Posted on 01/21/2007 3:08:26 AM PST by wai-ming
What do you think?
Is Brownback a viable candidate? What are his chances of winning?
Zero.
He is maneuvering himself into the evangelical middle by being pro-life and not wanting to be seen as too militaristic and too hostile to illegal immigration.
He seems to be in the same pond as Huckabee from Arkansas who has the advantage of being an ex-governor.
I still see outsiders (governors, mayors) as preferred candidates over senators-congressman who are part of the problem. Voters seem to prefer govs over senators-incumbents in recent presidential elections.
Nil.
The media has this all set up, these are the canadiates they are going to give postitve coverage:
Hillary
Obama
McCain
and Rudy
those are the choices we will be given.
Remember how the media built up and then destroyed Howard Dean?
They are still very powerful.
nada...
Lets put it the logical way if you oppose the President taking action against the greatest threat of our generation. Then in fact you side with the Democrats who are only opposing Bush because he is a Republican and have made the GWOT a Partisan political battle.. so in fact it makes you a RINO... So that is exactly what Brownback is.
Sam Browneye is a sacrificial lamb. As Morris has said, the base is too stupid to nominate a real candidate such as Giuliani, so a "minor league" putz with no chance will likely get the nod and give Hillary a 15 pt win.
Who?
Don't like his stance on illegal immigration. At all.
He's just Bush all over again. Maybe worse.
I'm really tired of the complete absense of Republican candidates who are both fiscally and socially conservative.
You'd think these were the people who would pursue politics, but it hasn't been the case. There couldn't be a bigger disconnect between the American people and our leaders as there is on this issue.
Brownback is also part of the Stalinist wing of the Republican party: a big government nanny-stater.
None.
Brownback rhymes too closely with Wetback.
That was my first thought, no other reason.
He talks tough on spending and has voted for some substantial cuts.
But there are examples to the contrary, too. He's more fiscally conservative than a lot of very strong social conservatives, but I'd like to see him stronger in that department, too.
Zero seems a little high to me.
The MSM knows that in order to win, either Hillary or Obama needs to have a fractionalized Republican electoral base come November, 2008.
What are his chances? Slim to none. The only issue he might be trusted on is pro-life.
Very poor.
No. And here's why:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1765606/posts
So far that looks to be a pretty solid bet to happen. We have so far no candidates without glaring vote-repellers in their makeups.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.