Posted on 10/14/2005 7:29:26 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
Manchester, NH: After testing his (2008 Presidential) stump speech Tuesday night, Senator Sam Brownback rose early on Wednesday for a tour of the cavernous chapel and regimental dining hall used by the 30 remaining monks of St. Anselm's abbey.
Mr. Brownback, an evangelical Protestant turned Roman Catholic from Kansas who attends two services in the two faiths each Sunday is contemplating a big bet in resurgence of traditonalist faith.
He came here to asses the potential for a Republican presidential primary campaign centered on opposition to abortion and support for God in public life, while back in Washington his current role as the Republican most publicly questioning the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers is becoming the first big test of his long shot campaign.
That is not stopping Mr. Brownback from bringing up Ms. Miers nomination in his first steps to the campaign trail.
When he was a guest lecturer at a St. Anslem class on Wednesday, a student asked the 'one thing' he would have done differently if he had been in the White House the past five years.
Other primary contenders have staked out critiques of the Iraq War or the budget deficit, but Mr. Brownback's answer was President Bush's second nomination for the court.
With Ms. Miers, Brownback said 'we just don't know her background on judicial restraint and the constitution.'
The premise of his ambition is that the country has 're-engaged' in faith in a historic revival. He hopes that a combination of a humble earnest style and broader focus on humanitarian issues with enable him to capitalize on the revival more effictively than predecessors Pat Robertson or John Ashcroft.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The worst the pro-Miers folks can offer at Sam is to cut his fundraising to potential donors in NH or Iowa, but I don't see a groundswell in the party to make that happen yet.
Do you know for sure that he is going to vote that way?
If Brownback plans to run for President he will pay little attention to a tiny minority howling in the wilderness which could not get 10% of the votes if their beliefs were to be voted on. He is not going to ally himself with those attacking the President on every front.
Nor is he going to attack the nominee without cause. To do so would indicate that he does not have the Right STuff to be President.
Maybe someday people will wake up and realize that to be elected you must appeal to more than a minority of FR. We do not speak for the nation as a whole.
I would wager that not only will Brownback vote for Miers but so will EVERY GOP Senator. Her only opposition will come from the hard Left.
I'll never understand why people talk about political views as if they are a constant. Good leaders like Ronald Reagan explained their ideas to the public and changed public opinion to meet their philosophy. Bad leaders mold their ideas to meet what they perceive as public opinion.
"He came here to asses the potential for a Republican presidential primary campaign centered on opposition to abortion and support for God in public life..."
That's a pretty narrow platform... What else has he got? Anything on reducing the budget and trade deficits, keeping jobs here in the US, welfare reform, illegal immigration, or cutting the pork out of federal spending? Guess I'll have to wait and see. 2008 will be here before you know it.
Bush pays no attention to the polls approval or disapproval. He does what he thinks is best and does not lose a minute of sleep about it. That is one of the reasons I admire him.
"If he backstabs on Miers he is done and he knows it. The party, not the Media, nominates in 2008."
These two sentences speak volumes.
100% of us want the Constitution to work. The Constitution allows her to step down, for Bush to withdraw the nomination, for her to stay for a hearing, for Senators to vote for or against her... What part of the constitution do you feel we aren't respecting?
Better performace on immigration issues...check! Reduced Government spending...check! Getting rid of judicial activitism....check!
Winning issues for the next 40-50 years, IMO
The President nominates (without the approval of anyone) the Senate Advises and consents/rejects. The consultations which have already happened are part of the Advising. There simply is not a place for public opinion in this though contacting Senators is certainly constitutional. But in the Founders' original version in which the Senate was not elected there was really no role for public input.
I have no idea what Andy Card thinks so that is a red herring but have no doubt that he is much closer to the President's thinking than the fringe of FR. And both are closer to the typical American.
You ignore the fact that not even 50% of the voters voted for Bush. He barely won since I can't see a less than 2% margin being a huge landslide. We still have to deal with the majority of the voters who did not vote for Bush (the RAT voters and those who did not vote). They are still citizens and the government is still their government not just ours.
Bush has increased border apprehensions and deportations whether it is enough for you or not. But there again only THREE states allow its police forces to arrest for being an illegal. THREE. Hence where is this overwhelming support for restricting the border? I don't know of any major cities which allow its police to arrest. And states and localities are presumed to be closer to the People than the feds. Yet they won't even cooperate with the feds.
There is no overwhelming demand for reduced government spending either since the GOP has campaigned for this and barely won. FR is NOT the USA and our opinions are not those of the majority.
As for judicial activism you can't even trust the President so who could you trust? Ann Coulter (who suggested nominating a kid still in law school to the Court)? I don't see anyone who should be trusted more than the President whom you are mad at.
Same thing with Janice Rodgers Brown, a principled 'nuclear' showdown over her nomination could be helpful in the long term.
Maybe he should show some backbone and pick one, instead of straddling the fence. Why else did he "convert?"
This loser has zero chance of making the slightest ripple in 2008.
Unless you are Pat Toomey running against Snarlin' Arlen in Pennsylvania. Wake up, son. The GOP is still largely "unchurched" on the national level.
Brownback and his 99 colleagues all think they should be President. IMHO none of them are qualified. Mostly blowhards and media whores with a more than a few bigots, killers, thieves, plagiarists, liars and snakes thrown in. There is none of them that I would vote for as President and damn few I would vote to retain in office.
I'm sorry, I think you mean to say Bush backstabbed the members of his Party with the Harriet Miers nomination.
He gave a heck of a great speech at the convertion last year, but there will be frost warnings in hell before I support him for President.
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.