will start to move more rapidly coming into next year."

The conservative Kansan said that he needs to start running for president well before people like Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) or former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) because they are far better known than he is among both party activists and voters nationally.

"I know a number of people are talking about not until after the midterm elections next year," Brownback said in the interview. "I don't know that I have that luxury to wait that period of time because your Ames Straw Poll is less than a year out after that point in time." The straw poll is set for August 2007 and has traditionally been an early litmus test for Iowa's first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses.

Rather than to delve into specific issues he plans to highlight in a presidential bid, Brownback repeatedly emphasized that he was running "to renew the society and renew the culture." Later in the interview, he said, "I think we have got to rebuild families in this country. I think we have to get a culture that's more civil, that's more uplifting and supportive of those families."

Without question, Brownback will be on the ideological right of the spectrum of Republican candidates seeking the nomination. But given the socially conservative caucus electorate in Iowa (a state that borders his home state of plains state like his native Kansas, by the way), Brownback appears to be in a position to surprise some people.

For further reading, Washington Post syndicated columnist George F. Will wrote about Brownback's hopes of mobilizing evangelicals across the country for his presidential bid, and I did a piece for Roll Call (subscription required) about Brownback's strengths and weaknesses as a national candidate. And for some historical background on the Ames Straw Poll, click here to read a chat that Post political reporter Dan Balz hosted after the 1999 straw poll.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 23, 2005; 9:30 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: CA-50: Special Election Date Is Set
Next: A Christmas Present for Montana Democrats

Comments

Deuces for President.

If a Dem would talk straight like this to the public, they could win.

Otherwise welcome to the 4th Reich of Mr Brownback and his fellow travellers.

Posted by: true believer | January 3, 2006 10:35 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats should help getting Brownback to run. With religion as his only real platform and after too many years of Bushes debacles this could be the icing on the cake.

A side note about errors in reporting.

When reporters make even simple geographical errors in their articles it lends doubt to the whole picture.

This last year saw many, many article written by the media (including the washington post) with misleading facts. Were they intentional? or simply errors.

Posted by: Sum1 | January 2, 2006 8:43 AM | Report abuse

That's some incredible bile coming from the left. Incredible, but commendable, that the Post would leave it up. Feel free to continue discrediting yourselves.

Posted by: Wow | December 31, 2005 3:17 PM | Report abuse

VivaBush, you must not follow politics that closely. The person that gets the nominaton is the person that can generate the most money and assists state and local party members in their fund raising efforts.

HRC can out fund raise any Democrat except her husband. She has quietly ammassed over 20 Million in her 2006 senate bid. She needs no more and has embarked upon fundraising for the State Democratic parties in places like Kentucky and has been well received.

The image of HRC is being driven by a right wing media period who dispise her. Whacko's like Ann Coulter rights books about her yet never interviews her. Bill OReilly and Limbaugh bash her daily without cause. Why, because Fox News. Limbaugh, Liddy, Roberston are male biggots who will say and do anything to put down a women. They actually believe women are inferior to men and that VivaBush is what you are scared of too. Let's face it, part of the right wing unspoken agenda and social conservative movement is about how to keep women in their place...in the kitchen and out of sight. IF HRC were a man, this would not be the case.

I saw a poll once that was published somewhere on the internet. The poll fist asked political questions that mirrored HRC's positions to the tee yet did not name her in the poll.

They then asked the identical questions and put her name and Bush's name into the mix. Again the poll was designed to reflect 100% of HRC positions and voting record.

The results of the poll, white males changed thier views on issues when HRC name was attached. Women and minorities did not. They changed their mind on simple black and white issues such as abortion. The poll was not a poll of Clinton vs Bush rather three separate questionaires: the first to respond to the issues without a name attached that asked if you felt strongly one way or another on an issue such as are you for or against abortion, the second inserted HRC's name as having supported a position and did they agree with her (yes or no); and the third was the same questions but with Bush's name.

A staggering 65% of the white males in this poll changed their position when HRC's name was mentioned. Yet when Bush's name was mentioned they returned to their original position on an issue such.

I know this is just one story of one poll. However, I think it may be reflective of what's at the bottom of HRC bashing. White male Americans are afraid of a women president because it means all that they were taught about women were inferior humans compared to men will be proven wrong. It means the social conservatives who espouse womens only role in live is to support her husband endeavers and raise his kids) even if he beats the crap out of her) becomes obsolete.

SO VivaBush, would you support Condi Rice? Colin Powell for President, or that too much diversity for a republican to handle?

Posted by: DB | December 29, 2005 11:24 PM | Report abuse

"pontificating, holier than thou, bible thumping, genuflecting, shove my bible down your throat, hypocrites they have alienated over half of the country. Who the hell wants some f--king Jesus Freaks."

"a hateful, lawbreaking, conniving, lying, corrupt political party that has no sense of moral values even as they accuse everyone, as unpatriotic and immoral, that doesn't agree with their philosophy that's spouted each day on the conservative radios by the likes of jailbirds like Libby, drug addicts like Limbaugh, and greedy ministers like Robertson. President Numbskull has shown hisself to be illiterate, and who can't make decisions by himself."

Ah, the tolerant left. Please, please, please move to Canada. Or France. Or Cuba.

Posted by: VWRC member | December 29, 2005 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Hagel v. Clinton--no chance.
DB, whatever you're smoking, I'd like some of it.

Posted by: vivabush04 | December 29, 2005 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Brownback, Allen and Santorum repressent the social concervative wing of the GOP. While a vocal and powerful group, they represent no more than 20-25% of their party.

In the Dem party, the left-left liberals represent a similar 20-30 percentage of the Dem base. The liberal that could run are Biden and Kerry (Dean will not run). HRC gets the label as a liberal because she is a women and the health care fiasco, however her voting record is anything but liberal.

Neither the social conservatives or left wing liberals can get a candidate elected without compromising on some of the issues their base supports so strongly. The only way Bush won in 2000 was by smearing McCain and by propoganda saying he was a "compassionate conservative". I nice term or code word for I will support your right wing agenda, I just cant campaign on it at a national level and win. I will need to lie to the moderates and independants about by views.. So Bush won on the "wink and nod platform". I dont think the Moderates, Centrists, or independants will trust any candidate that has the strong support of the social conservatives. They have overplayed their hand so much that America fears this group more so than what Reagan did to the "Big Spending Liberal tag" he succussfully pinned on national democrats.

The diffence in these two groups (social conservatives and left wing liberals) is the GOP will get their group to the polls, while the DEMS liberal base is the most diverse in terms of race and is harder to mobilize around a common candidate.

IMO 2008 election will come down to GOP moderates ability to get McCain or Hagel on their ticket. I have doubts they can but they may finally convince the social conservatives that is the only way to win in 2008.

For Dems, the effort will come down to stopping HRC, can they or do they want to? The liberals will support HRC. Independant women will support HRC. However, the white male democratic centrists have a problem with HRC although this group supported and stood by Bill C.

I think Edwards is dead in the water along with Biden, and Kerry if he decided to run. A wild card could be the resurrection of Tom Daschle who has the experience that a Warner would need. I still dont see Clark as a VP. Maybe defense secretary or secratary of state.

Here's my prognatic scenario:

GOP: Guiliani is pro choice and is dead in the water. He cant win Iowa, could do well in New Hampshire but flames out in South Carolina.
McCain can win Iowa and possibly New Hampshire. Once he moves South, the social conservatives turn to another candidate.

Brownback. Cannot win Iowa or New Hampshire and cant raise the money to complete. By Michigan he is toast.

Allen: hangs in as a third place finisher but never gets above 10% of the vote in any primary. Stays in the race in hopes the social conservatives turn to him after Brownback is out of the race, McCain is taken down a step etc.

Hagel. Either upsets McCain in Iowa or comes close, comes close in New Hampshire. Falters in South Carolina as they turn to Allen and Brownback in this social conservative state. Gains momentum when the issue of "electability" becomes a factor.

By end of March or early April, its a three person race: Hagel, McCain, and Allen who should drop out but whose ego wont let him as he is positioning himself as a deal breaker or power broker as well as setting his sites on 2012.

By this time social conservatives start fearing McCain may win and organize around the most likely candidate to win: Hagel wins nomination in a close race that is decided in the final weeks of the primary elections.

Democrats: Edwards suprises few by announcing he will not run for family reasons. National polls show his % down to less than 5%. Bayh, HRC, Biden, Clark and Warner are the nominees heading into Iowa. HRC wins by a wisker but Bayh and Warner are close. Clark is fourth and Biden is last. New Hampshire shows their independance as Warner upsets HRC as Clark takes potential HRC votes from her. BIden finsihes last again and drops out of race. Warner sustains momentum by winning South Carolina. Bayh is second and HRC third. Clark starts to lose momentum and is falls short in fundraising.

By Michigan, Bayh and HRC are neck and neck. Warner begins to fade to third but sustains with his fund raising prowess.

By Super Tuesday, if it remain in tact, HRC has the money to compete everywhere and wins most of the states. Warner rebound somewhat. Bayh runs out of money and has to withdraw from race. As races shift south Warner gains momentum. HRC wins Florida, Warner wins Texas. Race goes to June primary in California where HRC wins by large margin.

Prediction: HRC vs Hagel
VP for HRC, is Daschle a national name with a decent reputation nationwide...a safe choice. Warner not chosen because he turn it down privately as he sees what happened to Edwards. Warner never settles for second team it's not his style plus it sets him up as the 2012 as the front runner of HRC stumbles.

Hagel's VP is Repulblican governor of Arkansas Huckabee who is a favorate of social conservatives. McCain wont settle for # 2 and his political career comes to an end. Allen waits to run in 2012 but keep his senate seat he won in 2006 and can hold remain on national stage until 2012 when he runs again.

General Election: HRC names Clark as Defense Secretary and Biden as Secretary of State and Bill Richardson to Department of Homeland Security to buff up the perceived weakness that democrats are weak on terrorism and in Richardson, a hispanic to counterbalance the GOP wedge issue on immigration.

Hagel having never ran on national level is out manuevered by slick and veteran HRC team, formerly of Bills ream.

Prediction: HRC wins with 52% of vote but takes well over 300 electoral votes including previously red states of New Hampshire, OHIO, Florida, Arkansas, and Nevada.

Posted by: DB | December 29, 2005 1:31 AM | Report abuse

DM,
The GOP will never nominate McCain or Rudy. That will never happen. The party will nominate someone who would continue with Bush's policies in 2008.

As a Republican from Overland Park, Kansas (western Kansas), I would never vote for Sam Brownback if he runs for President.

Posted by: RST | December 28, 2005 10:13 PM | Report abuse

As a good neocon, I resent the association of Brownback with that word. Neocons are often like Andrew Sullivan and I --- fiscally conservative and socially libertarian with a belief in being active in the world to make it a better place. Brownback is nothing but a theocon extremist of the highest order. He'll fall faster than Pat Robertson in 1988.

If my party wants to win in 2008, we have to nominate McCain or Rudy. It's that simple. Both would decimate the White Witch, er, Hillary Clinton, who has the Democratic establishment in her back pocket and will almost certainly be their nominee. If the GOP decides to nominate another far-right southerner who doesn't know how to talk to Ohio and Pennsylvania and has spent his whole career winning elections because of "values-voters," those purple midwestern voters who went for Gore and Kerry will also go for Madame Hillary, and this time, Ohio and Florida will probably go along with them. If the Republicans lose in 2008, they will have no one to blame but themselves. They have two rock-star candidates and they're too dumb to anoint either of them.

Posted by: DM | December 28, 2005 9:42 PM | Report abuse

I can't think of an easier neo-con to beat...

Kansas hates science.

Let's watch Brownback try to move his state's so-called values into mainstream America where they can be properly ridiculed by the rest of us who can actually read and think.

Posted by: Please Run! | December 28, 2005 5:22 PM | Report abuse

If the Republicans nominate another right wing idiot they will lose. If they nominate a moderate like McCain they will put up a good fight. The Democrats have the makings for a win in 2008 with the 8yr rule of GOP, and the scandals, and the lack of leadership that have come with it. If the Democrats put up a candidate like Evan Bayh, John Edwards, or the most powerful and dangerous to Republicans Mark Warner gets the nomination with the greatest expert on foriegn policy in decades Wes Clark as the VP they will be hard to beat. Warner or Bayh may not sit too well with the liberal wing, but Clark is cherished by liberals, with him on the ticket Bayh or Warner would not have to worry about a liberal fallout. The demographics favor the Democrats in 2008 with some analysts saying Texas could come into play for the Democrats with their surge in hispanic imigration. I mean Texas. In all a Warner/Clark, Bayh/Clark, or Edwards/Clark would give the Dems a 300+, 51%+ win in 2008. A Brownback or a Santorum ticket although push by the fundamentalist right wing would ultimately fail in 2008, which would lead to a supreme Democrat majority.

Posted by: PopulistDemocrat | December 28, 2005 1:10 PM | Report abuse

PLEASE REPUBLICANS I BESEECH YOU IN THE NAME OF GOD NOMINATE THIS MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Jane Riley-Thornton | December 28, 2005 10:36 AM | Report abuse

If Allen is the best conservative the GOP can do, they will have to spit shine his image, starting with his smokeless "chaw" that he uses. Soccer Moms, wont vote for that image. Allen is an airhead, void of vision and ideas. Another Bush without the pedigree of papa's boys backing him up. Santorum, Brownback, and Allen are all the same. Brainless zealots void of ideas. America does not need an idealogue again. Hasnt the past five years proven that we dont need social conservatives mixing church and state. For all those that support these three zealots, I think therapy is in order or better yet a whole new lifestyle change starting with turning off O Reilly, Limbaugh, Liddy, and Savage.

If the GOP needs to run a conservative, and they do in order to gain the social conservatives, then someone better start with putting together the Hagel for President team, otherwise, the GOP will lose and lose big. The GOP can only win with a large social conservative base and a majority of independents. Its the independents that will decide the next president and they will not support another BUSH IMO or an inexperienced Dem like Edwards. Even Warner will have to prove his mettle on the experience front, especially Foreign policy.

Posted by: db | December 27, 2005 8:24 PM | Report abuse

I am absolutely amazed at the lack of civilized, intelligent discourse on this board. It certainly isn't Chris' fault.

It's apparent that Brownback is running, but I don't think he has a chance. While George Allen is not always viewed to be as far right as Brownback, his image (physical, pedigree, etc) is more attractive to the right than Brownback. Any media consultant could look at Brownback and quickly come to the conclusion that he would lose any match up against Hillary Clinton. It wouldn't even necessairly be about issues...

Posted by: AR | December 27, 2005 10:33 AM | Report abuse

If there weren't already enough, here are 12 more reasons for turning leftists out of elected positions (including those formulating public school curicula) and for preventing more leftists from reaching office:

http://www.yaf.org/press/12_21_05.html

And the left throws a hissy fit over the mere mention of "intelligent design in schools".

Posted by: BlueStatetoRedState | December 26, 2005 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Whoa...folks. Lou Riggio is wrong. But that does not mean that he is not entitled to an opinion. It seems really senseless to attack Republicans for their closed-mindedness and then turn around and rip this guy in extremely personal terms because he has the audacity to disagree with you. Anyway, as far as the topic of this post is concerned, like Lou I too have met Senator Brownback, but I came away from the experience with a slightly different view of the man. After 15 minutes with the Senator I felt like I was that much closer to death and had nothing to show for it. He wasn't a bad person and didn't quote Bible verses at me. In fact there was nothing at all notable about the man, and that is the problem. The presidency is a job for a special person, the best among us. The last 5 years have taught us that lesson well. Brownback's main problem isn't that he is a Bible-beating, Leave It To Beaver Reactionary, his main problem is that he isn't good enough.

Posted by: JCarl | December 25, 2005 1:06 AM | Report abuse

It's a good thing that the mindless lemmings like Lou Riggio are on their way to extinction. There's all kinds of people in this world and it's unfortunate that we have so many in the U.S. that can't wake up and smell the coffee. The clock is ticking on China taking over Taiwan and the U.S. won't be able to lift a finger because of the almost one trillion dollars that we owe China. Too bad the poor and middle class people being tricked by the religious republicans are going to wake up too late to see the shenannigans that was foisted on them by this administration. If my child was killed in a war that was based on lies and manipulated lies,I'd want to see the person reponsible to be impeached on high treason charges and the maximum penalty imposed. This dangerous fruitcake in the oval office is no better than Benedict Arnold in that he betrayed America with lies in order to enrich himself and his political cronies, donors and friends. We need a revolution to boot this Carpetbagger and his henchmen out of office apparently.

Posted by: Deuces | December 24, 2005 4:49 PM | Report abuse

We have a government that engages in secret domestic spying by presidential decree; monitors personal library use; maintains secret prisons for unidentified prisoners held without recourse; engages in abusive treatment (if not torture) of prisoners; plants propaganda articles in domestic and foreign media; and formulates its domestic agenda based upon fundamentalist religious principles. It sounds more like governments that we are seeking to reform, and not the ideal we purport to represent.
Look for senator Brownback to carry on with this very pattern if he's elected, god forbid.
http://einkleinesblog.blogspot.com/

Posted by: jay lassiter | December 24, 2005 3:43 PM | Report abuse

dear god lou riggie, you and your O'Liely fan club need to stop flattering yourselves...kerry hurt himself by not going on the "factor", christ you guys f@cking love yourselves, i dont think he gave to shits about that show or its zombie like viewers...the man lost bc has been programmed to be a liberal elitist since he was a child...nuts from the right, i would put tom coburn from oklahoma on there

Posted by: bp | December 24, 2005 12:46 PM | Report abuse

What could be more irrelevant than whether Kansas borders Iowa? What is relevant is that Brownback would take his Bible Thumper view to the White House...the last thing the USA needs. He's another wing-nut who is akin to Patrick Henry in wishing for a theocracy. I think many in the USA are sick of self-righteous politicians who think they own the franchise on spiritual experience and values.

Posted by: bill | December 24, 2005 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Lou Riggio, you are a complete jacka$$. It's mindless leg-humpers like YOU that are causing the decline of the GOP. Chri$t, the election was frauded, er, decided over a year ago, and you still bring up John Kerry? Who gives a $hit? I'm surprised you didn't bring up Clinton in any way.
Oh, by the way, brown-nose, I'm a registered life-long Republican who has never voted for a Democrat, so you can take your automatic talking-point "librul" knee-jerk response and shove it up your arse. And, unlike YOUR president, I'm an ACTUAL Texan (not a Connecticut-born Howdy-Doody-hat-wearin' cokehead wannabe), so I was well-aware of Preznit Chimp's lack of actual morals, or hell, even political experience (there are more city mayors in this state with more experience for the U.S. Presidency than Chimpy McFlightSuit). People like you just really disgust me because you constantly parrot your prescribed daily talking points and fail to see any wrong in this complete utter failure "food on your family" joke of a misleader. Or, in the words of your "family values" vice-president:

GO FU¢K YOURSELF.

Posted by: F.T.G.O.P. | December 24, 2005 1:28 AM | Report abuse


My top ten right wing zealots in the US Senate, none who should ever be president.

10: Richard Shelby -Alabama
9: Bill Frist-Tennessee
8: Jim Cronyn-Texas
7: Jim Talent-Missouri
6: Thad Cochran-Mississippi
5: Mitch McConnell-Kentucky
4: Jim Thome-South Dakota
3: George Allen-Virginia
2: Sam Browback-Kansas
1: Rick Santorum-Pennslyvannia

Posted by: Nuts from the right | December 24, 2005 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Why should Republicans worry about a 50 state strategy when they've done quite well without one?

I don't see how Giuliani does at all well in the Republican primaries. He's like Lieberman was last year. It's Rudy-mentary. McCain and Hagel would have their work cut out for them reassuring the base that they're conservative enough. Brownback and Allen would certainly go into SC with the lead. I wouldn't write off Brownback more than I'd write off anyone else. Less than Giuliani, in fact.

How does a losing 2008 presidential run get Brownback out of politics when his current senatorial term doesn't expire until 2010?

Honestly, I'm no fan of Sam Brownback, but I don't understand why he's provoked such vitriol here. It seems like some of you have let your outrage get the best of you to the point of not even getting your facts straight.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 24, 2005 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Except for my earlier comments which come from experience with Sen. Brownback and his office, most of the others seem to be little more than vitriol and hatred.

Neither Pres. Bush nor Sen. Brownback may be perfect (like the critics, perhaps?), however let me remind the bomb-throwers that the former won in 2004, not Sen. Kerry who tried to portray himself as someone he wasn't.

(Perhaps Sen. Kerry would have won had he been content to be himself. Too late now! Also, he wouldn't go on the O'Reilly Factor, a major blunder. Like him or not, O'Reilly would have called the Senator on false posturing. Perhaps that's why he didn't go on, a real shame for him, his supporters and his otherwise real electoral hopes.)

So long as they're not completely fogged by propaganda, the American people will reject phonies, something Sen. Brownback and Pres. Bush definitely aren't, like 'em or not.

Finally, Sen. Brownback can't be Sen. McCain or vice-versa. These men are the genuine article but the American People want and deserve candidates true to themselves.

Posted by: Lou Riggio | December 23, 2005 10:23 PM | Report abuse

If he hopes to have a prayer, he best start soumding like McCain and/or Hagel and not one of the "three monkeys" who support Bush by seeing nothing, saying nothing, and hearing nothing.

Posted by: David Lafayette | December 23, 2005 10:03 PM | Report abuse

If he hopes to have a prayer, he best start soumding like McCain and/or Hagel and not one of the "three monkeys" who support Bush by seeing nothing, saying nothing, and hearing nothing.

Posted by: David Lafayette | December 23, 2005 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Traditional American values are things like freedom of speech, expression, personal freedom, liberty and justice for all, separation of church and state, etc., etc., etc.

Sam Brownshirt HATES every one of these traditional American values.

Posted by: Truthin | December 23, 2005 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Among other things, Sen. Brownback is attentive to visitors to his office, even when he's busy on the Senate Floor, an experience I've had. I don't know how he does it but he does.

His staff is excellent, too. Should he move to The White House, I'm confident he'll chose reliable and knowlegable individuals, not passé ideologues and party hacks.

Representing solid, traditional American values, he's the kind of experienced and down-to-earth person we need in The White House to succeed President Bush.

Posted by: Lou Riggio (lvr97@yahoo.com) | December 23, 2005 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Deuces, I couldn't agree with you more. Brownback is an idiot if he thinks that America is ready to vote for another Jesus freak. Well said.

Posted by: Marve | December 23, 2005 5:35 PM | Report abuse

I lived in the state of Kasas for over 14 years and having Senator Brownbeck represent Kansas has been an embarassment, as he does not call for one of the largest billion dollar industries in the United States to have proper regulations, an industry that is unpoliced and where people like himself take advantage of the situation daily. This is not someone I want in the White House let alone the ability to keep on acting like he represents me when he does not.

Posted by: Brandy | December 23, 2005 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Sam Brownshirt.

Posted by: Truthin | December 23, 2005 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Would born-agains vote en masse for a candidate who had been one of them and recently converted to Catholicism?

Posted by: Joy | December 23, 2005 5:06 PM | Report abuse

America has had it with the Republican party that has fractured the unity in this country. In sucking up to the pontificating, holier than thou, bible thumping, genuflecting, shove my bible down your throat, hypocrites they have alienated over half of the country. Who the hell wants some f--king Jesus Freaks like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tammy Faye, Jim Baker, and Barry Hind, telling us what to do. In ten years they'll have us genuflecting and doing the stations of the cross 5 times a day. They have shown America that they are a hateful, lawbreaking, conniving, lying, corrupt political party that has no sense of moral values even as they accuse everyone, as unpatriotic and immoral, that doesn't agree with their philosophy that's spouted each day on the conservative radios by the likes of jailbirds like Libby, drug addicts like Limbaugh, and greedy ministers like Robertson. President Numbskull has shown hisself to be illiterate, and who can't make decisions by himself. Look at the hidden radio receiver that he wore during the Presidential debate. Look at the way he froze for so may minutes when Bin Laden's Saudi Arabian terrorists hit the World Trade Center. He can't be questioned by himself. He can't attend any meetings with anyone that hasn't been prescreened and quesstioned to see if they are loyal supporters in order not to have to answer to any criticism and to project the lie that all agree with him. Dick Cheney, the Grinch who stole Christmas, couldn't go to the hurricaine ravaged gulf region in the U.S.A. after hurricaine Katrina, but he sure rushed back to the U.S. from the Middle East to cast the deciding vote that takes 39 billion dollars away from social programs that benefit millions of poverty stricken people while, at the same time, giving the the Republican buddies in the that run the big corporations 50 billion dollars in tax breaks under the guise of reducing the deficit. How can you reduce the deficit by cutting 39 billion dollars while giving the corporations 50 billion dollars? These Carpetbaggers have us owing the Chinese up to 5% of the U.S. economy. What all are the Chinese, Japanese, and the Saudi Arabians going to own when the IOU's are due? Why aren't the American people demanding that this administration be impeached? Why aren't we thinking of a revolution to take our country back from these bible thumping corporation loving Felons?

Posted by: Deuces | December 23, 2005 3:10 PM | Report abuse

The only good reason for Sam to run is to get him out of politics after he loses the race for the Presidency. My Mother always told me to never vote for someone who wants to be President so bad they would sell their soul. I won't be voting for Sam.

Posted by: deann | December 23, 2005 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Brownback does not have a CHANCE at getting the nomination ... there's McCain, Hagel, Guiliani, Romney, Allen of VA, and some more, ALL of whom are more electable than this total wrong-wing theocrat. It's too bad for Brownback because the Demos would easily win.

Posted by: clandestinesolvent | December 23, 2005 3:04 PM | Report abuse

One messiah president has been ennough. We can't afford another.

Posted by: Sandy | December 23, 2005 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, complaints about Chris' errors or grammar are kind of annoying because #1. They miss the point of the message, and #2. Would sacrifice the great daily political information because they prefer to delay the information in favor of spell check.

Posted by: Scott | December 23, 2005 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I see little value in a candidate such as Brownback. The man does very little and he offers no solutions to tough problems. He is very good at throwing stones and saying that there should be something done about a problem. His attack on abortions was that the economy would be stronger because of the larger work force we would have. No comment on erasing the present unemployment.

The fact that we have news writers and commentators who are not geographically inclined shows us that they really do not follow up on what they write.

Posted by: jerry | December 23, 2005 12:18 PM | Report abuse

The Fix and The Fix's editor will be enrolling in Geography 101 to make up for the Kansas borders Iowa error. Now, is Iowa considered a plains state???...

Posted by: washingtonpost.com | December 23, 2005 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are going to want to nominate someone who is palatable not just to the core primary voters but to the national party. After 8 years of Bush, the GOP is going to back a unifier, someone with a 50 state strategy. Brownback could feasibly win the nomination and lose the general election.

Posted by: F McLain | December 23, 2005 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Kansas does not border Iowa - not even close

Posted by: OJ Simpson | December 23, 2005 11:31 AM | Report abuse

When he ran in Kansas a few years back some questions came up about his father-in-law financing his campaign. Brownback, naturally, dodged a lot of those questions--mostly because he has the R after his name and he was running in Kansas. I hope the national press takes a good look at these issues again, because I would like to see more detail. The stories ran in the Kansas City Star

Posted by: jennifer | December 23, 2005 11:21 AM | Report abuse

As an Iowan and Midwesterner, I feel obliged to point out that Kansas does not border Iowa. Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Missouri all border Iowa. Kansas does not. That said, Sen. Brownback would have to do well in Iowa and then shift to South Carolina for a showdown with Sen. McCain.

Posted by: BGH | December 23, 2005 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Brownback repeatedly emphasized that he was running "to renew the society and renew the culture." Later in the interview, he said, "I think we have got to rebuild families in this country. I think we have to get a culture that's more civil, that's more uplifting and supportive of those families."

hmmm...changing the culture, that sounds a little bit like:

"Christians have a cultural mandate to control society."
-Pat Robertson

Dear God,
please do not allow this theocrat to sit in the Oval Office, but I wouldn't mind him running just to show how wacko and nazi oriented the religious right is...America would enter the darkest period of freedoms EVER...

Posted by: bp | December 23, 2005 10:09 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company