Noam Schieber’s New Republic story on the conversions of Sam Brownback—from evangelical Protestant to Catholic and from moderate Republican to conservative—was actually much more interesting and sympathetic than I expected. But I’m not yet convinced by this bit: “If everything breaks right, and social conservatives are particularly aggrieved over their party’s standard bearer, Brownback could end up on the national ticket. “
It’s not inconceivable, especially if Mitt Romney’s overtures to evangelicals and other social conservatives fall flat. Social conservatives don’t trust John McCain and disagree with Rudy Giuliani. Brownback would be a purer alternative. Maybe a Giuliani-Brownback or McCain-Brownback ticket would keep the values voters from staying home.
Yet the question conservative boosters of both Romney and Brownback need to ask themselves is whether the grassroots support is there. The Beltway right has rooted for conservative heroes in the Republican primaries before—think Jack Kemp in 1988, Phil Gramm in 1996, and, to a much lesser extent, Steve Forbes in 2000. At the ballot box, these candidates went nowhere.
And Brownback faces a second obstacle. Where does he stand in the “invisible primary” decided by fundraisers and Rolodex men, Pioneers and Rangers? Mitt Romney has a foothold there. Does Brownback?
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?