Brownback Makes Presidential Bid
by Richardson ~ January 21st, 2007. Filed under: America. 
This weekend Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) announced his entry into the 2008 presidential race. Brownback was the driving force behind the North Korea Human Rights Act of 2004 (PDF).
Over the same weekend, Hillary Clinton announced her bid for the White House. The headlines at CNN:
• Hillary Clinton: I’m in for ‘08
• Conservative Kansan starts White House run
Now why didn’t they say, “Liberal New Yorker” for Hillary? While that’s a mild example, the leftist bias of mainstream media has of course been know for years, even if denied from some in the media who are either blind to it or liars. At any rate, both Joshua of OneFreeKorea and USinKorea have very recent posts about such biases. Expect to see a lot more one-sided reports over the 22 months.
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:36 am
As much as I personally like Brownback (i even wrote him a fan-mail, telling him I’d vote for him for presidency after he pushed through the NKHRA) his chance of winning the presidential election is as likely as George W winning a 3rd term in office. People are going to say, “we are going from a failed neo-con to a moral majority right-winger.” He’s like a “idealized” version of George W Bush.
But I’d rather see Brownback winning the primary than McCain. I just can’t see a Republican victory, and I’d rather have the Republicans “save” McCain for a time when he can actually win.
It’s kinda sad that the Republicans have more leadership materials (including Giuliani and what could have been Powell), none of whom will win the election after the 8 year wake of George W’s bungling.
People say Democrats have no plan. But I think the voters just want to clean house.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Bias of course exists (8/10 US journalists are Dems) and I share your distaste for this habit, but in this case I see name recognition behind that headline choice.
Hillary is a household name and Brownback is relatively obscure, making “Kansas Conservative” a useful identifier.
“New York Liberal” might have readers asking “Which one among many?”
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:22 pm
@VW,
Brownback -might- be viable as a VP candidate. McCain/Brownback would beat, I think, Clinton/Obama, if it came to that.
@Slim,
Only 8/10? Seems like more… and I see your point, but:
…same with Kansas conservatives.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:22 am
McCain is taking the morally responsible stance on Iraq. But the American people have a track record of backing the wrong horse since 9-11. McCain will be punished for his stance. He also has a very practical stance on immigration issues. But again, his conservative constituents probably don’t like it. I think that issue divides Republicans more than Democrats. Then we figure that Hillary will have healthcare as her primary agenda, and people will probably find that refreshing.
McCain will become the fall guy for Bush’s 8 years if he runs. I hope he doesn’t do it, because although i vote almost always Democrat, he is good leadership material. Republicans probably would do better with Giuliani–but I just can’t see a gay rights champion winning a Republican primary. Giuliani-Brownback ticket? maybe… i doubt it…
January 28th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
VW,
This is not meant to be picky or negative….but perhaps your pretty much voting for the dems is the reason you can’t picture a gay rights champion winning the rep nomination.
With this last election, even though farther left big names have the leadership positions, the thought was that the dem election victory was guided by a Clintonian view of diving to the middle - that the election victories that gave the dems the majority (by with the Pelosi’s gained power) were actually more moderate dems.
I think the rep came to a similar conclusion about 10 years ago sometime around Newt Gingrich stepping down — that they could not win back the White House and keep the House and Senate if the Pat Robertsons of the party were setting the total agenda. I think whatever confidence some in rep party might have gained with Bush in the White House (confidence that a further right agenda could win the day) has been crushed by the latest election.
So, I think Giuliani is going to be the head of the ticket - because they believe he can win, he seems to have a public persona that can move people (and not just party loyalists), and he has a tough track record on crime and effectivley doing something about it - which might give the rep hope that he will make significant gains against global terrorism.
January 28th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
On the naming thing…
In one of the books by the reporter who wrote Bias, he writes about one of the top network anchors - I believe it was the guy at ABC - describing the scene in the House during the impeachment vote of Clinton.
The House has a lot of members - right —
—well, anyway —- as members were filing in to cast their votes, this anchor would mention some of the bigger names but ended up naming a good number.
If I remember correctly from the book —- not a single democrat had a label attached to their name. It was simply “Rep Blah Blah from Maine” - but just about every republican, if not every single one, he mentioned was introduced as “Conservative Rep Blah Blah from Iowa” or “Rep Blah Blad, a determined conservative from Texas” and so on.
What made that moment so telling was how long it was —– how many different people the guy named out loud as their images came onto the screen from the camera in the House —— how long the list was —- and how after so many names, you couldn’t help but notice that only conservatives were being labelled…
January 29th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
USinkorea, you are probably right about my view on Giuliani. If things keep going that way in GOPland, I might start voting Republicans.
I can’t complain in a race between a New York City Mayor versus New York Senator. I see them as being pretty much the same people. Although, I’ll probably vote for Hillary in that stand off just to see a woman president and also just to see what a Democrat Congress and Whitehouse will do in contrast to our past Republican Congress and Whitehouse.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
I couldn’t vote for Hillary, because she’s too much a politician for me, and her sticking with Clinton seemed to be just cold calculation. Perhaps a whole lot of marriges with big time politicians are like that, and I’m not a fan of politicians pretty much altogether, but she had hers thrust open for the world to see…
I’d give a nod to Giuliani, because he has shown a good track record of managing something big and difficult - New York City. I think there is a reason the US voters have favored governors over senators…
I also think his style, what we can judge from it, fits the international situation better that Hillary, and the US president has control over foreign policy, and we need someone like that.
If I had to cast a vote based solely on what little information I have right now —— however —— I’d vote for Condie Rice without a second thought.
I’d love to see a Hillary vs Rice race (and Rice winning)….
Anyway, Clinton should have shown the dems that going for the moderate voters was the way to go. I heard people say that is what led to the victory this past election, but if you look around at the crop that got the leadership positions, they surely aren’t in the same areana as whatever moderate dems won election last time.
The rep seemed to have learned in the mid-1990s that they had not been given a mandate to push too far away from the middle. They have toyed with sliding away, but it seems to me they have given enough attention to how Clinton won to keep them from getting too carried away.
I will be interested in seeing how Pelosi and the other big names for the dems in Congress interpret their mandate from the voters over the next year.
Picking Murtha showed they were alittle giddy - but she got a big smack down over that - and from a good number of people in the party….let’s see if that lesson sticks….
January 30th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
I couldn’t vote for Hillary b/c she wants to socialize medicine, for starters. That and I’m pretty much diametrically opposed to everything she’s for.
A McCain/Brownback or McCain/Rice ticket might make it. But Rice won’t run, as she’s said many times. It’d be nice if she changed her mind, but I doubt it.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Along the same lines, I’d never vote for – and would in fact work to counter – Obama:
I can argue with that on a case-by-case basis any time, and find it ironic that a book with “hope” in the title is his platform for logic. Leftist (a label I prefer to “liberal) ideals have done socialized Europe so very well (not). I’d say that leftists are more often for ideas that sound good but just don’t work:
Few yes, but almost all recent; South Korea, France (twice), Germany (from Hitler), etc. But maybe I’m just argumentative.
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:42 pm
One of the themes flowing through my head these days is how well the intelligencia in Western society have wiped away the meaning of the Allied victory in WWII and what has resulted from it….
Pretty impressive —- if you look back at what the alternatives were….
February 4th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Was bedeuten Sie? / 何を意味するか。