Blogs 4 Brownback

August 14, 2007

Sam Brownback: Governors Are No Good

Filed under: Election 2008,Sam Brownback — Psycheout @ 11:35 am

Sam BrownbackSam Brownback is in New Hampshire today and contrasted himself with his rivals.

Sen. Sam Brownback on Tuesday jabbed at President Bush and two Republican rivals, saying the presidency isn’t a foreign policy classroom.

Brownback, a former chairman of the Senate’s foreign relations committee, was referring to former Republican governors Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. In the process, he also took a jab at the man they all seek to replace, former Texas Gov. George W. Bush.

Here’s what he said:

“I really believe this next president needs to go in with knowledge on foreign policy and not learn it on the job,” said the Kansas senator, a vocal activist against the genocide in Darfur. “We have a tendency to elect governors as president because people like executive experience. I don’t have any problem with that. The problem is most governors don’t have foreign policy experience.”

Sam makes a very good point here. It is conventional wisdom that Governors, not Senators are more likely to become President. But take a look at the top Dems: Clinton, Senator; Obama: Senator. Executive experience isn’t the only measure. Remember Bill Clinton? He was a Governor from Arkansas. So was Huckabee. Do we really want another Clinton? We’d certainly have one if we accept Mittens: he’s known as Slick Romney for a reason. He’s as slippery as Bill Clinton. No thanks.

Unlike former Governors, Sam Brownback, as a former chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, understands foriegn policy.

Brownback also repeated his strategy to fight terrorism. He would employ an approach similar to the U.S. policy of containment toward communism during the last century to deal with this century’s “long-term battle that we’re in right now with militant Islamists.”

Like President Clinton before him, a President Mittens would stick his finger in the air and say what he thinks people want to hear. He seems to have no actual positions of his own. Another poll-directed focus-grouped President? No thanks.

Sam Brownback on his appeal and approach:

“I think the message I’m putting forward resonates. It’s a bit of a different message. I confess that to you, it’s a bit of a different one,” he said. “When people hear this, people think about it a little while. What I found in Iowa, as people thought about it, they thought, ’That’s what I think, too.’”

Sam’s strong third place showing in the Iowa straw poll should give him a decent boost in New Hampshire, the “first-in-the-nation primary state.”

“We’re building a grassroots campaign. I am not an overly funded candidate,” he said after his talk. “We just finished third in the Iowa straw poll. That’s a ticket on forward _ third out of 11, we’re there.”

There’s a lot of work ahead. Let’s hope that Senator Brownback and fellow Brownbackers are up to the task.

— Psycheout

7 Comments »

  1. “Do we really want another Clinton?”

    Another Bill Clinton? The president who gave up the longest period of peacetime economic growth ever? And a balanced budget with federal surplus? Yeah, sounds good to me.

    Comment by Salmo — August 14, 2007 @ 12:04 pm | Reply

  2. Brownback also repeated his strategy to fight terrorism. He would employ an approach similar to the U.S. policy of containment toward communism during the last century to deal with this century’s “long-term battle that we’re in right now with militant Islamists.”

    Problem: There are no countries that can be absolutely clearly identified to be pro-jihad (I won´t use the term terror. A war against a tactic (and that´s what terrorism is) is not possible, only one against a vertain group or ideology.) unlike in the Cold War, where the Eastern Block made a fine, visible target.

    There are lots of countries with (possible) jihadis today but almost none are run by them. In most countries they don´t even have any influence on the government while still being there.

    It seems like Sam has still not grasped the fact that a global movement like militant islamists are can not be pinpointed to a single location, country or even continent. A strategy of containment, though, isn´t possible without the target being located mainly in one place. It´s bound to fail.

    Sam’s strong third place showing in the Iowa straw poll should give him a decent boost in New Hampshire, the “first-in-the-nation primary state.”

    He pumped in the 2nd most money and finished 3rd. Actually an embarrassment.

    Comment by PG — August 14, 2007 @ 1:00 pm | Reply

  3. Piece of advice to Brownback — start telling voters what you could better and quit the sniping at other candidates. You win elections by giving people a reason to vote for you. Sniping is a bad habit and going after Governors is not going to win votes. A Senator is one of 100 with no real Executive experience so give voters a reason to vote for a Senator.

    Comment by Samantha — August 14, 2007 @ 3:29 pm | Reply

  4. I really believe this next president needs to go in with knowledge on foreign policy and not learn it on the job,” said the Kansas senator, a vocal activist against the genocide in Darfur.

    God bless that man for being so vocal about Darfur. It’s not the sexy cause du jour like environmentalism, and it’s not likely to garner him a ton of votes from any particular special interest group. There is no real political benefit to him being vocal about Darfur, which means that it’s sincere. And he’s right — right now, our foreign policy is a mishmash, and has been influenced too heavily by domestic and partisan political agendas. We desperately need a president who can understand the complexities of foreign policy, particularly in this day and age.

    Comment by Lyssie — August 14, 2007 @ 4:34 pm | Reply

  5. Dear Senator Brownback,

    If you are truly pro life you must now bow out of the race for president. The recent Ames straw poll clearly shows two things:

    1) The conservative, Christian, pro-life vote does not support Romney. Combined, your support and Governor Huckabee’s support in the poll was greater than Romney’s. The voters have spoken. It is time for the pro-life vote to coalece behind the one candidate who can carry the pro-life message effectively forward.

    2) Continuing your campaign will only continue to divide the conservative, Christian, pro-life constituency and will only contiue to prop up Mitt Romney’s false status as a “front-runner.” You know that Romney is not truly pro-life and that his candidacy is a danger to the very principles you stand so admirably for.

    Rich Lowry of National Review Online agrees, saying that continuing your campaign in the wake of the straw poll “might end up hurting the pro-life cause.”

    According to Lowry, continuing your campaign hurts the man pro-life voters want and, “in practical terms for pro-lifers, [your] campaign is balanced somewhere between pointless and counter-productive.”

    And, devastatingly, Lowry goes further: “the truth is that the Brownback presidential campaign is doing the senator’s moral cause no favors. If anything… his cause is being hurt by the association.”

    Senator, you are a great man and respected leader whom I admire tremendously. It is time for you to demonstrate that leadership and your committment to protecting the unborn by making a very unselfish decison — you must continue the important work of promoting the cause of protecting and honoring the dignity of all human lives — in the U.S. Senate.

    Senator, please. Choose life.

    BSR

    Comment by BSR — August 15, 2007 @ 6:24 pm | Reply

  6. I think it’s a weak argument to say that governors can’t be good at foreign policy. Reagan did ok.

    As for Clinton giving us years of peace and prosperity, if he had had his way there would have been no budget surplus. It was the GOP’s Congress’s holding the line on spending that produced the surplus. Just look at the budgets that Clinton submitted for his years in office. If Congress had spent as much as Clinton asked to spend, there would have been a deficit, not a surplus.

    As for years of peace, yeah, peace through appeasement and failing to act against terrorism, coupled with a huge gutting of the military budget year after year. And we all paid the price for Clinton’s failure to get Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance, and for Clinton’s relegation of the war on terror to the backburner. The war on terror was *never* a top priority in Clinton’s administration. He was too engulfed in scandal and too busy lying about to grand juries and prosecutors about his sexual harassment and his attempt to illegally thwart Paula Jones’ sexual harassment suit against him.

    Comment by Mike Griffith — August 16, 2007 @ 6:54 pm | Reply

  7. I think it’s a weak argument to say that governors can’t be good at foreign policy. Reagan did ok.

    That’s a pretty darn good point, Mike. But I don’t think there are any Reagan-style governors in the race this season. The rest of your comment was spot on. Well done.

    Comment by Psycheout — August 16, 2007 @ 10:29 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: