Brownback is perhaps the most intelligent man who has recently run for President. The principles that guide his life would make him one of the best Presidents we've had in recent history. He is an honest and moral man -- something that the country could use for a change.

Sam Brownback is going to be the next Ronald Reagan. He's a leader, not a politian. He does what he says and fights for the people who elected Him. He stands up for what is right, even if it is the minority. I think America needs to give him a chance. He is the type of leader this country needs. Elect Sam for President in 2008!

From Merriam-Webster Online: 1 : of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels
2 : PROTESTANT
3 : emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual
4 a capitalized : of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany b often capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : FUNDAMENTALIST c often capitalized : LOW CHURCH
5 : marked by militant or crusading zeal : EVANGELISTIC

According to definitions 1) [most common or preferred usage], 2) and 5), Monaghan qualifies as an Evangelical.

Orientation to the Gospels is the key, not religious denomination.

Lets have every politician in America run for President. Can't be any worse...

Yesterday, CNN reported there are 9 Senators running for president, 3 are GOPers. So now for the next 2 years, these guys, and Hillary, are going to being in front of the cameras jockeying for position. Does anyone remember that important business like federal judges and budgets were at a standstill because Bob Graham, Jo Lieberman, John Edwards, and John Kerry were away from DC? And after Kerry won his nomination in March 2004, he was absent for DC votes? It seems that raising money and getting Democrats to support them was more important than doing their jobs in the Senate. Remember when Frist and Allen and Santorum were also in the mix for 2008? Sad to say it, but by losing in 2006, Allen and Santorum got the message the Republican party does not support them for president. Now what will it take to get Hagel out of the race? He has 1% support in the national polls, and zero chance of winning the nomination.
Same for Dodd and Biden. The Democrats are not supporting them either.

You said, "Tom Monaghan: The founder of Domino's Pizza, Monaghan is a major force within the evangelical movement."

Monaghan's a Roman Catholic. I guess he is a force in the evangelical movement because his positions on abortion and other social issues are in line with that movement's, but he's not an evangelical.

RedStateReaganDem-

A litmus test on gay staff in the GOP? Absolutely, go for it. I'll be part of the Democratic Welcoming Committee that welcomes moderate Republicans to the Democratic Party...by the boatloads.

When discussing GOP staffers and supporters of Presidential candidates, it would be helpful if you'd disclose if any are closeted or uncloseted homosexuals. Someone like Brownback who wants the support of the religious people in America shouldn't have a problem answering that kind of question, and Chris Cillizza should ask it. I hope it'll be included in future "Inner Circle" discussions about GOP candidates' staffs: are any of them gays or closeted gays?

Getting back to the main point...

It is interesting that the GOP field is currently dominated by moderates. Actually they're all desparately trying to become "conservatives" but can't for various reasons:
- McCain, straight talker who opposed Bush in 2000, occasional issue where he insists on stubbornly being independent.
- Guiliani, infidelity and pro abortion.
- Romney, Mormon and former moderate MA governor.

Allen looked like he was going to corner the right religious wing that is so crucial in the Repub primary. Since he's gone we've seen Romney tack big time while others try to fill the void.

Can Brownback claim the standard for the religious right? Can Huckabee? (He's a danger, which is probably why Brownback has started so early) If not, they'll either have to believe Romney's latest incarnation (which he is building skillfully, I have to say) or bite the bullet and vote McCain.

Hello anonymous--what is it that you object to? Perhaps it's sloppy compositon on your part, but in a parallel sense, you seem to equate 'women' with 'idiots.'

"As far as I can tell, you've never been a woman, so you literallly cannot conceive of what it is like."

Get real and stop with the flaky "literally" logic.

You've never been an idiot, but you know the difference between normal and idiot. I assume.

So the Kansas school board removed a central tenet of evolution from the curriculum in that state. They voted to remove the accepted scientific explanation of the evolution of species due to religious objections. There was no other reason to do this. That clearly violates the separation of church and state, a settled constitutional doctrine since the earliest days of the republic.

Rich -- you're entitled to your views regarding abortion, but the reality is that more than 50% of the population agrees that that's not a choice the government ought to be making. Given that, a Brownback presidency focused on issues like abortion would literally be a disaster.

On a more practical level, I am also continually amazed that the focus of the prolife movement is limited to overturning Roe. Abortions happened in large numbers BEFORE abortion was legalized. Clearly, criminalization doesn't actually STOP the act. Guess what does? A combination of enhanced economic opportunity, which makes carrying a child to term more plausable for a lot of people, combined with intensive education efforts preaching BOTH abstinence AND the use of contraceptives. Why exactly the prolife movement is completely unwilling to focus on what a majority does agree with -- i.e. actually reducing the number of abortions, which happened under Clinton -- is absolutely beyond me.

Could it perhaps be because the republican party finds it more advantageous to keep Roe as a boogey man without ever actually overturning it? I've long argued that if Roe was overturned, Democrats would actually benefit enormously. All the single issue voters on abortion right now are prolife, b/c moderately prochoicers (esp. suburban women) feel secure in voting Republican b/c the S. Court will protect choice. If that's no longer true, I think the gender gap will only grow in a LOT of states.

Sorry Todd, meant Rich.

Tod -- birth control and abortion are private medical decisions. Who should make them, you or a bureacrat? That's the issue.
As far as I can tell, you've never been a woman, so you literallly cannot conceive of what it is like. If you imbue a mass of barely differentiated tissue with 'rights' then you strip them from the woman whose body it inhabits.

Todd,
Where exactly is this doctrine of Separation of Church and State that you mention? All the Constitution says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I don't think the KS school board issue involved Congress or any other governing body establishing a state religion.

Andy,

So you agree then that the 4 week old embryo should be protected?

Your point seems to be that politicians should ALSO be concerned about the 40 million without insurance and those lacking proper nutrition. I agree!

And if you say that the 40 million should have health insurance but that the 4 week old embryo should not be protected, I am not going to turn around and say that insuring the 40 million is wrong because it is supported by people who do not believe in the rights of 4 week old embryos. That wouldn't be a reasonable response.

Justice for ALL - born and unborn. It is not inconsistent to fight harder for those who are least capable of fighting for themselves.

What happened is Kansas was exactly what the public PERCEIVED, a religious zealot pushing a belief via a PUBLIC INSTITUTION. What part of Separation of Church and State does not make sense? Brownback's program did not even pass the Lemmon test. You remember Lemmon? Supreme Court case? Avoid excessive entanglement of church and state to avoid the appearance of endorsing a particular religion? You'll also note Kansas changed their policy before the law could be challenged in the Supreme Court. Sam Brownback is a Christian Nazi. He needs to go away.

JimD,
Brownback was in line with Church teaching, which takes no stand on evolution of the human body from pre-existent and living matter and welcomes studies into this ("for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God"). As your nun teacher said, the Church does not insist that the Seven Days of Creation were literally seven days. The one stipulation that the Church makes is that the creation of man was a singular event: there are no men who do not come from Adam (no polygenism!). As to whether his parents were apes, the Church does not take a stand. See HUMANI GENERIS.

Brownback on evolution: "I would like to take the opportunity of this amendment to clear the record about the controversy in Kansas.... Here are the facts about what happened in Kansas. The school board did not ban the teaching of evolution. They did not forbid the mention of Darwin in the classroom. They didn't even remove all mention of evolution from the State assessment test. Rather, the school board voted against including questions on macro- evolution - the theory that new species can evolve from existing species over time - from the State assessment. The assessment did include questions on micro-evolution - the observed change over time within an existing species.

"Why did they do this? Why go so far as to decipher between micro and macro-evolution on the State exam?... In fact, their vote was cast based on the most basic scientific principal that science is about what we observe, not what we assume. The great and bold statement that the Kansas School Board made was... simply that we observe micro-evolution and therefore it is scientific fact; and that it is impossible to observe macro- evolution, it is scientific assumption..... The actions and intentions of the school board were routinely misrepresented in the global press. Many in the scientific community, who presumably knew the facts, spread misinformation as to what happened in Kansas... "

JimD, what he supports is the straddle catholic/evangelical position of teaching evolution and the joke that is 'intelligent design' side by side.

Be kind, Andy. He believes in the standard R credo -- life begins at conception and ends at birth.

Yes, Brownback is a complete shill to the return-to-the-dark-ages, kill-science kind of messianism, a regular Cotton Mather.
It's his big-government, theocratic belief that it is bureaucrats, not you or your family, who should make all your personal and medical decisions for you -- as well as what you may learn, and think. He wants to rid the world of pornography for instance. Not child porn, all porn, and use surveillance to do it. And all contraception too, of course.

His backer, Monaghan wants to build towns that are exempt from US laws and obey only the Bible --which version I'm not sure. His own personal one, I prsume.

Which is not to say that he has not done some humanitarian things. But they are far outweighed by his authoritarian leanings. I wouldn't vote for him unless I was in favor of say, witchburning.

Rich, Sam Brownback and far-right wing-nuts are the 'dreadful scourge' in this country. These are the same people who want to protect 4 week old embryos but could care less about the 40 million people in this country that don't have healthcare. Or how about the hundreds of thousands of people in our country that go hungry? Maybe he can get his rich buddies to feed the children. No there too busy spreading the word of intolerance towards gays, immigrants, and abortion doctors.

I will donate every penny I can to make sure this guy doesn't get elected.

Did Brownback support the anti-evolution platform of the Kansas school board zealots? A literal interpretation of the Bible is not a tenet of the Roman Catholic faith. Catholic schools teach evolution. I was taught by the good sisters nearly 50 years ago that the stories in the Bible (the creation of the world, Jonah, the flood, etc.) were allegorical and intended to communicate with a largely illiterate, primitive society.

Brownback's candidacy is as useful as tits on a bull.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Quite simply Brownback is wasting his time. He is an embarrassment to the U.S. and made Kansas look like a state full of ignorant theocrats with the whole teaching of evolution debacle. Sam should take his pizza corporation money and just stay home, leaving politics to the rational who make decisions based on something other than a belief, decisions based on interest in securing campaign contributions, and the over bearing arrogance that his religion is the one true religion that needs to be forced down children's throats regardless of if parents want THEIR CHILDREN NOT HIS taught religion over science. I did not vote for Sam Brownback for the simple reason I did not then and do not now want that kind of narrow minded non-critically thinking person determining school curricula. School is for learning facts and how to think. We have a whole generations that have instead been taught WHAT to think instead of how. Look how well that is working our for us.

Yellowdog -- thanks for correcting me. Rereading the post, I think that clearly is what the FreeDom was saying. Apologies for my too hasty statements.

Thanks for the "Inner Circle" feature. I'm sure it's going to be very informative. Keep up the good work.

I think Sam Brownback has a shot at the nomination if he can beat out Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney for the social conservative mantle. But he has to do this early on, so he can fight a one-on-one battle most of the way with one of the more moderate candidates. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, and Chuck Hagel are like to compete for the moderate primary vote. Brownback would have a realistic chance to win two-way contest with any of them.

http://commenterry.blogs.com

TheIrishCurse says "I for one would love to see the theonuts form there very own third political party..Then they can run there own platform and candidates."

Wouldn't bother me in the least, either. Then the Repubs could return to good old fashioned small-government / libertarian conservatism. But I really don't see that happening.

From the looks of things, Bronback is the most likely candidate to appeal to the so-called Southern Conservative, whereas McCain is still the Western Conservative, despite his efforts to appeal to that other kind. Anyone read Sebastian Mallaby's piece yesterday about how the Libertarians may find better prospects with the Democrats than the Republicans these days? I wonder if a McCain type will have any more clout in the new Republican party.

Colin, I think FreeDom was saying that the GOP primaries are dominated (so far) by Republican moderate candidates, and Brownback is going to appeal to the GOP far right. With Allen on the shelf, Brownback is just stepping in to fill the void that the current announced candidates have made.

How many candidates can the country take? Oh, to be an Iowan, going to coffee klatch after coffee klatch for the twenty candidates that troop through there for the next thirteen months.

Moshe::don't think anyone's going to fall for the "compassionate conservative" crap again..I for one would love to see the theonuts form there very own third political party..Then they can run there own platform and candidates..And probably come to a very quick realization that three quarters of America doesn't agree with there views...At this point you would have to believe that someone in the theonut hierarchy has to realize that the gop uses and abuses them come election time then kicks them to the curb...

The article calls Tom Monaghan a "major force within the evangelical movement". I wonder if the evangelicals know that a major force within their movement is builing a catholic college. Hmmm, perhaps liberal media bias could be related to a general lack of knowlege about Christians? Oh, well...

It will be good to have Brownback in the race. McCain is not a real conservative, unless you consider increasing federal funding for the killing of human embryos to be conservative move (which many apparently do). George Allen self-destructed, clearing the way for Brownback, whose humility and decency would be appealing to folks who might not consider themselves to share his views on issues like abortion, but perhaps he could help to persuade them to look into their hearts.

Perhaps many of these folks say they are against abortion personally, but don't want to get in the way of others' freedom. If they could be moved to ask themselves, really ask themselves, why they are against abortion, then I think they would want this country's laws to prohibit this dreadful scourge.

KSG,

He has five children, so hi knows his wife...

Does Sam Brownback know any women?

FreeDom -- what do you mean the GOP primaries are dominated by moderates. The exact opposite is true, which is why McCain has tacked hard to the right since 2000 so that he can win the nomination. From 1980 forward, the GOP has become more and more dominated by hard-right born again christians. Not sure how you could even imply to the contrary...

And FYI, we'd all be a lot better off if the GOP primaries WERE dominated by actual moderates. I think the country would kill to have another Eisenhower to vote for...

Stop bashing Brownback.

I remember when the conservatives were very angry on him about his vote in the Judiciary committee in favor of the "amnesty" immigration bill. He can point to that vote and say; I am not radical, yes, I am conservative, but when it's right, its right.

Give him some time before you start undermining him; he is a real compassionate conservative... you don't know if he will peck up steam or not. But there is a slight chance he will, and lets wait.

I think Brownback will do better than the consensus here seems to indicate. He can point to a lot of meaningful efforts, such as AIDS, Sudan, poverty, that won't alienate voters. He may not even have to thump about abortion and gay marriage. If Republican voters remain suspicious of McCain, disdainful of Romney's Mormonism, and find they don't like the 'real' Giuliani, Brownback may be a serious option for many of those right-wingers.

However, I think Brownback understands that he can't win. Since the Republican primaries are so far dominated by moderates, he probably just wants to pull them all to the right, as Forbes did with Bush regarding tax cuts in 2000. He doesn't need much money or staff to do that.

By the way, there was a great Rolling Stones article about Brownback a few months ago. They talk about some sort of Catholic cult he's in. That would make him unelectable in a general election in a heartbeat.

Brownback does not have much chance of winning the nomination - the most extreme religious conservative favorites never do. Robertson, Bauer, and Ashcroft have all made runs at the nomination over the last 20 years as religious right candidates. They do end up having some influence. I think Brownback's main impact on the race might be to seriously undermine Romney's efforts to appeal to the religious right. Romney's Mormonism, past moderate social stances and association with Massachusetts are all potential liabilities with many on the religious right. Brownback gives these folks a "pure" alternative.

Brownback thinks he can appeal to the Conservative core of the Republican Party, and it's fairly easy to see why he thinks there's an opportunity, but he'll never get there if he doesn't find a way to moderate his harsh image. Conservative candidates play fairly well when they seem happy, optimistic, and likable. But so many of the prominent Conservatives right now seem more prudish, sour, judgmental, and unpleasant. Brownback needs to stop sucking lemons if he's going to have a chance.

Any campaign that has Tom Monaghan as a 'trusted' advisor is frightening. That dude is a psycho.

Brownback will appeal to the Catholic center, which in everyone elses book is to the right of Richard Perle. He will make a respectable showing in those enclaves, for the purposes of Veep, Cabinet, whatever, and advance the conservative agenda through the (next?) Republican platform and administration

What a difference a month makes. Last month the thought of Brownback running for prez would've made me shudder. Now I laugh. Let's hope things stay this way. Otherwise we may all have to line up for him to bathe our feet.

He's pairing up with Tom Monaghan and thinks that's a good thing? The Domino's King is such a conservative Catholic that he is building a college town in FL (his native Ann Arbor, where I live, is not receptive to his crazy ideas), where he has asked pharmacies to not carry contraceptives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ave_Maria%2C_Florida. Apparently he thinks people can live in a bubble without sex.

I think Brownback, Katherine Harris, and Tom Monaghan should all just fade away.

...of course, I also didn't think a former-cocaine-user-turned-born-again could be elected in 2000. Or 2004.

I wonder what Mr. Brownback thinks of this:

There are about 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq, not counting subcontractors, a total that is approaching the size of the U.S. military force

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401311.html

So not only did we NOT go in with overwhelming force, but we've had TWICE the amount of boots on the ground as has been the publicly published level of troops. And it is STILL a disaster. Shinseki's appraisal of more than 300K troops to secure Iraq looks even more appropriate now.

"About 650 contractors have died in Iraq since 2003, according to Labor Department statistics."

So the US war dead is NOT 2900. It is closer to 3700.

Except those 650 don't get medals, flag-draped coffins, or a plot in Arlington.

All they get is a lot money and a personnel folder in a Blackwater filing cabinet.

This war is a National Disgrace of historic proportions.

Why bother covering Sam Brownback's campaign? I mean Chris, were my large and beautiful dog running for high office, she could count on receiving nearly as many votes.

Not so fast on Kansas, it is no longer "red".... in the last election many of the intelligent design politicans were shown the door.

And, some key Republicans switched parties, basically saying they were tired of chasing the narrow religious-right agenda and wanted to get something meaningful done.

In my humble, and hopeful, opinion.... the era of messianic leadership is over. Like most wing movements, the far right went too far for too long and now the pendulum swings.... and Brownback is on the wrong end of the arc.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Really don't understand the point of Brownback getting in the race..I imagine he'll carry half of Kansas but what else? Is God telling him he should be POTUS also? Is his platform going to cater to the holy rollers only? As a dem i think it's a good thing cause it may short circuit McCain's pandering to the theo nut jobs, and throw a few more divisions wqithin the gop ranks..