Brandon Gay

UNITED STATES


Joined June 17th 2008

Number of Posts:
7

Number of Comments:
1

Karma:
1



Tags & Posts

Bookmark Tags



Popular Tags

I mentor these bloggers

Learn more about the Orble Mentoring Program.


I do not mentor any bloggers.

Recent Posts

With a party about to be dramatically swept out of power due to almost comprehensive failures, both foreign and domestic, corruption and the most unpopular President in the history of polling, some Republicans are adopting, get this ... reality. Ed Rollins, Republican strategist, foot soldier in the Reagan revolution and most recently National Chairman of Mike Huckabee's Presidential campaign, is one of the born-again realists:

Not satisfied to change only American politics, Bush and his neo-con advisers, led by Dick Cheney, wanted to use American military might to spread democracy to places that had been led only by tribal councils and ruthless dictators.

If Bush had accomplished these goals, he truly would have been a historic president much like his newfound hero Harry Truman. But his failures were unimaginable. W will go down in history, all right.

He will leave office with the lowest approval ratings of any president in modern times and will be judged as a catastrophic failure who destroyed his party, left his successor with two unpopular, unfinished wars and left the country in the worst economic condition in nearly eight decades. That's not even counting the Bush administration's inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.


Rollins does not go so far as to admit Bush's policies have been utter disasters for the country, but he does admit the vast majority of Americans believe that to be the case. Which is not bad for a recent reality convert. Rollins' disdain for his party's leaders is not all directed at Bush, either. He has this to say about John McCain:

I will vote for McCain, but I do so knowing he has run one of the weakest presidential campaigns in modern times and is probably going to lose big.

One of the first steps in adopting reality is to get off Republican talking points and Rollins is way-off message. Their message is the election will be close. McCain may lose, but he has a fighting chance. Rollins is willing to publicly admit what growing numbers of Republicans privately know: There is little chance of this election being close.

He also offers this sobering warning for McCain's political future:

What he does after this campaign is a serious question. Returning to the Senate where his party's numbers will be greatly diminished would be a giant letdown -- and he will likely be blamed, at least in part, for those diminished numbers.

McCain perhaps deserves little blame for massive congressional losses. Otherwise, Rollins is dead on.

Reality is hitting home on the campaign trail as well as smart Republican candidates make the pitch Washington needs to maintain a respectable opposition party. McCain is campaigning on the notion Democrats will hold huge majorities in congress while many Republican congressional candidates campaign on the notion Republicans will almost surely lose the White House. Both are right.

Meanwhile, while the reality-faction of the Republican party grows, many wingnuts are not anxious to get reality. Faced with adversity, they cling to their precious fantasies tighter than ever.

In a recently released "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America," James Dobson's Focus on the Family paints a picture of what is likely to happen over the next four years of Democratic domination. This is what the strongest backers of Rollins' most recent client think will happen during the next four years:

Gay marriage in all 50 states
Christian couples have trouble adopting children
Disbandment of the boy scouts
The Bible banned in many settings
Pornography on cable in prime-time
Four terrorist attacks on U.S. Soil
Widespread communism in Latin America
Israel nuked by Iran
A 3-year wait for cancer treatment
People over 80 no longer have access to medical care
Massive unemployment
Small businesses fleeing the U.S.
Huge increase in the budget deficit
$7 per gallon gasoline
Conservative talk radio shut down
Christian book publishers forced out of business
Dozens of Bush administration officials in jail

That last one is a fantasy we share. It is also hilarious to note Dobson once said he would not vote for John McCain. Now his organization thinks the fate of the world dependents on it. At least, the fate of Israel, four U.S. cities, Christians and anyone in need of medical care.

Republicans have been divided for some time by ideology. But they have been able to keep the theocon, neocon, corporate con and paleocon factions under the same tent because they were winning. Now, divided they fall. The 2008 election will leave them without an outlet to make public policy and without a party leader to rally their troops in hope of a better day.

What this means is we must work harder than ever. This election is our best opportunity in 44 years to build up a majority. The next several years will be our best opportunity to produce progressive legislation. We cannot assume we will ever have a weaker opposition than we do today.

The Republican party is in shambles, but the Democratic party was also in bad shape just four short years ago. We were out of power. There was a battle for the soul of the party. We rose to the challenge and remade our party to be a 21st century electoral machine. Look at what we have done in four years. Look at what we did in just two years.

We have to assume Republicans are capable of a similar comeback. We do not know what the Republican party will look like in 2012 or even 2010, but they will reevaluate every aspect of their party and what will emerge is likely to be a much better and more modern electoral operation.

Rollins knows this is our best shot, too:

For Republicans, if the polls are any indication, Karl Rove and George Bush's plans for a major party realignment may come true. It just won't be the party they wanted.

But he also knows Republicans can find their way out of the wilderness:

But rest assured. Next week, if McCain loses, small groups of folks will start plotting and planning for the candidate of their choice for 2012. To paraphrase Arnold Schwarzenegger's slogan in the movie the Terminator: "We'll be back!"

The year 2012 looks awfully different to Rollins than Dobson. The difference is reality and in a sane world reality will sweep through the Republican party like a grassroots fire. We have to be ready. We have to do everything we can this week.
46
Vote
   


Alex Castellanos, a Republican Strategist who most recently worked for Mitt Romney, provided a commentary to CNN today in which he called the DailyKos an "industrial age dinosaur:"

Bottom-up politics is one thing, however. Bottom-up government, another. When Barack Obama became the nominee of the national Democratic establishment, the candidate of hope ran into political reality: His party's canons of governing are the opposite of change.

Barack Obama may believe "change doesn't come from the top down, it comes from the bottom up," but the leadership of his party doesn't. The national Democratic establishment, from the Daily Kos and MoveOn.org to Pelosi and Reid in Congress, still believe in top-down big-government from Washington, especially if they get to run the factory. Politically, they are industrial-age dinosaurs.

They believe the era of big government is back, not over. They would keep money and power in their hands, not devolve it to the average American. That was not something the Denver Democrats were eager to confess.

The focus of the commentary, which is completely absurd in almost all respects, is the Obama campaign has abandoned it's grassroots message by suggesting policies the government might want to make law. Apparently, to be truly grassroots, you need to check with every single American before forming an opinion on a political issue. Likewise, anything the government does FOR the people, such as provide health care, is not bottom up politics because the government is providing the service FOR the people.

I'm not exactly sure, in Castellanos' opinion, what exactly would count as bottom-up politics. Perhaps if the government was run by a weekly conference call in which citizens called in and pledged what THEY were going to do in the upcoming week. Maybe John in Minnesota could pledge to try to find someone to give him health care even though he has a pre-existing condition and is behind on his mortgage payment. Maybe a sweet, old soul in Texas would call in and offer to help repair some crumbing infrastructure by her house.

Castellanos' blames this so-called abandonment of bottom-up principles on Obama turning to the Democratic party establishment, which still favors government doing something.

In other words, Castellanos is accusing Barack Obama of being a Democrat. It's the same argument we've heard for 20 years. People like Castellanos have done such a good job of defining Democrats over the last 20 years all they have to say is "You remember that argument we made about Michael Dukakis in 1988? Well, Barack Obama is no different. It's the same-old liberalism."

What Castellanos and his kind fail to see, or at least refuse to acknowledge, is today's Democratic Party has changed with the times and have done so much faster and more naturally than the Republican Party. Calling the DailyKos the "Democratic Party establishment" may be a bit of a stretch, but calling the DailyKos, or people-powered movements in general, industrial-age dinosaurs would be hilarious if it were not for the fact a large segment of the voting public still buys into the argument that if you are a Democrat you want the Government to have communist-like control over the people.

It's true the modern Democratic party, including people-powered candidates and bottom-up politicos, do advocate many of the same principles of yesterday's progressives: We are still working toward universal health care, still favor developing alternative energy and still support a diplomacy-always, aggression-when-necessary foreign policy.

As a party, we want some of the same-old stuff, but it's because the American people still need some of the same-old stuff we should have been able to give them 20-years ago and they are feeling the pain worse than ever. We should be free of foreign oil, health care should be a universal right of every citizen, we should be stopping banks from peddling sub-prime and other bad mortgages and we shouldn't be starting wars which could have been prevented with better intelligence and diplomacy.

Castellanos will have to forgive us for still harping about health care, but we hear some Americans still don't even have access to it, even if they can afford it.

But in addition to cleaning-up much of this work which has been piling up on our agenda since the Sixties, we have entered a new era of electing our leaders. We are the party of openness and transparency, we are the party limiting the influence of big-money in politics with small-dollar donations, we are the party who is giving a voice in choosing our leaders to anyone who wants it through Internet-based communities, such as the DailyKos. We are the party being remade not by a candidate or a chairman, but by the members of the party itself.

Bottom-up politics is about electing officials who will carry-out our mission and serving as a watchdog to ensure they stay true to Democratic principles. In doing so, we are finding people who have agreed with out mission all-along, but have felt disconnected from the political process.

But, in the end, it does all come back to issues and mostly we are the party of the future because we are the party who still believes in giving some consideration to the future. We want to stop racking-up trillions of dollars worth of debt, provide for our energy future and stop the slow erosion of civil liberties, which has been occurring for seven years.

We are the party of the future and the only thing we need to do to combat people like Castellanos who call us "industrial-age dinosaurs" is just be ourselves.
53
Vote
   


MSNBC Drops Olbermann and Matthews

September 8th 2008 18:54
MSNBC has decided to replace Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as anchors of political news coverage with David Gregory. This from the New York Times:

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

The change — which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle — is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel’s perceived shift to the political left.

In no way would I compare Olbermann (or even Matthews) to the gang at Fox News, but there is no doubt MSNBC's political news coverage with Olbermann and Mathews has indeed had a leftward tilt. While I personally enjoy seeing some ACTUAL liberal media, I can at least begin to understand the objections, however hypocratic they may be given many of the objectioners have no problem with Fox News.

That said, it seems to me there are two key differences between MSNBC and Fox News: 1)As is a typical difference between right and left, Fox News will never relent, never repent. MSNBC is all too happy to please it's right-wing critics. 2) MSNBC's political news coverage may lean left and Fox New's coverage of everything may be overtly conservative, but at least MSNBC does a pretty good job of labeling what is opinion. There is no pretense on Olberman's part of being balanced nor fair, although the later he usually seems to deliver on.
65
Vote
   


The classic "I'm more qualified than my opponent because I have more experience" argument has always been complicated. Experience should count, but political experience does not equate good judgment, wisdom and common sense. And, what constitutes experience? Experience in federal government? Executive experience? Does business experience count? So, the experience argument has always been precarious.

But, the McCain campaign's experience argument is beyond precarious and downright laughably ridiculous


[ Click here to read more ]
54
Vote
   


Obama Campaign Blew It (LINK)

August 23rd 2008 06:14
The plan to announce their vice presidential selection via text message was one of the all-time great political strategy decisions. Obama's team masterfully milked all the attention they could get from the media. But they waited too long to make the announcement.

Assuming Joe Biden is the pick, they blew a golden opportunity to be the first campaign in history to cut the mainstream media middle man out of their vice presidential announcement


[ Click here to read more ]
52
Vote
   


Still alive

August 18th 2008 13:40
I'm still here!
20
Vote
   


Despite all the talk of a Barack Obama / Hillary Clinton "dream ticket," Al Gore's recent endorsement of Barack Obama brought to mind a perhaps even dreamier ticket. Al Gore may not be a ground-breaking candidate like Obama or Clinton, but his appeal and respect among Democrats and growing legions of young independents and even some Republicans gives him a dynamic he and he alone could bring to Obama's campaign. Could Gore's endorsement event in Michigan be a precursor to his vice presidential candidacy?

Obama's two major vice presidential needs are conflicting and rule out many of the top contenders: 1) A candidate who is not a Washington insider and therefore will not clash with Obama's theme of "change." 2) A candidate with significant experience, especially in foreign policy, to compliment Obama's lack of experience. Clinton has vast experience, but has been a Washington insider for 16 years and represents more of a throwback to the 1990s than the ushering in of a new era. Other experienced contenders, such as Joe Biden and Bill Richardson present similar dilemmas. Change candidates, such as Governors Tim Kaine of Virginia and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Virginia Senator Jim Webb all lack the experience to balance the ticket


[ Click here to read more ]
65
Vote
   


 

Recent Comments

Harry,

I don't think there is any question Gore would make the best vice president of the possible candidates. I also don't think anyone could give the ticket the expirience it needs better than Gore. And, he does not conflict with Obama's theme of change. I don't know how likely it is he would accept the offer, but he would have to at least give it some thought.

The vice presidency is not nearly as defined of a job as the presidency. He would have far more time to devote to global climate change as vice president than he would as president. And, if a President Obama gave him the responsibility, he could impact the issue more as vice president than he can as a private citizen. It almost seems like a perfect scenario for everyone.