October 18, 2007

Brownback To Withdraw

Aides to Senator Sam Brownback have leaked to the AP that he will withdraw from the presidential race tomorrow. Brownback has not gained any traction at all in the race despite the widely reported frustration of pro-life activists with the GOP frontrunners:

Brownback, a longshot conservative contender, had trouble raising money to compete in the race. He is expected announce his withdrawal in Topeka, Kan.

He raised a little more than $800,000 in the third quarter of this year, his lowest quarterly amount since entering race. He has brought in more than $4 million overall and is eligible for $2 million in federal matching funds.

What more is there to say? Brownback has never really captured anyone's imagination. He hasn't moved at all since entering the race, and has never really made a case why he himself should carry the Republican banner in the 2008 election.

His failure, however, calls into question just how powerful the evangelical Right remains. Brownback may have been one of two candidates who most closely tracked with their agenda. The other, Mike Huckabee, has begun gaining a little more traction, especially in Iowa, but still remains mired at #5 nationwide. Brownback's withdrawal, as much as it helps anyone, might help Huckabee consolidate that support -- but unless Huckabee really picks up steam, that faction may have only a tenuous claim to the center of the base.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Brownback To Withdraw:

» You Got to Know When to Fold Them from Adam's Blog
Senator Sam Brownback is dropping out of the Presidential race.  What support he has will probably pay dividends for Mike Huckabee.  Brownback is a good guy, but his style as well as his stance on immigration just didn’t work. Captain Ed adds s... [Read More]

Comments (18)

Posted by Morgan | October 18, 2007 10:51 AM

Please guard against miss-reading the evangelical vote. Senator Brownback also happens to be Catholic--not an evangelical (Protestant). Some evangelicals may have voted for him due to his pro-life stance, but many more are frustrated that a true evangelical can't get a political break (why are the pro-life judges appointed to the SCOTUS always Catholics?).

I do not care necessarily to be understood (as a Reformed evangelical), but perhaps a little more research into what evangelicals really think and believe may be in order if they're going to be analyzed and referred to within the political context.

Perhaps a quick read of "Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism" by George M. Marsden may help with your understanding.

Posted by Adam Graham | October 18, 2007 11:02 AM

The Evangelical vote is large, but due to tactics, it's split several ways. You'll find several social conservatives backing Thompson and Romney among others.

Posted by Sherwood | October 18, 2007 11:14 AM

Agree with Morgan. Another issue is that the evangelical Right delivers votes, not mountains of cash. Candidates raise money from corporations, businesses and comfortable donors. Most of the evangelicals I know give our excess money to church, charities and other Christian giving purposes, not political campaigns. They show up and vote for moral candidates and that's what counts in the end. I wouldn't read too much into a Catholic pro-lifer not gaining traction with fundraising and possible votes months before the primaries and a year before the election.

Posted by Skip | October 18, 2007 11:58 AM

I think it's pretty clear that the evangelical vote is not sufficient in itself to gain the nomination. We'll find out in the next few months if it's even necessary.

Posted by Rodney A Stanton | October 18, 2007 12:07 PM

"His failure, however, calls into question just how powerful the evangelical Right remains..."
Captain - I beg to differ

Most evangelicals in SoCal are against pardons for wanton criminals. This man voted for a mass pardon of 12,000,000 - 15,000,000 criminals just 5 months ago! Evangelicals here in SoCal remember his vote, and remember it well!

Cerritos, Cal

Posted by AH·C | October 18, 2007 12:10 PM

Ditto on Morgan. Plus there's his smugness factor that creeps me out a la Goracle.

Posted by thatcher | October 18, 2007 12:34 PM

Christian conservatives look at the over-all conservative positions of a candidate. Brownback is pro-life but the rest of his politics was less than inviting. Same can be said of Huckabee, who appears to be a major nanny state candidate although is good on social issues.

Posted by Rose | October 18, 2007 12:41 PM

"His failure, however, calls into question just how powerful the evangelical Right remains. Brownback may have been one of two candidates who most closely tracked with their agenda."


This makes NO sense to me at all. NOBODY could be FURTHER from the Christian Evangelical positions OVERALL that John McCain - and Brownbakc has consistently made it plain that McCain is "his hero".

McCain Feingold Thompson ALONE is reason NOT to even vaguely CONSIDER Brownback.

When did Brownback EVER make a case for representing EVANGELICALS when the RINOS like McCain and Brownback have already made a fabulous case for themselves of MOST SUPPORTING THE DEMOCRATS.

Posted by Rose | October 18, 2007 1:01 PM

Oh, yeah, BTW, Huckabee isn't MY choice of a Christian candidate either, since he is OPENLY VYING for competion with DEMOCRATS on micromanagement SOCIALIST STYLE of American's personal lives - usually on an expremely stupid and ill-conceived foundation, i.e. his own personal weight-lose experiences, which are totally irrelevant to the battle most human beings fight.

I.e., it is perfectly obvious his own overweight was due to over-eating, and had no underlying PRE-EXISTING major medical causation, as most adults, especially women, and many of their ch ildren do suffer, in spite of them thinking it is merely couch potato, like parents, like children - too many snacks and video games.

For instance, some children they find who were grossly underweight due to pre-existing conditions at birth and for the next few years, tend to be overweight when they get a few years older. I've seen children who fought through severe hernia and heart-related problems as new-borns, bone thin for many years, suddenly, looking initially like they are only on a routine and normal growing spurt, suddenly go from fighting for their life to gain ENOUGH weight, to a bad haywire metabolism problem and look like chubby couch potatoes NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO. Exactly like one of my friends did as she discovered the cause of her problems were haywire metabolism associated with Epstein Barr Virus. Fighting for her life with AIDS'like UNDERWEIGHT for 5or 6 years, suddenly overnight reversed and became OVERWEIGHT, and cannot get it back off again for anything.

I know women who have been banned by their doctors from taking hte thyroid and other hormones they need because of bad hearts, so the docs tell them and well-backed research that if they take the hormones, they will burn up their vital organs. I saw my aunt do that with diabetes.
She was bone thin all her life and unlike most diabetics NEVER went through a period of weight GAIN. Everything was normal til she had 2 children - everything went hairwire and never returned to normal, and her organs burned up on her, she died very young.
Now, she was bone thin - what if that because as unpopular, PC wise - because of distate for an "anorexic" appearance??? As MANY diabetics go through WITH weight gain, which they have been equally u nable to control???

And then add threats of NO MEDICAL CARE???
IN AMERICA??????????????????

New studies find that name calling and attempts to SHAME CHILDREN INTO DIETS to lose weight actually cause stress that causes more severe weight gain.
So sending those FLUNKING WEIGHT CONTROL REPORT CARDS home from schools where teachers, coaches and fellow students are allready DAILY calling some students "FATTY" and worse, even when they are ALMOST NORMAL WEIGHT...

I find this horrendously vicious, and am NOT IN THE LEAST amused by Mike Huckabee's threats to withhold medical attention from overweight people.
I find him thoroughly DISPICABLE, long before we get to the fact that he considers ILLEGALS ENTITLED TO AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP BECAUSE "AMERICA TREATED THEM LIKE SLAVES"??????


No! He doesn't represent anything NEAR resembling the Christian spirit to ME!

And as far as I am concerned, those who vote for THAT, fully deserve Hillary!

Posted by TBinSTL [TypeKey Profile Page] | October 18, 2007 3:51 PM

Again, I would point out that the, so called, "Evangelical block" is incredibly fractious and self willed. By definition, we have no "pope" and anyone that pretends to that role automatically drops in the eyes of most voters in this category.

Posted by David | October 18, 2007 5:15 PM

As for those above who think Most Americans are Fat because of Medical Conditions and not because they eat to much are positively out in Oz. If they stooped eating so much they loose weight.

I Am a Evangelical, and I vote on those issues. I blantingly refuse to vote for anyone thats Pro Choice, I refuse to vote for Anyone who would give a blanket amnesty (IE: Amnesty Brownback)

I am supporting Mike Huckabee because hes the only real copnservative that makes sense, hes the only one who represents the right. He also is a real person, and does not flip flop as the winds come. Anyways Brownback drooping out of the race will give some of the little guys more air to move in. I am quite sure brownbacks supporters will go to a Pro Life candidate that has not flip flopped

Posted by Eric Classic | October 18, 2007 5:29 PM


When did Catholics stop being capable of being "true evangelicals?"

Do you realize how badly your comment sounds? I think you demonstrated in your writing why people such as yourself are not being elected to the SCOTUS.

By the way, I'm a evangelic Catholic.

Posted by Bennett | October 18, 2007 6:32 PM

If the Evangelical Right didn't like Brownback because he's Catholic (per some of the comments here) then it's really not going to like Mitt Romney.

Posted by poodlemom | October 18, 2007 7:42 PM


If you dislike Brownback for his stance on illegals, how in the world can you support Huckabee?

So far in the debates I've noticed that Huckabee has lucked out as far as not being asked about his position on immigration.

Do yourself a favor, Google Huckabee/immigration/LaRaza. Other articles show Huckabee's support in getting a Mexican consulate built in Little Rock. Can you say Tyson Foods?

Posted by Morgan | October 19, 2007 10:31 AM


Because true evangelicalism (not the pop-ecumenical version that is so popular today)came out of the Reformation and is based upon the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide). The Catholic doctrine of faith plus works equals justification precludes Catholics from being evangelicals in its truest sense.

No offense was meant; just the facts.

The appointments to SCOTUS are self-evident.


Posted by Sherwood | October 19, 2007 4:23 PM

Ditto Morgan. Any person of any faith can call him/herself or be labeled "evangelical". Most people would say that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses do a lot of evangelizing and are thereby evangelical. You can even say the same thing about Islamo-fascists who evangelize with convert or die tactics. But if the connotation you imply is of the historic Christian reformed and regenerate Christ follower, then yes, Roman Catholics are excluded from the group. The media would apply evangelical right to a lot of people with a lot of different beliefs, I would not.

Posted by Morgan | October 20, 2007 8:07 AM


I too am tired of having the truth of a theological concept or doctrine redefined to fit either one's personal agenda or the zeitgeist; hence my recommendation to the Captain to read up.

No wonder that the culture at large is so confused over evangelicals. Just about everyone can be one under relativistic, post-modern thinking.


Posted by Dan | October 21, 2007 6:58 AM

Yeah, but I bet everyone will come ah callin when its game time.

The fact is, no modern republican national candidate can win without the help of the Religious Right. The more beltway republicans would rather have it otherwise, just wishing for dumb vote bots like those envied on the Democrat side, but the republicans will have to earn its voters. Each and every single time. And personally, I like it that way. There should be no such thing as a taken block of voters.

Post a comment