Life on the campaign trail can indeed be lonely for a presidential candidate struggling to gain traction.

The photo above captures Republican Sam Brownback speaking to a sparse audience at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., Tuesday. To be fair, there were at least 11 more people on the right side of the room, not pictured here.

Still, this can't bode well for the Brownback campaign. What does the Republican senator from Kansas need to do to capture the voters' interest? Or is it a hopeless case? Leave your comments below.

My fellow Ohio Blogger Brain Shavings alerted me to this last evening. I was not aware that Mike Huckabee along with Senator Sam Brownback joined up with Lance Armstrong and his "War on Cancer".

Huckabee committed to sign a nationwide smoking ban in public places, should such a measure win approval in Congress. Brownback said he would let anti-smoking efforts continue under the authority of states and local communities.

I don't and have never smoked, but I think that Brownback has a much better stand on principle here. While Mike Huckabee seems to be an earnest believer in the power of government to fix things. The federal government does not have the freedom to pass any law that is in the public good without violating the tenth amendment.

If individual states want to ban smoking anytime and anywhere, that's probably OK, but the federal government should not do so. Mike Huckabee may call himself a conservative, but making decisions on behalf of people for their own good is not a conservative principle, and doing so at the fed level just doubles the problem.

I still think Huckabee has a good chance of breaking out of the second tier, and especially of overtaking John McCain, but he will need the energy of conservatives to push him there, and this is not the way to get it.

That's how much Mike Huckabee paid to get his second place result in the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll. USA Today did an analysis:

• Third-place finisher Sam Brownback says he spent about $325,000 to win his 2,192 votes. That's $148.27 for each vote.
• Second-place finisher Mike Huckabee spent about $150,000 and received 2,587 votes. That's $57.98 per vote.
• Winner Mitt Romney has not said how much he spent. The reporting in this Washington Post article suggests at least $2 million and possibly more than twice that much. Assuming $2 million for 4,516 votes, that's $442.87 per vote. But it could top $1,000.

Mitt Romney gets no bump at all out of this. He spent $2 million while nobody else even had that kind of money. This straw poll is a pay-to-play where candidates bus in their own supporters. Romney should have won and he did. He gets no increase in standing, but he doesn't lose either. Net result, no change.

Huckabee wins because, in the political analysis presented in this piece, it's apparent that his votes came from more than just money and political organization. Apparently many of the voters bused in on other candidates transportation switched their vote at the last minute. This is saying something about Huckabee, something good. For his $150k he gets a ton of positive public press and attention that you can't buy at this stage.

Sam Brownback spent too much of his wad on a contest that ultimately means very little except generating a few headlines in the political sargasso season. And he didn't even get that. He's done, even if he doesn't know it.

But he loves faith a whole lot more. Today, the Republican Senator from Kansas penned an Op-Ed for The New York Times, of all places, on the subject of why he raised his hand in the presidential debate to signify that he didn't believe in evolution. The result is a whole lot of double-talk meant to assure readers that he's not as crazy as you think. Though viewing the piece requires a subscription, here are a couple of the choice bits:

The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths.

Sounds almost reasonable. Though Brownback certainly has a very specific faith in mind: his own. Radical Islam, of course, also deals with what it would deem "spiritual truths." Like the spiritual truth that says a slew of virgins awaits the suicide bomber in heaven. And is he serious when he claims that it is impossible that there is any contradiction between faith and reason? Perhaps he had an advisory role at Kentucky's new Creation Museum, where viewers learn that the geologic history of the earth can't be trusted, and that dinosaurs were in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve (herbivores, naturally), and fell prey to mass extinction while every other species survived.

But Brownback's real rhetorical give-away comes when he openly admits that there are limits to how much he'll ever trust reason and the scientific method. Namely, if science ever puts forth an idea that doesn't comport with his faith.

Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

Essentially, Brownback has located the threshold for when we should distrust evidence: Whenever it crosses his spiritual beliefs. In other words, no amount of scientific data will ever shake his deeply held religious intuitions. Instead, he will pick and choose which safe little tidbits from science to digest, thereby reducing the scientific method itself into an act of subjective whimsy. What a fine president he'll make!

Questions like "Who's the greatest quarterback ever in the NFL?" should be a no-brainer for a political candidate. Just pick the best QB in the history of the local team. But Senator Brownback, a second-tier candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, muffed it. Trying to make a bad analogy to politics and football, he mentioned that Peyton Manning, probably, was greatest QB in NFL history.

Unfortunately, he was in Wisconsin. Home of the best, most storied NFL franchise of all time, the Green Bay Packers, and their future hall of famer and current starter Brett Favre. (Yes I'm a proud Packer-backer.)

Sam tried to recover, but it was too late:

Realizing what he had said, the Kansas Republican slumped at the podium and put his head in his hands.

"That's really bad," he said. "That will go down in history. I apologize."

His apology brought a smattering of applause and laughter. He tried to recover, saying former Packer Bart Starr may be the greatest of all time, but the crowd was still restless.

"Let's take Favre then," Brownback said. "The Packers are great. I'm sorry. How many passes does he complete without a line?"

"All of them!" more than one person yelled from the back.

Maybe he will blame his staff, Obama-style, for mixing up his Indiana and Wisconsin speeches.

Today McCain and Brownback learned that immigration is a big deal to your average American voter.

Immigration, an issue that has divided Republicans in Washington for the last several years, is reverberating across the party's presidential campaign field, causing particular complications for Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

The topic came up repeatedly in recent campaign swings through Iowa by McCain and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, another Republican who, like McCain, supports giving some illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, a position that puts them at odds with many other conservatives. Both candidates faced intensive questioning from voters on the issue, which has become more prominent in the state as immigrants are playing an increasingly visible role in the economy and society.

"Immigration is probably a more powerful issue here than almost anyplace that I've been," McCain said after a town meeting in Cedar Falls.

Learn something new every day, I guess. Chalk this up as one of the problems of running for president from the Senate. Neither of these guys should be surprised at how big of an issue immigration is.

When I noted here yesterday that Senator John McCain joined a filibuster against raising the minimum wage, I got an outpouring in comments unlike any I've ever received as a blogger. The message was clear: America thinks it is time to raise the minimum wage. Whether it comes to economics or just plain old morality, people weren't buying that $5.15. is enough.

Unfortunately, it appears that I misunderestimated just how out-of-touch Senator McCain is on this issue. You see, Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO), who only recently announced that he is not running for reelection (and is therefore, assumedly, free to do as his three-sizes-too-small heart desires), actually tried to pass an amendment to abolish the federal minimum wage.

Who supported this move? None other than John McCain (along with fellow 2008 contender Sam Brownback). All in roughly a fourth of the Senate (all Republicans) voted to completely eliminate the minimum wage. In other words, one in four voted to let the wage floor fall out, even if it meant nickel an hour wages for American workers.

I could go into more detail about how awful and backwards this position is, but I don't need to. As you taught me yesterday, you already "get it." Hopefully, John McCain will catch on soon.

I just watched the video of Sam Brownback's announcement Friday of his presidential bid. Watch it on his Web site. And I've got to tell you: I was impressed by his sincerity and his ability to speak well.

I've got to admit, even though I lived in Kansas at one time, I knew nothing about him until now. The senator seems like a good guy. The video almost sounds like a motivational sermon you would see Sunday morning in church. It encourages you to dream big, to do good, to pray and to believe in the value of every human being. You almost want to roll up your sleeves and get to work yourself for the greater good of the country.

Since the senator reflects a lot of what I believe, I would be very supportive of inviting him as a speaker in my church or town. However this is not church. This is a campaign. Not everyone in this country is a Christian and we are a multicultural society. People have different beliefs and values and a president should be everyone's president.

So far, four potential GOP presidential candidates have set up exploratory committees and websites... Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, and Sam Brownback. Each site has the same goal for the respective GOP presidential hopeful, but each are unique in style, content, complexity... even activity.

John McCain's appears to be the smallest site. A black and white design with links to donate, sign up, a bio, as well as a few speeches and a statement on the death of President Ford. In other words, a low maintance site.

Rudy Giuliani's is a step up from McCain's. For starters, it has color, but also includes a page explaining his record on various issues, and an extensive biography. Still, it's only a fair site.

Sam Brownback's is a bit better in regards to content offered, but is poorly designed and very unnattractive and the news room section hasn't been updated since December 4, 2006. It makes me feel like the site was launched out of obligation, but quickly forgotten.

Mitt Romney's is by the most elaborate and attractive site, and it's updated regularly. It's got color, style, and even a page outlining his positions on key issues. It has a media page (MittTV) with plenty of videos for you to view, and an impressive mechanism for key fundraisers to login via the ComMITT system.

Each candidate certainly knows the importance of using the internet to get their message out and to build up grassroots support, but if the candidates exploratory committee websites are any indication of their campaign's real understanding of that importance, Romney is way ahead of the competition.

This Weekly Standard article by Terry Eastland notes that the Iowa Caucuses are especially well-suited for an low-funded underdog campaign like Brownbacks. But the interesting part of the article is where Brownback would like to position himself in this fight.

The Brownback campaign, in short, sees an opportunity to position the senator as the standard-bearer for social conservatism. Jerry Zandstra, an ordained minister in the Christian Reformed Church and political activist in Michigan and a member of Brownback's exploratory committee, is attacking Romney online for his views on abortion (as well as on other social issues), describing him as a candidate who is "historically pro-choice" but whose position "depends on the next election." Zandstra is also taking on Giuliani ("unquestionably pro-choice") and McCain ("B-plus" on opposing abortion).

Presidential aspirant Sam Brownback wants you to know that he hates gay people. So much so, in fact, that he refused to let a conservative judge, Janet Neff, receive an up or down vote for confirmation to the federal bench because she attended a same-sex commitment ceremony for the daughter of her next door neighbor. You see, if you go to a such an event, then you're telling the world that you condone homosexuality. And if you condone homosexuality, then how are you supposed to discriminate against it, as the senator and his right wing base insist.

Brownback's chutzpah knows no limits. He even asked Ms. Neff for a pledge to sit out any case that had anything to do with a whole range of issues, including gay rights. Of course, litmus tests are nothing new for Brownback. He fought Harriet Miers' Supreme Court bid on the basis that she wasn't strong enough in her rejection of abortion rights. Never mind the larger violation of the separation of powers. Brownback seems to view the judiciary as his own personal rubber stamp.

Well, today we learn that he has reconsidered his decision to block a vote on Neff. Though he is still troubled by Neff's presence at the non-legally binding ceremony. "I'd like to know more factually about what took place," he said.

Imagine, deciding issues based on the careful consideration of factual evidence. Does he think he's running for President or Federal Judge?

This is not what you expect from a frothing at the mouth right wing kook:

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, among the most conservative of the potential Republican presidential candidates, said Tuesday there's room in the GOP for candidates who favor gay rights, but he warned that such politicians wouldn't be welcomed by the party's conservative base.

"It's a big-tent party and has been for a long period of time, particularly since Ronald Reagan talked about this being a party of different viewpoints," said Brownback. "If somebody agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he's not your enemy."

Well that's mighty noble of him. However the cynical side of me suspects theres more to it than that. Reading on...

Brownback said it's far too early to dismiss candidates because of their views on volatile issues such as gay rights.

"We are way, way early in this process, so I wouldn't rule anybody out or in at this point in time," said Brownback.

Ah-ha. As a non-frontrunner, Brownback is helped if more candidates stay in the race. If it's just him vs. McCain, he's in trouble, but in a pack of Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Brownback, he has much better odds.

Or maybe he's sincere. Stranger things have happened.

Though I know that former Senator Bob Dole takes Viagra, I didn't know the name of the guy that replaced him. That would be, Sam Brownback. This senator from Kansas is forming an exploratory committee. In other words, soon he will announce that he wants to be president. After doing a limited amount of research, I would say that Brownback will be a very conservative candidate.

Brownback converted to Catholicism with the encouragment of Rick Santourum. He opposes abortion. He doesn't support the death penalty completely. He is opposed to stem cell research. He seems to have been a loyal supporter of President Bush's efforts in Iraq but then, who wasn't.

My problem with Senator Brownback are a few votes that he casts that go to the integrity issue. Some of our senators made the decision not to look to deeply into things that may not be completly honest. You see, if you don't know that stealing is going on, then you are really not at fault.

The Senator voted NO on repealing tax subsidies for companies which move U.S. jobs offshore. These companies move offshore and continue to do business with the U.S. Government. They pay no federal taxes. It is all "perfectly legal" as detailed in the great book by David Cay Johnston. Some astute Senator thought it just wasn't right to sudsidize this type of action. Sam thought is was okay. He also voted yes to allow some lobbyist to give gifts to members of Congress. And if you were just curious as to where the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq has gone, forget it, Sam voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Senator Brownback is in. Maybe:

Republican Sen. Sam Brownback, a favorite of the religious right, said Monday he is taking the first step toward launching a bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

A vigorous abortion opponent, the Kansas senator pledged to make "issues of life," fiscal restraint and tax reform key components of his effort to woo supporters.

"I have decided, after much prayerful consideration, to consider a bid for the Republican nomination for the presidency," Brownback said in a statement. "There is a real need in our country to rebuild the family and renew our culture and there is a need for genuine conservatism and real compassion in the national discussion."

With Brownback in it makes things even more complicated for McCain. But I'm having a hard time deciding if it doesn't hurt Giuliani even more.