After a good 48 hours of some solid rest and sleeping, I am ready to get back into the blogosphere and offer my thoughts on the straw poll.
The Ames straw poll is an absolutely incredible experience that anyone who loves politics must attend at least once in their lifetime. What makes it so great is because of the people involved — Iowans. They are really first-rate people who take great pride and responsibility in being first in the nation. I’ve worked Virginia and Ohio races before, and its not rare to get cursed out every other call you make because the people are so sick of being called. The same can’t be said for Iowans — often times you’ll actually be thanked for calling them — even if its the 20th call they got that day. They truly take pride in being first in the nation, and it should stay that way.
The Brownback crew is thrilled with our top 3 finish at the straw poll. The Senator was on fire at the straw poll — I have seen him give alot of speeches but he definitely gave his best at Ames. He does best in front of big crowds, and we definitely had an enormous crowd in our tent to the point where it was standing room only. Our multimedia staffer took extensive video and I’ll surely post it up as soon as its ready. The Senator also had the biggest and most enthusiastic crowd at his speech at Hilton Coliseum. We also had hundreds of volunteers from across the nation helping us out and working the logistics. It was an impressive, seamless operation.
What is also great about our finish is that we did not have to spend anywhere near the resources that other candidates poured into the straw poll, namely Mitt Romney and Tom Tancredo. We were outspent at an unfathomable rate by Mitt Romney. Tom Tancredo was running TV and Radio ads, and was mailing several expensive direct mail pieces, plus was running on a hot-button issue. The Brownback campaign ran no ads. Secondly, we did not have to rely on the resources of an outside group — such as Huckabee did with the Fair Tax. Our supporters came to support Senator Brownback and his message and his views, and we know who they are because we signed them up and brought them in, and they will continue supporting us through the caucuses.
What the straw poll also shows is that Senator Brownback can connect with both heavily involved political activists and your average voter. Flash back to early March, the Senator placed in the top 3 at CPAC, and placed first there amongst social conservatives. As many of you know, CPAC is composed of the hardest working and most influential conservative activists from across the country. Top 3 wins in the two most important straw polls is very impressive, and shows that Senator Brownback’s message of uniting social and fiscal conservatives resonates with everybody.
Finally, I would just like to stress that our party is based on principles, not personalities. Senator Brownback is often criticized because he isn’t flashy or a smooth talker. But what voters ultimately look at is who shares their values and who is most closely aligned with them on the issues. The more voters learn about Senator Brownback, the more they like him. Brownback is also the only candidate that can unite the two most important wings of the Republican Party — social and fiscal conservatives. We need both wings to win, and no other candidate has the consistent, principled record to unite both.
Overall, the Straw Poll was an awesome experience and was a big win for Senator Brownback, and our campaign is going to continue moving forward, and you’ll see the campaign and the Senator more actively campaigning in South Carolina and New Hampshire. I have also decided to take some time off school to continue on with the campaign, and as always, will continue bringing updates to R42008!
To see some great pics about liveblogging from the straw poll (thanks to Leon Wolf) visit the Daily Brownbacker.
Note to Andrew Sullivan — are you really calling words out of Mother Theresa’s mouth vulgar? If so, thats a pretty sick thing to do. I think she contributed a little more to society then I would think most of us have…
August 14th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
“…Iowans. They are really first-rate people…”. Yet you think they’re so stupid and unprincipled that their votes can be bought? Seems like a contradiction.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
ARE U NUTS…hahaha…brownback…err switchback…his finish at the poll is
laughable…he spent 5 times the money Huck did…and he did to have ads…
unless you think robocalls and mail-outs aren’t ads…watch this video and
tell me he doesn’t need to drop out… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emkV3TZbPRo
…haha…hilarious post…Fairtax didn’t endorse anyone…and they only had
20-30 buses…this is hilarious…
August 14th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I would strongly disagree with you about Mother Theresa contributing more to society than most of us have. Strongly.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Billy, I think Andrew Sullivan is a pretentious windbag but I doubt he means vulgar as in dirty when referring to Mother Teresa’s slogan. I believe he’s referring to the original use of vulgar which is “common or of the common people”.
If he does mean vulgar as in dirty then he truly does need to answer for slandering Mother Teresa.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Zzzzzzz…
August 14th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Great post Billy, as a devout supporter of Sen.Brownback i agree he did well also, and has momentum as well going out of the Ames straw poll. Sen. Brownback is the best candidate in the Republican party field!
Onward to victory in ’08! Brownback!!
August 14th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Unfortunately, the more I learn about Sen Brownback, the less I like him.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
EGS,
Popes, scholarly theologins, high ranking officials at the Vatican all express the same sentiment as Mother Teresa. Andrew Sullivan did not mean vulgar to be of the common people. He meant it just as it reads in todays understanding.
Nusrat,
Your humility astounds me.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
What do you mean?
August 14th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Billy, glad to see someone who can put his candidate in a better and true light than a few Brownback’s supporters who made some comments here. Hope to hear from you a bit more often.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Please. Brownback got spanked at the Straw Poll. Huckabee has permanently replaced Brownback. Tell him to endorse the Huck already so we can have a real race in Iowa against Romney.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Nusrat,
You strongly disagree with Mother Teresa having contributed more to society than most of us?
The woman gave up her life for others and took up a vow of poverty. She founded the Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta caring for worst off. She established AIDS hospices, took in desperate poor people from the streets including the shunned and diseased, ran orphanages, bathed people who others wouldn’t touch because of sores and disfigurements, etc.
All this was done in the hostile environment of the caste system in India.
There are now over 100 such missions with over 4000 nuns throughout the world all started by a selfless woman who will soon be cannonized as a Saint.
Nusrat, come to think of it..what have you done for society?
August 14th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
EGS, see here for a post on that ARG poll yesterday.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Oops… wrong thread…
August 14th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
SGS,
I hope your not referring to me as putting Sen.Brownback in a bad light, i dont think i’ve done that at all. So i hope your not talking about me??
August 14th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Brownback got spanked??? Well if getting 15.3 % of the vote and almost tieing Huckabee is getting spanked then yea i guess he did. But he hardly spent any money and was outspent 10 to 1 by Romney, and still managed to finish in a close 3rd right behind huckabee?? Dont know how he got “spanked”???
August 14th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Bryan,
If by “hardly spent any money” you mean “spent $600,000 and bankrupted his campaign,” then I agree with you.
Look, Brownback did good to place third. But losing to Huckabee was a bad thing for him. Spending all that money and still losing to Huckabee was a very bad thing for him. And Huckabee getting all the press, and all the socon attention, is a very, very bad thing for him.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Scott,
I have been and am I productive and creative member of society who does not indulge in self-sacrifice.
That has made me a more productive member of society than Mother Theresa, especially since I don’t say that poverty is a “gift from God.”
August 14th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Brownback didn’t spend the money because he didn’t have it. Even with the relatively little amount of money he spent, Brownback is still broke. Or should I say “brokeback.”
August 14th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Nusrat,
The vow of poverty on Mother Teresa’s part was a gift to God. We’re not all called to do that.
What does “not indulge in self-sacfrice” mean? You don’t believe in the concept?
You are still of the opinion that you’ve contibuted more to society than Mother Teresa?
Hubris: excessive pride or arrogance = the opposite of humility. That’s what I meant.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Third place was a big disappointment for Brownback but I don’t think it’s any death sentence as some say. He still has an organization which I don’t believe Huckabee has.
Does anyone know how much cash on hand Brownback has? Has he been doing any significant fundraising in the recent past that would cover the reported $600k used in Iowa?
August 14th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Billy touched on calling people in Iowa, and them not minding it. Apparently, Governor Romney has been calling my house nonstop for the last week and a half or so. I’ve never given the man any money or anything, I’ve always been solely a Huckabee guy. I haven’t been living at home this summer, and as such I’ve yet to actually hear one of these calls, but they are driving my mother insane. She’s told them now numerous times to stop calling here, and take our number off their list.
Apparently Romney doesn’t listen…his staffers called here again about an hour ago. Yet another reason to back Huckabee
August 14th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
You’d think they’d give people a break after the straw poll frenzy!
August 14th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
In any case, I think the Power Rankings definitely need to be changed.
I propose:
#1. Rudy Giuliani
#2. Mitt Romney
#3. Fred Thompson (no longer #2)
#4. John McCain
#5. Mike Huckabee
#6. Newt Gingrich
#7. Sam Brownback
#8. Tom Tancredo
#9. Ron Paul
#10. Duncan Hunter (if he stays in)
#11. Chuck Hagel (he says he’s still considering running for the GOP nomination and won’t rule it out for another couple months; if Newt’s in the rankings, Hagel should be too–if Hagel’s off the rankings, Newt should be too)
August 14th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
brownback resonating with people, a uniter? is he joking? mr. negative does not inspiring or uniting, that is for sure.
August 14th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Billy,
Brownback spent tons of money and burned a lot of bridges trying to win at Ames. Huckabee spent minimum cash and didn’t burn a single bridge in the process. He and Brownback are aiming for the same people. Huckabee won.
How can anyone honestly, sincerely think that is a good thing for Brownback?
Now I am certainly not writing Brownback’s political obituatry here, but I simply cannot see the Ames news as good for him. You can’t even honestly call it a moral victory. He shot his wad there and only came up third against a man who wasn’t even trying that hard.
If the cynics are correct and Romney “bought” Ames, then how do the explain the fact that Brownback couldn’t “buy” second place? It wasn’t for lack of trying.
August 14th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Here’s another way to look at it.
Romney did what he felt he had to do and obtained his goal. Huckabee did what he felt he had to do and obtained his goal. Brownback did what he felt he had to do and came up short.
This is good news for Brownback?
August 14th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
A third place finish is in no way a disappointment. Huckabee beat us by 2% and was boosted by the FairTax crowd. Brownback brought in all his people and wasn’t boosted by any special interest groups. Brownback continues to be popular with movement conservatives and your average voter alike.
August 14th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
# Nusrat Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I would strongly disagree with you about Mother Theresa contributing more to society than most of us have. Strongly.”
I agree. Mother Teresa, as the inestimable Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She used her homes for the dying for religious propaganda and refused to assist in any serious effort to stop poverty. She wanted to catch fish for people rather than teach them how to fish. She opposed all forms of birth control and divorce (she was willing to make an exception for Princess Diana. Oh, the cult of celebrity touches even the “infallible”). She was basically a religious crusader who put on a charade. She gave the dying a place to die before trying to indoctrinate them into Christian propaganda.
August 14th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
# Scott Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Nusrat,
The vow of poverty on Mother Teresa’s part was a gift to God. We’re not all called to do that.
What does “not indulge in self-sacfrice†mean? You don’t believe in the concept?
You are still of the opinion that you’ve contibuted more to society than Mother Teresa?
Hubris: excessive pride or arrogance = the opposite of humility. That’s what I meant.”
I’ll reply, too.
1. God isn’t real, so actually, none of us are called to do that.
2. No, I don’t believe in self-sacrifice. I believe in mutually beneficial and voluntary exchanges. This is not to say that I don’t believe in charity, but not at my own expense.
3. What’s “society”? Why should we consider her run-down and religious homes for the dying more productive than, say, running a company that employs 2 million and distributes goods to people? Sam Walton was without a doubt — almost irrefutably — more productive and heroic than Mother Teresa, for example.
August 14th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Here’s some enlightening thoughts on Mother Teresa: http://youtube.com/watch?v=8q1m-8npkJ4
August 14th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Language warning on that link, BTW.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Brownback lost, and is in damage control. Leave him alone when he tries to capitalize on a 3rd place finish which he was not planning on, but please don’t believe it! He didn’t gain momentum from the straw poll and needs to get it somewhere else quick, or he is dead meat. People give a lot more money to gold medal winners, not bronze.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
TLG:
I’ve gotta say, I agree 100% with your three points.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
TLG: These three points I believe in, who cares about the Mother Theresa arguement:
1. God is very real, he defines your reality, his creations are around you. Look at the Sun and tell me why it is not too close and not too far.
2. Self-sacrifice makes one happy. Through forgetting ourselves, we grow, and we also learn out to take care of ourselves in the process.
3. Society is benefitted by helping people personally and teaching people how to take care of themselves to avoid simular situations in the future.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
TLG,
You don’t believe in self-sacrifice but do believe in charity only not at your own expense.
I don’t think you are the kind of guy many people would like find themselves in a fox hole with.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
The optimism and spin of the Brownback people astounds me. Bryan & Billy can you please recall what you said BEFORE the straw poll. Brownback was connecting with Iowans, he was going to beat Romney into 1st place because you just can’t buy the votes.
Furthermore Brownback apparently had a great operation in Ames. No mention was made of Tancredo spending more. No mention was made of Huckabee at all.
Brownback went for broke. He lost. 3rd place was a failure given how many resources he poured into the poll. No offence, but if you think you can spin that away you’re as deluded as Duncan “I’ve got momentum in Iowa” Hunter.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
jrcutler:
1. That is one of the most hilarious God arguments I’ve heard in a while. Of course the earth is in a very nice position, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. What with 70 sextillion stars in the universe, I don’t find it improbable that at least one planet happens to be in a decent spot. And how do we know that this argument is proving the existence of Yahweh? Couldn’t it just as easily prove the existence of Zeus?
2. Tell that to George Bailey from It’s a Wonderful Life. He would have killed himself for doing exactly that if it wasn’t for his Guardian Angel. It doesn’t work that way in real life. I might disagree with TLG in that I find some amount of altruism to be good, but I find that totally forgetting about yourself takes the fun out of life. But hey, that’s just me.
3. Society is benefited more by people acting in their own self-interest. That’s the story of America. Think about it– who helped more Indians: Mother Teresa or Bill Gates?
August 14th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
TLG,
Your #30 reminds me of the following:
August 14th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
I probably should have clarified in #22 that I live in NY, and am still getting calls daily.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
# jrcutler Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
TLG: These three points I believe in, who cares about the Mother Theresa arguement:
1. God is very real, he defines your reality, his creations are around you. Look at the Sun and tell me why it is not too close and not too far.
2. Self-sacrifice makes one happy. Through forgetting ourselves, we grow, and we also learn out to take care of ourselves in the process.
3. Society is benefitted by helping people personally and teaching people how to take care of themselves to avoid simular situations in the future.”
1. So life can be sustained on Earth? If not, life wouldn’t exist. Why is this an argument in favor of God (especially the Christian God). There’s a reason that there aren’t other life-sustaining planets popping up all over the universe (to our knowledge): the conditions required to sustain carbon-based lifeforms are very rare, indeed. Why is this an argument in favor of a benevolent god who wants us to sacrifice ourselves, by the way? At the best, it’s an argument for a superintellect tinkering with physics.
2. We? Who is this “we”? I don’t want to forget myself. I want to grow by intellectual achievement and productive work. Who are you to tell me what I’d get out of self-sacrifice?
3. So, in other words, Mother Teresa did nothing to benefit society. She certainly didn’t teach people how to take care of themselves to avoid similar situations in the future.
“# Scott Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
TLG,
You don’t believe in self-sacrifice but do believe in charity only not at your own expense.
I don’t think you are the kind of guy many people would like find themselves in a fox hole with.”
Um…no! I wouldn’t sacrifice my life for the life of a random stranger, since you’re speaking of “many people.” I wouldn’t sacrifice my life for you, and if you would sacrifice yours for mine, then I would consider you a detestable person who doesn’t value his own life.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
#39 — What a powerful argument! I give up.
I’m a capitalist pig, you see. I believe in mutually beneficial and voluntary exchanges. I believe in incentives and their power to motivate people. Bill Gates didn’t start up Microsoft because he so very much wanted to help people with computers. He wanted to make money. He was acting selfishly. So was Sam Walton when he started up Wal-Mart. No force. No coercion. Just mutually voluntary and beneficial exchanges propelled those selfish stalwarts to the top. Thank ‘God’ for selfish people!
August 14th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Oh, and by the way, marK, I happen to love human emotions. They’re wonderful things…PROVIDED THEY HAVE A RATIONAL FOUNDATION.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Phil:
1. I like your argument of probability, but following it up with splitting the alternative with Zeus is very sharp also, since you attempted to put God on Zeus’s level. You make a very good atheist. However, we have redundant arguments, you say probability is in your favor when it is expanded to the universe, and I say probability is in my favor since God explains why we are part of this low-probability experience. You succeeded in proving that extremely low probability is possible through a large sample size. I proved that God can exist when compared to the low probability of things happening by chance. You see, I look at a tree for proof that God exists, and you look at a fossil. I look at fulfilled prophecies in the Bible and Book of Mormon for proof that God exists, and you look at the history of Zeus and the fact that people used to think the world was flat. You are brilliant, I just think you look in the wrong places for answers to the mystery about life. Thanks for the chat.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
..?
jrcutler..?
That didn’t make any sense at all… =\
Also…the people who spread the myth that the Earth was flat were Christians…
The point of what he was saying (and I said it, too) was that even if we did accept your argument about the position of the Earth proving a higher power…why on Earth would we think it would be the God of Abraham? Why not some superintellect that monkeyed around with physics?
August 14th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Atheist argument: Earth exists as a result of a very low probability event due to chance mixed with an extremely large sample size of possibilities.
My argument: Earth exists as a result of God taking low probability events and making them more probable, thus the probability of God existing and creating us is more likely to be the case than if we are experiencing this life as a low probability random event.
My view: It is more likely that earth exists due to a God than to random chance.
Your view: It is more likely that earth exists because of random chance than a probability of their being a God to create it.
In short: You feel it is more probable that earth exists because of chance than that there is a probability that there is a God. I say low probability necessecitates there being a likelihood of a God to eliminate chance.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
TLG,
You’re a hawk with the military but put in a brotherhood situation, you bail with your “Me first” attitude.
At least, let us put this out there, let’s acknowledge that you will never be a hero or honored in any meaningful way based on your beliefs. It’s impossible by your logic.
Do you realize how shallow you sound? You appear to hate “The Golden Rule” therefore you will never be close to anyone because you are incapable, at this point, of ever going beyond yourself.
You actually have contempt for people, saints, heroes and especially God because they exhibit exactly that which you seem to despise.. compassion, mercy and kindness.
Maybe someday, someone else’s suffering will touch the hardness of your heart or perhaps it will be your own.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Yahweh and Zeus can’t really be analogized, of course, as Yahweh was the creator of the universe, while Zeus didn’t really create anything at all. Zeus was more of a managerial figure than anything. Kind of like Bill Clinton. Come to think of it, ever notice how similar Bill and Hillary are to Zeus and Hera?
August 14th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
jrculter — Difference is — our argument doesn’t need proof, because we’re acknowledging ignorance of the circumstances. Your argument demands proof. You’re making these extremely bombastic claims about this God who inspired people to write a book about him — and you can’t produce a shred of evidence that he’s real..? And we’re supposed to devote our lives to him? Aye.
Scott — Clearly you misunderstand. What is a “brotherhood” situation to you? Being in a situation with random strangers where you’re supposed to sacrifice your life for them? I love and cherish my friends and would risk comfort for them. I am glad that I have them, but I chose them rationally. Their standards and values are much like my own. That is how we bonded.
I like the Golden Rule. A lot. It’s the basis of libertarianism. I want to be left alone. I will also leave you alone. Thanks.
No, I will never be a “hero” by your standards of what a hero is. Businessmen are heroes to me as much as our military members — just in different ways. I do not insult the military by saying that they are “sacrificing” for others. They are heroic because they will fight for the ideals of freedom. They’re taking on the bastards that support the actions that occurred on 9/11. It’s also heroic, to me, to produce and achieve — just in a different way.
I value justice over mercy. I give kindness to those who deserve it. I give compassion to those who need it and have done no wrong.
I can’t really hold contempt for something that doesn’t exist — gods — but I do despise Christianity. I despise some of your heroes, I suppose. I have my own heroes. Some of ours are the same.
You clearly misunderstand who I am. Please think twice before you tell me I am not kind, compassionate, or good.
I — along with Nusrat and Phil M — am the only person on this board who thinks it is a virtue to mind my own goddamn business, by the way, and not use the government to interfere with peoples’ wallets or in peoples’ bedrooms…
August 14th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Billy,
I appreciate your optimism, and of course there are some positives for Brownback from Iowa. I think any fair person has to realize that there are many more negatives and that it was a disappointing day.
If Brownback had taken 2nd he would have pushed Huckabee out of the race and he would have had some rationale for staying in the race as potentially the 5th candidate. Unfortunately Huckabee has momentum and much stronger support than previously thought. Because both Huckabee and Brownback will be at the caucuses neither will be able to gain any real traction between now and then leaving Romney with a comfortable win.
I think the real test of who did the best in Iowa will be 3rd quarter fundraising. My guess is that Huckabee will outraise Brownback slightly, but that neither will have enough to mount any real threat in Iowa. Judging by the 2nd quarter fundraising numbers Brownback bet the farm on Ames and has virtually no cash on hand. I think it was his best bet, but unfortunately he lost it. Now Brownback will have to decide if he wants to bow out with dignity or if he wants to continue taking the low road.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
DaveG (48), quite agree. YHWH and Zeus are not comparable.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Dskinner (50),
What is Brownback’s aim in the race now? He can’t really win, Iowa have resoundingly rejected his negativity & money in favour of two positive candidates (one who had lots of money, one who had none).
Is he going to stay in to try and get a VP if Rudy or Romney need a social conservative? I dont think so, as he’s antagonised them too much. He could try and be nice again, and not go negative, but I think the horse has bolted.
I think he’s finished. He should campaign with dignity, be positive, and then withdraw and focus on taking the Kansas governors mansion.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
I do agree that Yahweh and Zeus are not compatible…
…but my god, don’t pretend that you didn’t get the point, which was that even if one did accept that a higher power was necessary for the conditions to arise for life to be sustained on Earth, it IN NO WAY shows that the GOD OF THE BIBLE is the one that did it.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
TLG (#53),
I presume ‘compatible’ was meant to be comparable. Although its probably hard for something that exists to be compatible with something that doesn’t
Assuming creation shows the hand of a divine creator (which I believe it does), then you are right that does not necessitate that it is the God of the Bible. I agree with you there.
One has to go further. I look at the Bible’s historical accuracy, its prophecy’s that came true so exactly (e.g. the fate of Tyre in Ezekiel 26, or the Jews in Jeremiah 30), its reliable copying through the years –> all these things point to the Bible being the inspired word of God. Therefore I personally believe that He is the one who created the Earth.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Billy,
I think you may be overly optimistic when you write, “Top 3 wins in the two most important straw polls is very impressive, and shows that Senator Brownback’s message of uniting social and fiscal conservatives resonates with everybody.”
The problem is that Mitt Romney won both of those polls, and Brownback came in third in both of them. It’s not possible to just “third-place” one’s way to the Republican nomination, much less the presidency.
I also question whether Brownback can expand his appeal beyond social conservatives. I saw that his flyer for the Ames Straw Poll described the event as “An Afternoon of Prayer and Celebration.”
http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/an-afternoon-of-prayer-and-celebration-with-sam-brownback/
From what I have heard and seen about Ames, it looks more like a combination between a political convention and a state fair than a particularly prayerful event, at least for most attendees. If Brownback is going to direct his campaign only to the devout, he should not expect to get any closer to the White House than, say, Pat Robertson did.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
48: I stand corrected about Zeus, I’ve forgotten the Greek creation myth; Gaia and Uranus created the earth, Zeus was the son of Cronus and was the ruler of Olympus. Let us use Allah and Brahman instead then. Would you all agree or disagree that Yahweh and those two are comparable?
TLG: “Do unto others as they do unto you.” – my version of the Golden Rule.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
My proof is the sun, silly (I already stated that), and a million other things, but I’m done presenting my opinions of God, which most of the world agrees on, by the way. Yes, I do believe the Bible is inspired, but that was not what we were discussing.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Bryan, unfortunately, you are one of them, yes. Since I do not know Brownback as much as you, and I have not studied him in as depth as you did, I looked at people like you to tell me a bit more about your candidate, to get me interested in yours. But you have been busy bad-mouthing pretty much every other candidate, and almost said not one word about him other than how he will wip everyone down at Ames. I mean, I see you as a representative of your candidate, and attacking others really do not up a good light on your candidate. So, please, for your candidate’s sake, help us get interested in yours by telling us all about your candidate, why he is the man for the job!
August 14th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
I’m looking forward to this week’s polls to see where Brownback and Huckabee move nationally. Of course I am curious about Romney.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
According to Rasmussen, etc Huckabee is already around 4% nationally. Brownback is around 1%. So its not looking hopeful for Brownback.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
TLG,I think your problem is that you don’t accept any evidence that isn’t physical. I used to be in the position of not knowing whether or not there was a God. But then I experienced God. This isn’t an experience that can prove anything to you, but you can have your own experience. Agnostism makes more sense than atheism. Atheism is based on proving a nagative. You can only prove nagatives by proving positives that are the opposites of nagatives. God can be found the same way any truth is found – by your sense. The thing is I think you only believe in your five senses. The fact that most people have a sense of spiritual things seems like pretty good evidence of something spiritual going on.
The good news is that you are still a kid, and you can grow up.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
MattC (#17), well, as you have pointed out often in the past, what really matter in this race is whether you have the money AND the grassroot movement, along others (I forgot what they were, endorements and what?). You cannot ignore the fact that Brownback does have a strong grassroot organization, nevertheless how small in scope it is, with offices only in Iowa and NH. For them, his being placed in third place is a great place to be. So, as long as he has the people, he will continue to be a forcible candidate who is here to stay.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
For goodness sakes, can we stop with the “flat earth” nonsense. The idea that the Christian church heralded the flat earth when the rest of the “enlightened” world understood the scientific reality that the earth is round is itself a myth and in no way indicts Christians or the Christian church.
I think the negative commments about Mother Theresa are a bit ridiculous, and I doubt more than a tiny percentage of people would agree with them, and for good reason. Furthermore I don’t consider Christopher Hitchens any type of authority, especially on moral matters.
Now for the straw poll, the actual topic of conversation. Look, third place is not as good as Senator Brownback would have liked. That is obvious. And Governor Huckabee will definitely get a boost from this. And I congratulate him. He’s a good guy. He’s not my number one choice as a candidate, but he has many good qualities to recommend him and I wish him well.
That being said, though, the straw poll hasn’t determined or precluded anything. There is still a long way to go and still a long way for Huckabee, Brownback, and, to some extent, even Romney to be competitive in the caucuses. In the wider scheme of things, as far as people who aren’t paying as close attention to the race as we are, I think third place helps Brownback. It doesn’t help him as much as second place would have. But it still helps him, and he can still probably capitalize on it. He has good organization and he’s not in debt and not broke, as some would have us believe.
So, this is good for Huckabee, pretty good for Romney and ok for Brownback. And we’ll see what happens. The momentum among the candidates has already shifted several times and will probably shift again.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
“I presume ‘compatible’ was meant to be comparable. Although its probably hard for something that exists to be compatible with something that doesn’t
Assuming creation shows the hand of a divine creator (which I believe it does), then you are right that does not necessitate that it is the God of the Bible. I agree with you there.
One has to go further. I look at the Bible’s historical accuracy, its prophecy’s that came true so exactly (e.g. the fate of Tyre in Ezekiel 26, or the Jews in Jeremiah 30), its reliable copying through the years –> all these things point to the Bible being the inspired word of God. Therefore I personally believe that He is the one who created the Earth.”
Oops…haha, yeah, comparable.
Oh boy! A prophecy of the Bible was confirmed in…the Bible? Why should I believe a word of it? Why not the Koran? Why should I believe what Mark and Matthew wrote because of what Jeremiah wrote? How do I know that the gospels tossed by the Council of Nicea out aren’t authentic? And why on Earth should I believe the stories about Jesus healing lepers, being raised from the dead, being divine, walking on water..? (*hums Jesus Christ Superstar in my head*)
jrcutler — “My proof is the sun, silly (I already stated that), and a million other things, but I’m done presenting my opinions of God, which most of the world agrees on, by the way. Yes, I do believe the Bible is inspired, but that was not what we were discussing.”
WHY IS THE SUN PROOF THAT JESUS WAS DIVINE? The question is: why does the sun show that the God of the Bible (the one who sacrified himself in a human form to redeem mankind’s sins) is real?
August 14th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
“I think your problem is that you don’t accept any evidence that isn’t physical.”
That’s not a problem. I can’t say that John Adams was the first president because I simply feel that it is true. I require extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim.
“Atheism is based on proving a nagative [sic].”
Incorrect. The difference between atheism and agnosticism is that agnostics generally think that there is a 50-50 or so chance of the existence of God. Almost all atheists are technically agnostics, but in the same sense that we are agnostics towards the Loch Ness Monster: we can never really prove that it doesn’t exist, but because there is no compelling evidence to the contrary we assume it doesn’t exist.
“The fact that most people have a sense of spiritual things seems like pretty good evidence of something spiritual going on.”
The brain can do some amazing things. Young children with imaginary friends sometimes see them as if they were real people. Anyway, most people used to believe that the world was flat, that doesn’t mean they were right. The thing is, only 7% of American scientists believe in a personal God.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Self-correction: only 7% of the most prestigious scientists believe in a personal God, about 40% of average scientists do.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Dskinner (#50), true, Huckabee may grab some attentions at this time, pulling some spot light away from Brownback. But his movement is, well, pretty much lacking. People who are not as committed to this election this early do have a short memory. What carry the “fire” on and on and on is the people within the grassroot organization. So, as long as Brownback has his good “tens” of supporters, he will eventually grab the attention from Huckabee. Whether Brownback will be restored to his previous glory depends on how well Huckabee is playing his marbles this time around. He has a short window of opportunity to get his organization set up and to start getting some cash flow. I do not think he will be able to execute everything he needs by the time he lost the window (especially when Fred, or even Newt, jump in).
August 14th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
“TLG,I think your problem is that you don’t accept any evidence that isn’t physical. I used to be in the position of not knowing whether or not there was a God. But then I experienced God. This isn’t an experience that can prove anything to you, but you can have your own experience. Agnostism makes more sense than atheism. Atheism is based on proving a nagative. You can only prove nagatives by proving positives that are the opposites of nagatives. God can be found the same way any truth is found – by your sense. The thing is I think you only believe in your five senses. The fact that most people have a sense of spiritual things seems like pretty good evidence of something spiritual going on.
The good news is that you are still a kid, and you can grow up.”
1) It’s “negative,” not “nagative.”
2) So you have no proof at all, so you’re just going to pat me on the head and tell me to run along now and sit at the kiddie table. Atheism is not based on “proving a negative.” That’s a logical fallacy — you can’t prove a negative. Unless you’re willing to concede that you’re agnostic, however, on fairies, unicorns, dragons, and magical invisible chocolate toads circling Jupiter, then atheism is a fair position. If there’s no evidence that something exists, we assume that it doesn’t exist. That’s how everything else in the world works. We make fun of people who can’t decide whether fairies exist, not extol them for their intellectual superiority.
3) Yes, I only believe in what I can perceive. “Spirituality” is a cop-out for those who have absolutely no evidence whatsoever. It’s just an emotion that you get from wanting it to exist. And your validation for it? Lots of people believe in it! And since the beliefs of the majority always equal truth, you appear to have caught me in a trap. You win.
4) How did you “experience God”? You “felt his presence,” I’m sure, right? In other words — you wanted him to exist so very badly, so you gave into your emotions. I’m using my reason, here. I want some sort of proof for Jesus’ divinity. You haven’t offered a shred.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
“For goodness sakes, can we stop with the “flat earth†nonsense. The idea that the Christian church heralded the flat earth when the rest of the “enlightened†world understood the scientific reality that the earth is round is itself a myth and in no way indicts Christians or the Christian church.
I think the negative commments about Mother Theresa are a bit ridiculous, and I doubt more than a tiny percentage of people would agree with them, and for good reason. Furthermore I don’t consider Christopher Hitchens any type of authority, especially on moral matters.”
Another bandwagon appeal. The majority believes it — well, what was I thinking, then! A WINNER IS YOU! I see no rebuttal at all in your post.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
TLG,
We’ve gone a few rounds before. I don’t know if you realize this but I actually respect your intelligence especially when I came across how old your are. You do bring much to the political discussion and your posts are, at times, informative to me.
I only ask you not to step on the sacred. The Mother Teresa thing was not nice.
Are you capable of dressing a disfigured person’s wounds? Would you have enough moxy to go against the prevailing culture to take care of a person in India ridiculed and left for dead, a person dying from AIDS, bathing someone with boils and sores?
Hey, TLG, would you have even stood up on the bus to give up your seat for a black woman in the 60′s? It would seem, that no, you would not. Why? Because it is not condusive to you.
I’m not so good in that category myself, though I think I would have given up my seat.
You seem to hate self-sacrifice and in doing so, you really do have no heroes, nothing to look up to and nothing to look foward to.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Congrats, Brownback!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFdo6FzhX5w
August 14th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Scott — Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
1) I’m not going to deal with hypotheticals like the bus situation, but I will say that it would not be a “sacrifice.” I would have been able to make a statement and not lose anything (in fact, I’d probably rather stand, since it burns a bit more calories, haha), and she’d gain the seat and be cooperating with me in making that statement. Being young, I’ve had few opportunities to stand up for people — and we’re running out of people that need stood up for. In fact, I’m a member of the only two minority groups still despised by much of the country! All I’ve really done is stand up for people at school being bullied. And it’s really amazing how when one person speaks up, others will, too. I was astounded that about four or five other people joined me in defending the kid being bullied when I stood up for him. It’s all a matter of people being afraid to draw attention to themselves, I think…people are so much more comfortable in groups.
2) I wouldn’t mind taking care of the person. I don’t think it takes moxy to do something that will garner you incredible publicity and admiration, though. But, would I be capable of it? Of course. I wouldn’t mind at all, as long as I wouldn’t catch anything.
3) I don’t believe in the ‘sacred,’ so I’m certainly not going to give it extra respect. The very fact that certain things demand to be called sacred — imaginary gods — is reason enough for me to mock them and bring them down a couple of notches. God is as real to me as beneficial socialism.
4) That being said, I do see one benefit to keeping religion around: human nature. It wants guidance and support, it seems. In countries where religion has declined, socialism has risen. I’d take a religious society over a socialist society any day. I’d rather be barred from getting another guy off than having half of my paychecks taken away, put bluntly.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
But thank you for your comments about my intelligence…
^_^
August 14th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
TLG,
Thank you for considering me an ally on these boards (along with Phil M). Yes, we’ve had our fights before, but for the most part (except for the war/war in general) we agree.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
We agree for the most part on war. I am completely against operations like the Clinton Adventures of the 1990′s. War should always, always, always be the country’s defense interests. I just happen to believe that the War in Iraq is justified along those means.
It’s quite a shame that just minding your own business has become a fault and not a virtue in popular discourse…
August 14th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
be in the country’s defense interests*
when it’s waged*
Haha. The way I wrote it was rather ambiguous before…
August 15th, 2007 at 12:43 am
Awesome. So you hold no grudges on me regarding that heated debate we had on Iraq that one night?
August 15th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Of course not. Someone who is with you on 90% of the issues is not your political enemy!
August 15th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Of course. I think it’s probably closer to 95% myself.
Plus, let’s think about it. We’re 100% bang-on , with regards to metaphysics and epistemology. I probably digress a little from Ayn Rand in Ethics, not so much in the actual ethics, but in how I get to objective morals. I could discuss it with you sometime. I don’t think that the slight change in route in regards to ethics really changes much, because as I said, the morals are still objective, and I find it much more consistent with an objective epistemology.
So philosophically, we agree on a whoole lot. I consider you my closest ally on most issues on this site, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for you.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Same here: Morals are more or less, to me, objective, but the way I get to it is different — I just simply think that since I cannot justify my right to another person’s body (and they can’t to mine, as a corollary), we should let people tend to their own business and government should do the same.
PS — I’m on AIM, if you have it. My screen name is apkkib.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:12 am
TLG (64),
The prophecies were not confirmed in the Bible, they were confirmed in real life. e.g. Jeremiah 30 talks of the Jews coming back to their land. That happened in 1948, hardly when the Bible was written.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:24 am
Did you actually just use that as proof, JayPe? Could it be that they came back to their land because the Bible said they would? The Bible hardly predicted it. More like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:51 am
Excellent point, Nusrat.
They did it because they thought they were supposed to.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Bottom line, Brownback got his ticket punched out of Iowa and on to other states. Whether he can
sustain any momentum out of Iowa has yet to be seen. It’s too early to start eating our young.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
The real problem with Romney is that the more people get to know his beliefs the less they trust
him. He has been trying to hide the stranger parts of his LDS doctrines, but when his viral YouTube debut
has him touting the fact that JESUS is coming back to MISSOURI…yikes.