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.

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.

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?

Amazing. During last night's Republican debate, three candidates signaled that they did not believe in the theory of evolution. Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Sam Brownback. John McCain himself, who was initially asked the question, seemed almost hestitant to endorse what is perhaps the most robust scientific theory of our age. You might as well say you don't believe that planes can fly. Watch.

Of course, evolution itself is not incompatible with a belief in God, as some would have you think. But it certainly doesn't square with a literalist interpretation of the Bible. One wonders how each candidate would respond in full to this question, and whether it's the last we'll hear of it.

Mitt Romney romped in the Iowa Straw Poll, though it doesn't mean much since Rudy Giuliani and John McCain didn't participate:

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, got 31.6 percent of the more than 14,000 ballots cast, compared with 18.1 percent for second-place finisher Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas; 15.3 percent for Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback; 13.7 percent for Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo; and 9.1 percent for Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who rounded out the top five in the 11-man field.

This means nothing for Romney as he expected to win. For Mike Huckabee, it gives him a much-needed boost but essentially means he'll be around until the Iowa caucuses and then drop out.

The big losers were Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, who failed to get any real traction during the immigration bill debacle and Rep. Ron Paul. Paul, in particular, needed a good showing to give clout to his alleged groundswell. That groundswell didn't materialize and if Paul can't win -- or even make the top three -- in a watered-down field, he has no business being in the race other than to act as spoiler -- which may be the plan.

The Iowa Straw Poll was once considered to be of great import but that time is passed. The candidates made a showing of busing people in and treating them all nicely in exchange for a vote that means nothing. I suspect that we'll see Brownback, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter pack it in as they had dismal showings and their campaigns have not lit any sparks anywhere (in Hunters case, that's a shame). Paul will keep going as he has, in his words, "large Internet support," but real voting is not the same as spamming a blog's poll and hitting the Ron Paul button fifty times in three minutes.

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.

Hey, that's good enough for me.

I've been fervent in my posts about the uneasiness I feel when GOP candidates act as if they have to cozy up to religious folk. President Bush did it with Jerry Falwell and John McCain more recently is doing it with Southern Baptists. Republican candidates place an undeserved prestige on gaining the backing of people such as James Dobson and it doesn't gain them the support they would hope for. In fact, it may turn off conservative Democrats and cost them more votes then it gains.

Think about it, who will Dobson support as if it really matters? He won't support Giuliani so that leaves who, Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee? He definitely won't support Mitt Romney. Essentially, Dobson has been neutralized and that means his power has dissipated. That can only be good for the party as we've seen those who preach have not always been the most godly of people anyway. I put Dobson on a par with other partisan groups who should have their power usurped such as MoveOn and NOW.

As a Neocon, I am a moderate on most social issues, the church is not supposed to play as large a part as the GOP has placed on it in recent years. For those who have made Neocon a curse, do a little research and see that most Neocons were liberals who changed affiliation because they think that democracy is the cornerstone to changing the world and despots and dictators are evil and should be exiled or forced out by whatever means necessary. That's a much-abridged description but take some time to look up what we think.

Dobson and his ideological brethren are fading and will continue to do so. The nation needs a leader who is not praised by those of Dobson's ilk and who will lead based on good moral tenets--whether religion-inspired or not. Let Dobson support Sam Brownback and I'll support Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson.

ABSENT: Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney

PRESENT: Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes

What were they thinking? They say a picture is worth a thousand words and the four empty chairs on the podium of the Republicans' recent debate on Thursday, September 27th at Morgan State University spoke volumes. Regardless of the spin or the rationale (reported "scheduling conflicts" for each of them), those candidates obviously did not think it was worth their while to show up and there is no way to interpret that except that they didn't think it was important to reach out to these blocs of voters -- which is interesting, since the over 60, white male, southern voter is probably going to vote for one of them anyway and is a shrinking population. I'm not sure a candidate can win the national election anymore with over 60, while male, southern voters.

Mike Huckabee said he was "embarrassed for our party and I'm embarrassed for those who didn't come."

Sam Brownback said, "I think this is a disgrace that they are not here...a disgrace to our country...bad for our party...I don't think it's good for our future."

The general consensus is that after the primary, whoever the Republicans select will start moving towards the center and reaching out to these other voters. Good luck with that strategy. There are a lot of us around who will remind people of who was important, or not, to the candidate in September 2007.

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.

Mitt Romney has won the CPAC Straw Poll, and that they had the biggest number participating in the straw poll in CPAC history.

Here are the first choice results:

• Romney 21
• Giuliani 17
• Brownback 15
• Gingrich 14
• McCain 12

Combined first and second choice:

• Giuliani 34
• Gingrich 30
• Romney 30

The GOP candidates are getting ready for tonight's MSNBC debate in California. Apparently no less than ten Republicans are fighting for the party's presidential nomination, and they will all show up.

Rudy Giuliani: Has the problem of high expectations as he is widely perceived as the best and quickest speaker. on his feet He needs to explain his awkward stance on guns, abortion and his third marriage. May succeed by steering the conversation toward crime, experience and solving tough problems.

John McCain: Needs a home run, badly, used to be viewed as a front runner and is clinging on to about 25% of the GOP voters despite great name recognition. Will he go on the offense against Giuliani or play it safe? Vulnerable to attacks on the judges and campaign finance front.

Mitt Romney: Just needs to get noticed and get a few sound bites in. He is also hoping for a Giuliani-McCain mudfest so he can look presidential in comparison. He should also explain why Battlefield Earth is a really good book.

As for the rest, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Thompson(Tommy), Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Jim Gilmore. The best they can hope for is a few soundbites so that someone will remember that they too are running for president. Of these I have the highest hopes for Hunter. He has no chance, but he is well liked by movement conservatives.

I expect lots of references to Reagan, picking good judges and a rush to see who will be toughest on terrorists and the best friend of the military. The excitement will come from those who have little to lose; the second- and third-tier candidates.

Previously on 'The Stump':
· Republicans Will Wrangle at Reagan Library
· Latest GOP Presidential Straw Poll

A week after the Democrats "debated" in South Carolina, their GOP counterparts do the same. The MSNBC/Politico-sponsored event took place in the impressive space at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. And Nancy Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger were both on hand to lend further star power.

Chris Matthews took over moderator duties, though on several occasions the candidates didn't exactly answer the question he asked. Iraq was, not surprisingly, the first subject of the day, but conservative touchstones like abortion and stem-cell research were on the docket. Of course, there were a few softballs: which tax would you repeal? And should Bill Clinton be back in the White House (Give you one guess on the answers to that one.)

As for the contenders, the roll call included all 10 current candidates. For those of you keeping score at home they are (in reverse alphabetical order, just to change things up a bit): former Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin; Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado; former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts; Rep. Ron Paul of Texas; Sen. John McCain of Arizona; Rep. Duncan Hunter of California; former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas; former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City; former Gov. Jim Gilmore of Virginia; and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas

So were there any clear winners or losers? Memorable moments? Did it help you decide who to vote for? Leave your comments below.

Previously on 'The Stump':
· Latest GOP Presidential Straw Poll
· It's April 2007 and They're Already Debating
· Coalition Wants Access to Debate Video

Which presidential candidates can break out of the second tier? On the Democratic side, this question is easy: Bill Richardson, who has a great resume, a great platform as a governor, and a good story on electability, being able to contend in the West and Southwest.

But on the Republican side it's a little more muddled. We have Jim Gilmore, Sam Brownback, and Mike Huckabee who all have good platforms and credentials. But I think Huckabee has the best chance. You might call me crazy for thinking that a little known governor from Arkansas has a shot, but ask yourself what Governor Bill Clinton was doing in the spring of 1991

AP has a nice little write-up on Mike Huckabee which highlights the reasons:

Mike Huckabee has a resume fit for a GOP presidential nominee - Southern Baptist preacher, former Arkansas governor, fierce opponent of abortion and gay marriage. Those attributes would seem to be exactly what fellow conservatives are looking for in a candidate. What he doesn't have is money or a household name, and those deficiencies have proven costly to his campaign. He barely registers in polls and is struggling to break out of the pack of Republicans seeking to be seen as credible alternatives to the strongest contenders, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

I'll update this as the debate goes along. Add your thoughts in comments.

Update (7:20): On the question of whether the invasion of Iraq was right or wrong, Mitt Romney dodged, Rudy Giuliani was straight forward and said he supported it; Duncan Hunter said he would use tactical nukes against Iran to prevent them from developing a nuke themselves. Rudy agreed.

Ron Paul went right to his cut and run rhetoric.

Update (7:41): John McCain failed to explain himself with the immigration bill. McCain said it wasn't the bill he'd have written. Huh?

Hunter called the bill the Bush/McCain/Kennedy bill. That'll leave a mark.

Giuliani harped on the lack of a database and Romney suggested making the Z-Visa temporary.

Update (8:06): On pardoning Scooter Libby, Giuliani, Tommy Thompson, Romney and Tom Tancredo said they would comsider it as did huckabee. Others dodged.

Hunter said he would pardon Border Patrol agents Compion and Ramos who were jailed for shooting a drug dealer. That will go over well with conservatives.

Update (8:29): Giuliani hit the prescription drug question out of the park. He also dealt well with the Iraq question.

Sam Brownback said twice he'd introduce legislation tomorrow to break Iraq into three "states." An interesting concept I'll cover tomorrow.

Update (8:37): Ron Paul actually just said that Iran is not a threat in response to Duncan Hunter's earlier assertion that he would preemptively nuke Iran to keep them from obtaining nukes. He also said (and I paraphrase) that they've never done anything to us. I'm sure there are people who were hostages for 444 days who would beg to differ, congressman.

Paul is not a libertarian or Republican, he is an anti-war liberal.