I won't delve into gossip, I'll just deal with the facts.
There was little love lost between the Brownback and Santorum camps, but it was largely unrelated to the two men themselves. Increasingly, Brownback was able to organize and mobilize the social conservative base through his Value Action Team, while Santorum chose to go the leadership route. And let's face it, Santorum was almost just as big a camera hog as Sen. Chuck Schumer.
The fact, also, that Brownback's staff had some turnover over a couple of years that did not go down well in some conservatives circles didn't help matters either.
As for Brownback's supposed flip-flop "created" and enabled by others here: at an off the record meeting with American Spectator editors about eight months ago, Brownback was clear on his position related to Iraq: troop build-ups weren't the solution to the problem, and neither was straight up military approach to Iran. This was met with much consternation around the table from almost everyone who was there. Brownback could clearly sense the dissatisfaction in the room. If he was truly a panderer, given who was in the room (and it was the elite of conservative journalism), then would have been the time to waffle and perhaps believe he needed to rethink or repackage his position. He clearly has not.
He made the same point he made the other night -- that there are political and social challenges there that are not being addressed and must be addressed if the military challenges are to be fully resolved.
And Brownback has not flip-flopped. The troop re-enforcement that the President has proposed is not "short term" or temporary. According to both the White House and the State Department, this "surge" could be for as long as two years. That is not "temporary."
The Romney camp is clearly irked because the Brownback campaign has been eating its breakfast, lunch and dinner when it comes to garnering support from social conservatives.
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article