www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Sam Brownback to quit presidential race

The Associated Press is reporting that Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) will quit his race for the presidency, this Friday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21359819/

Aren't you glad that the 'spelling police' are out?!? LOL!...unless there was a hidden meaning to:

'Sam Brownback to quick presidential race

Regards,
and have a nice day!
Alice

oops . . . thank you, Alice.

-- John

Of course he did. He was a relative "nobody" in the field, very few people knew who he was. I expect Ron Paul will follow suit within a pretty short time.

It's all about money, and Ron Paul has third most money on hand in the GOP. Like it or not, Ron Paul has the finances to be in this for the long run. His poll numbers have been rising as well, up to 5% in the latest gallop poll, and his fundraising doubled last quarter. The question is whether this trend will continue and if he'll have enough time to get his name out there.

As a Ron Paul supporter, I hope he does!

Nathan

There isn't any "like it or not" aspect to my post.

I'm just postulating that while he may have the money he's not going to have the "name recognition" factor to compete with Obama or Clinton.

I don't know if I support Ron Paul or not. Why? Because I, like many other voters, don't know anything about him - never having heard his name before say August of this year.

I don't see that he's going to have the support to get all the way to the nomination. People have to know who you are to support you and whenever I mention his name to anyone I get the same answer I gave, "Ron WHO???"

I think that Ron Paul will go to the convention, will not pull out of the race, and might even consider running as an independent candidate. He will not get the nomination.

Brownback seems like a good guy, sincere, honest, and certainly prolife. It is too bad that a good prolife voice will be lost in the race. I expect a number of other second-tier candidates to follow suit shortly.

Joe

Sorry if you took offense. I meant the "like it or not" to anyone reading it who may or may not like Ron Paul. The point of my post was that Ron Paul will be in it until the end of the Republican Primaries because he has enough money to do so.

If he can win the whole election is beside the point. I'm just stating he will be in this until the end of the primaries and not be the next one to drop out, and I'm sure even most anti-Ron Paul people would agree with me.

As far as name recognition goes, how many people knew who Bill Clinton was at this point in the 1992 election?

I didn't take offense. I was just clarifying what I meant.

I honestly do not think that Ron Paul will make it to the convention. And I would bet money on the fact that he will not win the GOP nomination.

Which isn't to say he's not worth supporting. I just don't see him having the support to get that far this time around.

I agree with you Joe, except for the part about Ron Paul not getting the nomination (sorry if I misunderstood, but you made it seem as though it were 100% certain). As a supporter, I will hold on to the hope that he pulls out the upset, but I would agree that it will be an uphill battle.

Nathan

Now that Senator Brownback is out, I just have to decide between Fred Thompson or Ron Paul.

Nathan,

I just can't see the Republic establishment tolerating a Ron Paul nomination. I think that they have annointed either Giuliani or Thompson (or perhaps they are still trying to decide). Romney is a long shot I think, but a possibility. If I had to guess, I would suggest that the top contenders, in this order, are:

1. Giuliani
2. Thompson
3. Romney

I don't think any other candidate has a real shot at the nomination. Because Ron Paul is hated by the Republican establishment, there would have to be overwhelming support for him to get the nomination. Otherwise, I think the party insiders would be able to box him out at the convention. To be honest, they probably won't let him speak at the convention, even if he gets some delegates.

Joe

Before the 2008 Presidential Election I see the USA getting into it's third war. As the only staunchly anti-war candidate, I think it will help Ron Paul's numbers.

Not sure about that, unless Democrats vote in the Republican primary. The Republicans who are against the war are not as numerous in the South.

Brownback was running for president?

--------
Western Orthodoxy Blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]

Sorry about the previous post. Brownback was fearless on the issue of life, pretty terrible on immigration and other issues.

The only other candidate I can see dropping out soon is Duncan Hunter (my sentimental favorite). McCain will probably go soon, as soon as the money dwindles. Tancredo is running a single-issue candidacy, and Huckabee is arguably really running for VP. He'll probably be in until the NH primaries, unless he falters badly in Iowa. So it's down to the three "frontrunners" Joe listed. (Sigh.)

Actually, Bill Clinton was the best-known candidate in 1992 and received glowing media coverage throughout.

I'd be surprised if Ron Paul didn't get offered a run for president on some third party ticket.

--------
Western Orthodoxy Blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]

Ok, I must have gotten my facts mixed up, I was only 11 at that time. I apologize, though I thought Clinton was referred to as the "comeback kid" or something like that. I guess that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't have name recognition though.

I wouldn't be suprised if RP ran third party either. He draws a lot of independents and democrats, so he might be convinced.

No problem, Nathan. Clinton was called "The Comeback Kid" (actually, called himself the comeback kid), because he was the frontrunner before the world heard about a woman named Gennifer Flowers. When he came in a respectable second in the '92 NH primaries (to the late Paul Tsongas, who was Greek Orthodox), it was the first time he proved that he could get away with paying no price for his personal immorality. We know where that story ended.

If RP runs third party, it will be a rude awakening for him. He's getting a lot of Democratic support, because he's giving Republicans trouble in their debates; in the general election, they'll all support Hillary. There's no way they're going to vote for a man who wants to abolish Social Security.

---------
Western Orthodoxy Blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]

I'd never bet on him winning third party. It's never been done, and I don't think he'd be the first (wait, now that I think about it, wasn't Teddy Rosevelt third party (Bull Moose))? However, he'd be the only anti-war candidate if Hillary wins, and that is the main issue for a lot of people today.

As far as social security goes, he doesn't want to abolish it during his term, because he realizes that a lot of people have become dependent on it. He would implement a gradual withdraw from it. I'm pretty sure 90% of people below 30 would be happy with this approach to get out of this ponzi scheme gradually.

Anyways, if one is a liberal and believe that the government should be more involved in peoples lives, you are NOT going to vote for RP. I agree with you there.

TR split the Republican Party allowing the election of Woodrow Wilson.

In the 1800s, there were a number of "third party" candidates. Even one former president ran third party, with the Anti-Masonic Party. From the remnants of one of the two "major" parties, the Whigs, the Republican Party became the only "third party" to win the presidency on its second try (1860).

TR split the party, electing a Democrat.
Perot split anti-Clinton voters in '92.
Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election.

Generally, running third party is the best way to elect the candidate you least agree with.

-----
Western Orthodoxy Blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]

Not the case with Jesse "the mind" ventura!

Ahhh, to be a Minnesotan.

As a Kansan...I am SO GLAD that he's dropping out of the race. I NEVER liked that man!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Too true !

-- John

By the way, is anyone considering Mike Huckabee seriously? He seems like a serious conservative.

-- John