It’s got to sting a little for Sen. Sam Brownback — news that fellow Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts made a pitch to business types in Washington, D.C., this week on behalf of Sen. John McCain’s likely presidential candidacy. Roberts later said he’s “not endorsing anyone at this time” and noted that “a Kansas favorite son” was among potential GOP candidates. But it does make you wonder what Roberts really thinks of Brownback’s bid. No Kansan has been better positioned to assess Brownback’s 10-year service as a senator.
Meanwhile, when Luntz Research Companies asked voter focus groups in Iowa and New Hampshire last summer about 2008 presidential contenders, participants found Sen. Sam Brownback to be “clean-cut, honest and clear about where he stands” but a bit too “soft-spoken” and “passive.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
38 Comments
Roberts just realizes that Sam doesn’t stand a chance in hades.
I’m not so sure a Roberts endorsement would be a good thing.
Rhonda finally got one thing right., when she said no Kansan (probably no one) has been in a better position to assess Brownback’s 10-year service. Robert’s might not be the brightest candle in the chandelier of life, but the late, great Ray Charles could “see” what a flim flam man Brownback is. Besides, Brownback will not suffer for endorsements. Phredd Phelps, David Duke, Jerry Falwell, Phillkline, Terry Wood, Pat Roberson and Bill O’Reilly, just to name a few, have said privately they’re just “waiting until the time is Right”.
Over the years, the two senators have been on civil, but scarcely cordial terms in D.C. Their staffs have often barely gotten along at all. These are very different guys, and McCain’s earthy conservatism is a lot more like Roberts’ style than Sam’s religious brand. I don’t think it’s too big a deal, but it is telling that Sam can’t get his very conservative colleague to go along.
This is similar to Gore not carrying Tennesee in 2000. Pretty bad when you can’t even have your fellow Senator backing you when you run for President.
I think this is just a sample of the kind of trouble the GOP is in right now. Maybe Brownback will drop out of the GOP and run as an independent. That would assure a victory for the Democrats for sure.
Sunny: Hmmmmmm. Interesting thought. Brownback drops out of the GOP, and becomes an “independent something or other” ! Talk about a win/win situation for BOTH sides. I bet we can really drum up a hell of a lot of bi-partisan support for that plan!
Any Liberal should hope and pray that Brownback is the GOP candidate for president.
Brownback – Republican Candidate for President in 2008 = Democratic Landslide.
Amen to that, Spyder.
But Sunny’s point is well taken. The whacko religious right Republicans would split the GOP assuring that whoever the Democrats run will have a walk in the park. Even Billary, God forbid.
I agree that Hillary would not be good for the country. I think she is a strong and smart woman but she is way too polarizing. We have had 12 years of deep division in the country and I don’t thinkk the country could take too much more of this partisan bickering about all the fringe stuff that really doesn’t matter.
The US is in a war in Iraq and we need to find some way to resolve that and ASAP. We dont’ need more infighting about social issues such as gay marriage or abortion taking all our time.
That being said, I don’t hold my breath for any changes coming from the Congress – unless we get some new blood in there.
McCain has already agreed to sell out the American public and side with Bush’s illegal occupation of Iraq in exchange for access to Bush’s campaign donors. Previous donors to Bush’s campaign who ran extremely negative ads against McCain are already throwing money at his feet. Roberts is just another gutless wonder who will goosestep in line behind the guy with the best chances to win and the most money. Roberts knows that the Republican party rewards loyalty (not competence) so by kissing McCain’s ass Roberts can get in good with the next administration.
McCain lost any credibility when he caved in to Bush over the Torture Bill. He sold out in order to stay in favor with the Neocon element. To add to his problems, he will be 72 in November of 2008 and has a history of skin cancer.
If the Republicans want to have any chance at all, they will go with a moderate like Hagel.
Regardless of who the Repub’s choose, they will likely lose after eight years of the Bush Disaster. The American voter is going to be desperate for a change of course.
Hillary would probably win narrowly, but Obama would kick some serious conservative butt.
If Olympia Snowe ran on the Republican ticket that would ensure a Republican victory. Hagel is also a good choice. John McCave has no credibility and is just another Bush lapdog.
Doug,
Mc Cain has signed up some pretty big names to do fund raising for him.http://www.nysun.com/article/45277
McCain has signed on to the cover-up Roberts has been carrying out for Bush. Hopefully the facts about Bush’s elective will come out and BOTH of them will be destroyed along with Bush.
John McCain, all other things aside, is a true American Hero, loyal to the Commander-in-Chief. Let us not forget that. Presidential timber, probably not, for several reasons.
John McCain is an American hero that served with distinction, but loyalty to the Commander In Chief is not his job at this point. The American military is under civilian control for obvious reasons. McCain’s job at this point is to serve the American interest and that means getting us out of the Bush Disaster in Iraq as quickly as possible with the least damage to our military and national interests as possible.
WS: Agreed, without question.
Why would Roberts support someone’s presidential bid just because he is from the same state? Pat Roberts can choose to support anyone he wants.
Absolutely no significance at all to his support for McCain as it would apply to Brownback. But McCain is just too old and familiar. Republicans need a fresh face.
The voters are so tired to the same old corrupted politicians that any new face will look like a breath of fresh air. That’s why I think Barack Obama would do well with many of the moderates of both parties and independent voters. But, of course, the Democratic Party will have to run Hillary by default of the money.
But talk to the average voters and the topic of too much money in campaigning will turn them off real quick. So just because Hillary and John McCain have all the donor money sewed up – does not mean diddly squat when it comes to the swings voters.
I hate to say it, Sunny, but I’m afraid that the botoom line will be (again) the best President that money can buy. I just pray it’s “anybody but Billary”!
As a died in the wool liberal, and therefore by default, a Democratic voted, I have to hope that Hillary does not run or make a poor showing in the early primaries.
If she is the nominee, she will get my vote, but I have to hope for new blood, a fresh set of ideas and less partisan divide.
Personally, I am sick of Clinton bash – Bush bash festivals. Maybe I am naive, but I have to think that our issues are greater now than they have been since the end of the Second World War, and we need to be united.
Bush, despite his claims, could never be a uniter. His version of nonpartisanship seems to be “shut up and do what I say.”
Clinton, for no good reason except perhaps jealousy, seems to bring out the worst in the opposition party.
It is my hope that Barack Obama is different enough, a break from the past, to unite the country to move us forward.
I don’t see anyone out there at this point that could do that with the exception of Obama.
rm,I think you are right. I haven’t been excited about anyone in either party for a long time until now. One thing I don’t understand though is all this venom about Hilary!! She has actually been able to stand on her own and has been very successful. Listening to some of you guys you would think she is Medusa. Is there any woman that you men would let be president? We certainly couldn’t screw it upany worse than you men have done!! Even third world countries have elected women to run their country. Just think about it.
Roberts will support whoever KKKarl Rove and the other string pullers tell him to . . .
No, Brenda, I have no problem with a woman as President (or Vice-President, for that matter). And, I do not think that a woman could screw it up any worse than we men have … by any means. But, Billary and Pelosi are not the role models. Political women I admire include Barbara Jordan and Margaret Chase Smith. Given the opportunity and the times, I would have voted for either of them for President and they would have done a hell of a lot better than what the men did, I believe.
I am not going to get into a “pissing contest” about Billary, or we’ll be here all night. Simply put, I think she’s a fraud and a carpetbagger, at best, and her husband is a flim-flam man, who, like Bob Knight, Algore, and Phillkline’s ambitions have been to live off the public teat their entire lives.
Show me a viable candidate from either party, male or female, black or white, gay or straight, who has your and my best interests at heart and I’ll walk, hand and hand with you, supporting them. Fair enough?
Thank you for your very intelligent response and question. I hope I have answered it to your satisfaction. If not, please let me know, and we’ll go from here.
Capn: As a Republican (hisssssss!!!) and a long time Texan (boooisssss), I wish with all of political heart, that Bush had dumped Rove 30 years ago. You’re right, he’s a fucking Nazi dressed up like a Texan!
As a military wife who left Kansas several years ago to support my husband as he fights for our country, I am sick to see the state that I grew up in hijacked by so many anti-military, anti-American, anti-conservative liberals. Do you really think that Kofi Annan with his corrupt agenda and criminal son would do a better job at leading the free world than Sam Brownback? This is a Kansas son you people are bashing…If the Democratic party was not all about taking Christianity out of hearts and minds of Americans, killing babies at the whim of a woman, and ruining the traditional family, while calling those who would preserve it prejudice, then maybe I could take some of you seriously. I think you need a lot more instructions on how to be loyal and faithful Americans. A few more lessons on being thankful for the blood that was shed to allow you to print this garbage wouldn’t have hurt either.
Brownback’s a loser – he doesn’t represent Kansans; he represents the “interests of Sam Brownback.” He is a disgrace to Kansas.
Hey “navy wife”?
You said:
“I think you need a lot more instructions on how to be loyal and faithful Americans.”
Thanks dearie but part of BEING a “loyal and faithful American” is NOT accepting and in fact FIGHTING instruction to same.Thanks for your husbands service for me to get you straight in matters of freedom as opposed to dogma!
Thank you for posting that Navy wife.Anyone else wants to take the tone of JR you are doing the same as this woman imho.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1750677/posts
Oooo Kia you are losing credibility points.
What? Because “navy wife” SAYS she is who she says she is I have to give her a pass? I have to let her post stand unanswered? If I do otherwise I am spitting in the face of soldiers?
Is that what her husband is fighting for?
Bad form Kia. You are getting smaller.
As I see it you have some kind of superiority complex it sounds like. You have a way of posting in which you have to belittle those whose opinions differ from yours to somehow validate your own.
In the case of those either in or with relatives in the military who feel you are being disrespectful, I would expect a simple Thank You would be appropriate.
“Anyone else wants to take the tone of JR you are doing the same as this woman imho.”
Nonsense, KIA. First of all, any link to Free Republic has to be suspect. Secondly, those on the left can support the troops and be loyal Americans without towing the Neocon line.
It may come as a big surprise to the folks on the far right, but this is our country also. The nation is nearly evenly divided between left and right. That does not given permission to the reich-wing to tell the rest of us how to think and live. Our opinions carry as much weight as anyone else’s.
Being married to a serviceman does not carry the authority to bash those that disagree with the direction of our nation. The fact of the matter is that over fifty percent of the population supports a woman’s right to choose, supports tolerance of gay rights (except traditional marriage), and disapproves of the current administration and the War on Iraq.
Given those facts, it would seem that those of us on left are more mainstream than most on the right.
NavyWife–
You apparently mean by “supporting the troops”getting them mired in a no-win quagmire in Iraq.
“I for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supportring a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore” Sen. Gordon Smith – R-ORThe New York Times – Dec. 11, ‘06
Sorry, Navy Wife, my LIBERAL definition of “supporting the troops” means not killing them for nothing . . .
It was your post and your link Kia.
So a difference in opinion with the presumed wife of a service person = spitting in service peoples faces? Now I grant you “navy wife” had set the tone with “her”
“I think you need a lot more instructions on how to be loyal and faithful Americans.”
But you are REALLY reaching.
According to Navy Wife and KIA, COLIN POWELL needs lessons in how to be a “loyal and faithful American.”
QUOTE from an AP article–
Asked if victory was possible, Powell said, “If victory means you have gotten rid of every insurgent, you have peace throughout the country, I don’t see that in the cards right now. What we are going to have to do is try to bring a sense of order and security to the country, even if there continues to be low-level violence and insurgency.”
Victory, he added, “is not in the hands of the American government or the American president. Victory, to be achieved or not to be achieved, as I have just defined it, is increasingly in the hands of the Iraqi leadership.
“If they can’t pull it off, if they can’t demonstrate the political will and means to go after the militias, to create a military force that is answerable and confident in the government, and to root out the corruption that exists in the police forces — if they are unable to do that, the United States is not going to be able to do it for them.”
General Powell? That’s what the anti-war crowd was shouting from the rooftops since before you trumped up your case to invade.
Thanks for finally admitting we were right all along . . . and thanks to Bush policy, 3000 soldiers have died for nothing.
Navy Wife – I am sorry if you get upset by those of us patriotic Americans who believe that our country could be doing better than it is and that the leadership of the country we love is screwing things up horribly. However, a true patriot speaks up when his country is being hurt by corrupt leadership. And, as has been noted by so many, that IS the case today.
Also, there is nothing “anti-military” in questioning the wisdom of non-military leaders who launched this mis-adventure. THEY are the anti-military ones; THEY deliberately ignored the advice they received from those who had military experience.