Thursday, October 18, 2007
Don't Play It At All, Sam
I interviewed Brownback a couple of times. He's always struck me as a decent, straightforward guy (though certainly more doctrinaire conservative than I). He was one of the few Republicans truly interested in foreign policy in areas other than the Middle East (and Mexico) -- notably, Africa. Unfortunately, he just didn't have the ability to turn his intellectual pursuits and basic decency into a compelling campaign message.
So it goes.
Labels: GOP 2008 President, Sam Brownback
Thursday, May 03, 2007
The Other "G"-Man
Giuliani gets credit for showing that he understood the basics of the Sunni-Shiite divide -- though it was clear that he was praying that there wasn't a follow-up! Some New Yorkers might have rolled their eyes in noting his response to the question about if he had any "regrets" with regard to his relations with blacks: He pointed in a rather halting manner to his reduction of crime and welfare. One can argue that crime and welfare culture have a proportionally greater affect on the black community. But, he seemed to shy away from saying that. The question goes directly to the perception of his creating a climate that led to police shootings of unarmed black men. It's not an easy question to answer, but it's something he should have figured out how to answer by now.
Gilmore also gets kudos for standing up for the right of federal prosecutors to indict someone on perjury if that person lies to a grand jury in the middle of an investigation. That was the correct response to the question about whether Scooter Libby should be pardoned. Half the respondents fell over themselves (Romney in the lead) to denounce the idea that Patrick Fitzgerald shouldn't have continued his investigation once he found out who the "leaker" was in the Valerie Plame saga. As if that gave Libby license to lie when Fitzgerald did ask him questions.
Of all the former governors there (including Romney, Huckabee and Thompson), Gilmore came across as the most "real." And I say that as someone who was more favorably disposed toward Huckabee coming in. Huckabee did manage to steal some of Brownback's territory on the "life" issue. However, he seemed to want to be the most-left candidate economically by coming out against excessive CEO pay and raiding of pensions. Huckabee's line about "not giving a letter grade in the middle of a test" with respect to the Iraq War was corny -- but, given the question, was a really on-point improvised answer.
Brownback, the avowed pro-lifer, also got some good "moderate" credits by saying that he could support a pro-choice GOP presidential candidate -- and for mentioning his support for issues in Africa.
Romney is a very good-looking guy and he "looks" presidential. But he didn't blow me away with anything tonight. His assertion that he became pro-life after he "studied" the issue (which just happened to be the time when he was "studying" the idea of running for president) still sounds as plastic to me as it did when I first heard it. Others can disagree, but that's how I feel. Romney, however, did make the clearest -- and, for me -- most correct answer on the Terri Schiavo question. On the other hand, he gets major demerits for making the already-difficult-to-understand stem-cell issue even more incomprehensible (something about "nuking" something).
John McCain often seemed hesitant and off his step. In 2000, his laugh lines sounded vibrant and off-the-cuff (even after he had said them countless times). Tonight, they sounded very canned. Yes, he made it clear that he was the "warrior candidate." However, it was ironic: While bashing Bush's handling of the war, the maverick has adopted the establishment White House's talking points: "We have a new general; we have a plan." McCain gets kudos for managing to shoe-horn the issue of judges in at the end of the debate. However, his "The first pork-barrel earmark spending bill that crosses my desk I'll veto." Right, as any Congress will introduce a bill called the Pork-Barrel Earmark Act of 2009.
Ron Paul's best line was that he was in the line of Eisenhower and Nixon trying to get America out of difficult, poorly-run wars. Unfortunately, that was probably his high point. I cheered him occasionally for his purist libertarian comments ("We don't need a national ID card."), but he said nothing that actually made one say, "Hmmm...maybe this guy isn't a fringe candidate.
Three out of ten Republican presidential candidates don't believe in evolution (Brownback, Tancredo and
Matthews' Bill Clinton question at the end was an embarassment ("Do you want Bill Clinton back in the White House?"). The obvious answer was the one everybody gave -- "No, because it would mean that Hillary Clinton was president." What else would a GOP presidential candidate say? But that wasn't what Matthews was getting at. He was making a Monica reference without actually saying it. So, he comes across as the giggly Catholic schoolboy who feels the need to make a smarmy reference -- but just wants to hint at it and let other people make the smarm explicit. Pathetic.
UPDATE: Peggy Noonan's take: "Mitt Romney won, Rudy Giuliani lost, and John McCain is still in."
Labels: GOP 2008 President, Jim Gilmore, Mitt Romney, Republican presidential debate, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Senator John McCain
Monday, April 16, 2007
Alarming Thanks
Much thanks, Karol.
With a very busy Monday (following a crazy weekend), it's light posting (pending a special essay and the Attorney General pile-on tomorrow).
Here, however, is a great post from Karol's guest blogger John Budnick on one of my favorite candidates in the GOP presidential field, Sam Brownback, whom I respect for many of the personal qualities that John discusses.
Enjoy.
UPDATE: A Dawn Summers review of Sunday's show!
Labels: GOP 2008 President, Karol Sheinin, Sam Brownback
Saturday, January 20, 2007
The Lady Is A...
So, in less than a week, two historic races for the highest office in the land have been launched. The first woman president or the first black president?
The lady -- or the tiger?
Or when all is said and done, will Democrats opt for the safer -- yet, rather good-looking, relatively young white male (who might fare well in contrast with a GOP candidate who looks like he came in from central casting)?
Or finally, at the end of the day, will the American public just say, "History can wait: Who's the best person, whether man, woman, black or Martian to lead the country in uncertain times?"
By the way, it's easy to see exactly how much oxygen Hillary and Obama suck out of the atmosphere: Yesterday, a certain individual announced his own presidential exploratory committee: In other circumstances , he would be considered to have perfect credentials to run -- and win the Democratic nomination president: He's a governor of a Southwestern "purple" state; accomplished in both official and unofficial foreign diplomacy; he's of Latino heritage.
But what -- i.e. who -- is everyone talking about today? Who will everyone be talking about tomorrow? It won't be the governor of New Mexico. It won't be the senator from Kansas (though those two gentlemen may be able to use previously-scheduled "This Week" interviews to help soak in some reflected media rays).
Labels: Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Democratic 2008 Presidential, GOP 2008 President, Hillary Clinton, Sam Brownback
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Brownback On Iraq
Consider it reflections of an Iraq hawk (with italicized emphases added).We all wish the situation was better, but I am particularly disappointed. I’ve had a long-term interest in Iraq. When I first served in the United States Senate, first came to the Senate in 1996, I served on the Foreign Relations Committee and chaired the Middle East subcommittee that held some of the first hearings on what to do about Saddam Hussein’s regime.
I carried the Iraq Liberation Act on the floor of the Senate that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, I helped get the initial $100 million for the Iraqi National Congress top help organize the opposition to Saddam Hussein.
I attended the first INC meeting, the Iraqi National Congress meeting, with Senator Bob Kerry of Nebraska, and we both went to New York City to meet with the opposition about what to do about Saddam Hussein. I attended the first INC meeting in London. I have been committed to a free, safe and secure Iraq from the very beginning.
But during my meetings last week I found less reason for optimism. Sunni leaders blame everything on the Shi'a. Shi'a leaders, likewise, blame everything on the Sunnis. The Kurdish leadership pointed out that the Sunni and Shi'a only meet when the Kurds call the meeting.
All of this suggests that at the present time, the United States cares more about a peaceful Iraq than the Iraqis do. If that is the case, it is difficult to understand why more U.S. troops would make a difference.
One other bright spot I would talk about during my time in Iraq, as I previously noted, was my visit to the northern part of the country, the Kurdish region. Here, the security situation is stable and business is booming. Some number of people are moving out of Iraq, moving into the northern Iraq into the Kurdish region.
Kurds are demonstrating what is possible for the rest of Iraq when the violence recedes. Kurds are pragmatic; they are worried about committing Kurdish forces to Baghdad. I even asked Brazani, would he commit Kurdish forces for the peace in Baghdad? He declined to do so at that time, of actual Kurdish forces. They don’t want to get caught in the middle of the sectarian fight. If Iraqi Kurds feel this way, why should we feel any different?
Simply put, the Iraqis have to resolve these sectarian differences; we cannot do it for them. This does not mean we should pull out of Iraq and leave behind a security vacuum or a safe haven for terrorists. I do not support that alternative.
It does mean that there must be bipartisan agreement for our military commitment on Iraq. We cannot fight a war with the support of only one political party. And it does mean that the parties in Iraq--Sunni, Shi’a and Kurds--must get to a political agreement, to a political equilibrium.
I think most people agree that a cut and run strategy does not serve our interest at all, nor those of the world, nor those of the region, nor those of the Iraqi people. So I invite my colleagues, all around, particularly on the other side of the aisle, to indicate what level of commitment they can support.
We need to come together in Congress and as a nation on a strategy that will make real progress in Iraq and gain as much support as possible from the American people. Only a broadly supported, bipartisan strategy will allow us to remain in Iraq for the length of time necessary to ensure regional stability and the defeat the terrorists. And that is our object.
UPDATE: After a visit, another GOP Senator expresses skepticism over Iraq, given the refusal of government to address Shiite militia. But, wait!! Prime Minister Maliki announces a round-up of 400 of the Sh'ia usual suspects.
Labels: GOP 2008 President, Iraq, Sam Brownback
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Sam's Club
That's also Brownback quintessential group -- conservative on all the major social issues, but with the added twist that he happens to be a converted Catholic and has a serious interest in African disease and poverty.
His take on these issues -- and reflecting the growing anti-war sensibilities of the evangelicals --makes him an immediate threat to Mitt Romney AND John McCain.
Interesting.
Labels: GOP 2008 President, Sam Brownback
