# Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) announces for president **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 20, 2007, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740 "2007-01-20T18:30:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/41 "2007-01-22T01:33:06Z")
OK. We’ll look into what is causing this. You are not in trouble (yet). 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/42 "2007-01-22T01:33:16Z")
Cool your jets, **tom**. He’s NOT doing it on purpose; reply w/ quote to one of them and you’ll see what I mean. Also see ATMB. And on preview, oops. I see you’ve worked it out. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/43 "2007-01-22T01:49:05Z")
Now that is a curious bug, only one poster can not post here but he can in a different one. As for Bush being a born again Christian, I do think that after Reagan that that item was an important component of why he managed to be elected twice, thanks to the evangelical vote. The others after Reagan that had no strong conservative evangelical leanings were less strong at the polls. I do suspect that the evangelical support will not be there or in a weak form if McCain or Giuliani get the nomination. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/44 "2007-01-22T02:09:36Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Look, I’m sure Rasmussen’s number is high. I can’t explain their result, but they are a reasonably reputable polling outfit, and that’s what they came up with. [/quote] I don’t doubt that number. I just don’t think those people are “fundamentalists”. I’ve given a cite of an academic study with numbers concerning evangleicals that I think we can trust. > [@](#): > > The point is, there are more than enough fundies to determine the outcome of the GOP nomination. Again with the “fundies” thing. Did you read the link I gave about that? > [@](#): > > You said the media propogated the myth that McCain wasn’t a ‘real’ conservative. I basically said, “So what? Wrong axis.” And I disagree. Besides, looks like he has a certain following amont that demographic already. [Evangelicals for McCain.](http://www.evangelicalsformccain.org/) If he runs, he’ll be able to make nice with them once the real campaigning begins. > [@](#): > > And over that period of time, the role of evangelicals in the GOP has been (a) growing, (b) shrinking, (c) staying more or less the same? Well, unless they weren’t voting before, I’d say it’s staying the same. > [@](#): > > When Nixon was President, the fundies still thought politics was ‘of the devil.’ Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/45 "2007-01-22T02:15:55Z")
There was an extra open quote tag in post #33. I can’t imagine why that would make the entire post invisible. The extra tag was between “election.” and “Besides” in the original quote from John Mace. I haven’t fixed the others, as they were simply retries. I’ll crosspost this in ATMB. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/46 "2007-01-22T09:46:55Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] There was an extra open quote tag in post #33. I can’t imagine why that would make the entire post invisible. The extra tag was between “election.” and “Besides” in the original quote from John Mace. I haven’t fixed the others, as they were simply retries. I’ll crosspost this in ATMB. [/QUOTE] Thanks, **Frank**. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/47 "2007-01-22T09:52:39Z")
Glad to see I can post here again! That was very strange. And like I said in ATMB, totally unintentional. **John** , I’ll reply to you later this morning. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/48 "2007-01-22T14:29:48Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I don’t doubt that number. I just don’t think those people are “fundamentalists”. I’ve given a cite of an academic study with numbers concerning evangleicals that I think we can trust. [/quote] 1. They are, by definition, Biblical fundamentalists. > [@](#): > > Again with the “fundies” thing. Did you read the link I gave about that? I read the ‘fundamentalists v. evangelicals’ link, which supported what I was saying. The other one, you only cited for the % of evangelicals, which I was (and am) willing to accept as a more reliable number. > [@](#): > > And I disagree. Besides, looks like he has a certain following amont that demographic already. [Evangelicals for McCain.](http://www.evangelicalsformccain.org/) If he runs, he’ll be able to make nice with them once the real campaigning begins. Hey, somebody put up a website! That definitely demonstrates a groundswell of support. > [@](#): > > Well, unless they weren’t voting before, I’d say it’s staying the same. Here’s a snapshot from 1994 (subscription only): > [@](#): > > **Religious Right Gains Influence And Spreads Discord in G.O.P.** > > By RICHARD L. BERKE, > Published: June 3, 1994 > > After years of quietly building support, conservative Christians have burst into view this year as an important, often divisive, force in Republican politics. They now have control of six state party organizations and are making inroads in several others. > > The rise of evangelical Christians, whose presence has substantially grown since Pat Robertson ran for President in 1988, has led to bitter intraparty battles in several states. Typically, traditional suburban moderates denounce the evangelicals as interlopers and fear that their stands on emotional issues like abortion will drive people from the party. > > \ > > Christians who cleave to a strict interpretation of the Bible have effectively taken over the Republican parties in Texas, Virginia, Oregon, Iowa, Washington and South Carolina and have made significant advances in several other states, including Florida, New York, California and Louisiana. Unlike many economic-oriented Republicans, those in the religious right are fervent Christians drawn to candidates largely for their spiritual views and moral crusades on social issues. These groups are by no means monolithic and vary considerably from state to state. The point being that the Religious Right’s influence was a lot less before it started taking over GOP state parties. And while I can’t find a cite, I have read in the mainstream media that they’ve taken over a lot more GOP state organizations than the ones mentioned here in the dozen years since. > [@](#): > > Cite? Long memory. Remember, I was hanging out with these people in the early 1970s. If you can find it, Sen. Mark Hatfield’s 1972 book [Conflict and Conscience](http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Conscience-Mark-Hatfield/dp/B000FLYCSU/sr=8-3/qid=1169475894/ref=sr_1_3/103-9765832-1243813?ie=UTF8&s=books) is a good snapshot of the state of play at the time. In it, he responds to born-again Christians’ extreme reluctance to dirty their hands with politics, and tries to justify to them his stance that there’s no conflict between his being a born-again Christian and a politician. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/49 "2007-01-22T15:27:24Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] 1. They are, by definition, Biblical fundamentalists. I read the ‘fundamentalists v. evangelicals’ link, which supported what I was saying. The other one, you only cited for the % of evangelicals, which I was (and am) willing to accept as a more reliable number. [/QUOTE] In what way did it support what you were saying? This? > [@](#): > > People often get confused between the terms evangelical and fundamentalist. They mean two different things. Or this? > [@](#): > > Fundamentalists are a subset of that. In other words there are fewer fundamentalists than evangelicals, hence less than the figure you cited. > [@RTF](#): > > Here’s a snapshot from 1994 (subscription only): > The point being that the Religious Right’s influence was a lot less before it started taking over GOP state parties. And while I can’t find a cite, I have read in the mainstream media that they’ve taken over a lot more GOP state organizations than the ones mentioned here in the dozen years since. And in how many of those states is it still true? Your cite says they are gaining control of CA. That worked out real well for them-- we’re the embryonic stem cell capital of America, with a Republican governor! Note also the use of "evangelicals’ in your own cite, not "fundamentalists. BTW, that’s really the only issue I had with your post originally, and which starting this side discussion. It’s an incorrect statement to say that “fundamentalists” are the base of the Republican party. That’s all. I don’t dispute the important roll that evangelicals (not fundamentalists) play in the Republican party. But they’ve only been successful in nominating one of their own once. Many of them are rethinking that “success”, as the polls show. > [@](#): > > Long memory. Remember, I was hanging out with these people in the early 1970s. > > If you can find it, Sen. Mark Hatfield’s 1972 book [Conflict and Conscience](http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Conscience-Mark-Hatfield/dp/B000FLYCSU/sr=8-3/qid=1169475894/ref=sr_1_3/103-9765832-1243813?ie=UTF8&s=books) is a good snapshot of the state of play at the time. In it, he responds to born-again Christians’ extreme reluctance to dirty their hands with politics, and tries to justify to them his stance that there’s no conflict between his being a born-again Christian and a politician. Well, I have a long memory, too, and what you are saying might be true of “fundamentalists”, but not so much evangelicals. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/50 "2007-01-22T17:29:03Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] In what way did it support what you were saying? This? Or this? [/quote] How about this: [quote] [Fundamentalists…Have a literalist view of the Bible./quote]Rasmussen says 54% of Americans believe the Bible is literally true. That’s how you define a fundie. > [@](#): > > In other words there are fewer fundamentalists than evangelicals, hence less than the figure you cited. There are fewer fundies than evangelicals - that is correct. However, neither is a subset of the other. Not all fundies are evangelicals; it’s just that there are a lot more non-fundie evangelicals than non-evangelical fundies. > [@](#): > > And in how many of those states is it still true? Your cite says they are gaining control of CA. That worked out real well for them-- we’re the embryonic stem cell capital of America, with a Republican governor! Apparently you missed the part where I said I didn’t have a current cite. However, if you think the religious right doesn’t have control of more than, say, 10 state parties today, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you. > [@](#): > > Note also the use of "evangelicals’ in your own cite, not "fundamentalists. BTW, that’s really the only issue I had with your post originally, and which starting this side discussion. But the Rasmussen cite (that’s the one you mean, right?) referred to persons who believe the Bible is literally true, which = fundamentalists. > [@](#): > > It’s an incorrect statement to say that “fundamentalists” are the base of the Republican party. That’s all. I don’t dispute the important roll that evangelicals (not fundamentalists) play in the Republican party. But they’ve only been successful in nominating one of their own once. Many of them are rethinking that “success”, as the polls show. I’d like to see those polls. And portraying 2000 as an aberration instead of simply the point at which their power within the party got to that point is, I think, misleading. > [@](#): > > Well, I have a long memory, too, and what you are saying might be true of “fundamentalists”, but not so much evangelicals. Well, I _was_ talking about fundamentalists, as you recall. I’ve kinda lost track of what your point was in all this. Mine is that there are a lot of fundamentalists, evangelicals, what have you, in America. The vast majority of them are Republicans, and they are active and organized in the party. They comprise either a majority of likely GOP primary voters, or close to it. Most human beings, evangelical/fundie or not, prefer leaders who can speak our language - and the evangelical/fundie groups are even more tribal than most. Right now, none of the leading candidates on the GOP side speak evangelical/fundie very fluently at all, and the evangelical/fundie voters aren’t, by and large, strongly committed to any candidate yet. As a result, there’s a potential opening for a conservative Christian candidate to break through from the 1% or less level of support, to being a viable candidate for the nomination. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/51 "2007-01-22T18:01:10Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] I’ve kinda lost track of what your point was in all this. [/quote] Well, I restated it in my last post, and you quoted it. > [@](#): > > Mine is that there are a lot of fundamentalists, evangelicals, what have you, in America. The vast majority of them are Republicans, and they are active and organized in the party. They comprise either a majority of likely GOP primary voters, or close to it. Most human beings, evangelical/fundie or not, prefer leaders who can speak our language - and the evangelical/fundie groups are even more tribal than most. Right now, none of the leading candidates on the GOP side speak evangelical/fundie very fluently at all, and the evangelical/fundie voters aren’t, by and large, strongly committed to any candidate yet. As a result, there’s a potential opening for a conservative Christian candidate to break through from the 1% or less level of support, to being a viable candidate for the nomination. Sure. Romney is trying to be that candidate, and he’s already above 1%. He’s actively courting that vote. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/52 "2007-01-22T18:07:20Z")
[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance] Oh, and there’s a kissy-kissy opinion piece in the Washington Post today setting up Jeb Bush as a strong VP (or even P) candidate for 2008. Heads up. [/QUOTE] I thought the official word, for whatever that’s worth, is that Jeb isn’t interested. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/53 "2007-01-22T18:19:33Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Sure. Romney is trying to be that candidate, and he’s already above 1%. He’s actively courting that vote. [/QUOTE] Nuh-uh. Not gonna happen. He’s a Mormon. Evangelicals would rather vote for a Jew. Jews are merely not-Christians, but Mormons, in their view, are **false** Christians. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/54 "2007-01-22T18:29:53Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Nuh-uh. Not gonna happen. He’s a Mormon. Evangelicals would rather vote for a Jew. Jews are merely not-Christians, but Mormons, in their view, are **false** Christians. [/QUOTE] Evangelicals vote strategically, just like everybody else, and are perfectly willing to vote for a Catholic, a Jew, or a Mormon, if he or she advocate the views that they support. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/55 "2007-01-22T18:50:49Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] Evangelicals vote strategically, just like everybody else, and are perfectly willing to vote for a Catholic, a Jew, or a Mormon, if he or she advocate the views that they support. [/QUOTE] I agree that many or most voters are like this. But if there are two candidates, both of whom share some or all views in common with the voter, is the tie-breaker the candidate’s faith? Will people even take the candidate with whom they have less in common so long as his faith seems more akin to theirs? I think they will, to a degree. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Joe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@Evil\_Joe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Joe)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/56 "2007-01-22T18:55:46Z")
What is ATMB? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/57 "2007-01-22T19:04:08Z")
[QUOTE=jsgoddess] But if there are two candidates, both of whom share some or all views in common with the voter, is the tie-breaker the candidate’s faith? Will people even take the candidate with whom they have less in common so long as his faith seems more akin to theirs? I think they will, to a degree. [/QUOTE] Maybe some will, but I don’t think for most voters, the religion of the candidate matters so much as his views. The religious right loved both Rick Santorum and Ernest Istook, and Santorum is Catholic and Istook is Mormon. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/58 "2007-01-22T19:40:25Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] Evangelicals vote strategically, just like everybody else, and are perfectly willing to vote for a Catholic, a Jew, or a Mormon, if he or she advocate the views that they support. [/QUOTE] And Romney’s got a big problem there, too, since he was all gooey on gay rights when he was running for Massachusetts Gov. Now apparently they brainwashed 😉 him into it, or something. So he’s got a Mormon problem, a gay problem, an anti-gay problem (now that he’s anti-gay), and a waffling problem. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/59 "2007-01-22T19:43:14Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Well, I restated it in my last post, and you quoted it. [/quote] OK, then. I’d had the impression that you were actually challenging something in my argument, rather than just complaining that I was confusing two similar but not identical groups. > [@](#): > > Sure. Romney is trying to be that candidate, and he’s already above 1%. He’s actively courting that vote. I think he’s doomed to failure, for the reasons in my response to **Captain Amazing**. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740/60 "2007-01-22T19:43:18Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] And Romney’s got a big problem there, too, since he was all gooey on gay rights when he was running for Massachusetts Gov. Now apparently they brainwashed 😉 him into it, or something. [/QUOTE] Well, yeah, that’s what Romney’s problem really is…the fact that he ran in the past as being pro-choice and pro-gay rights, and now he’s totally changed those positions around. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-sam-brownback-r-kansas-announces-for-president/388740.md?page=4)