Jimmy Brannon Blog

Gatewood Galbraith's Legacy: One Proposal

Friends of Gatewood Galbraith know that forcountless thousands of Kentuckians who came to admire him over the past few decades, Gatewood’s persona will not be forgotten.

But it seems that the Commonwealth of Kentucky could benefit from an effort to memorialize Gatewood’s legacy in a more permanent way that honors our friend but more importantly carries forward some meaningful part of Gatewood’s legacy.

Friends, family and some of those who have worked closely in Gatewood’s campaigns over the past years may have a better idea but one that has crossed mine is the notion of a permanent Galbraith Commission chartered to fulfill some legitimate state policy on a permanent basis. Others may have a different idea but one such policy area that comes to mind is the area of open government.

A Galbraith Commission on Open Government charged with the responsibility of making recommendations relating to open and transparent government would seem to be a fitting tribute to Galbraith and more importantly a useful non-partisan commission that would help guide government in Kentucky toward greater transparency in the future.

Such a commission would seem to fit in with one of things I think of the most about Gatewood Galbraith’s policy goals, ‘transparent government,’ but at the same time would likely be supported by the Kentucky Press and others with an interest in ensuring government accountability.

There may be other ideas; perhaps already in place, but the idea of Galbraith’s legacy being carried forward in a permanent and useful means ought to be considered.

Newt Gingrich –the best choice for Republicans to lead the fight against Barack Obama

With the departure of Governor Jon Huntsman from the cast of characters known as the Republican candidates for President, the chore of picking a candidate that is capable of the job, and at the same time electable, has become a more daunting task.

For good reasons the best of what is left has to come down to Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Ron Paul brings some interesting ideas to the table but his foreign policy ideas are potentially dangerous and his electability against Barack Obama is dubious. Paul has vehement supporters but the average American is more likely to see him as a nice, but kind of quirky uncle, who you wouldn’t want to leave minding the house while you were out of town, unless you had someone check in on him from time to time. Rick Santorum, meanwhile, has drawn support from evangelical circles but has not seemed to catch fire beyond that. His foreign policy statements have been mostly a hodge-podge of one liners and it doesn’t seem he is ready for prime time.

So, the effort to unseat Barack Obama is going to be left to Romney, who has never been able to garner wide support among Republicans, despite several years of campaigning, and Gingrich, who everyone admits is intelligent and knowledgeable enough to be president, but who is also seen as less likely to be elected in part due to baggage from his prior service or personal life.

But another point makes it clear that Newt Gingrich is the best candidate to carry the Republican banner into the fall campaign with Barrack Obama. A presidential campaign should be more than a personality or popularity contest. It is the one single part of our Democracy which offers to the people an opportunity to be a part of a meaningful dialogue about the philosophical direction on which the nation needs to embark.

What is the proper role of the federal government, state government on a wide array of items such as entitlements, welfare, energy, social programs, etc.? What is the proper role of the United States abroad in the post Iraq War era? How should the U.S. deal with emerging movements in the Middle East or the economic and security issues raised by the emergence of China as a world superpower?

My friends on the left have different points of view than those who espouse a more conservative agenda and approach. And that is good. The right result is more likely to be found from a spirited debate based on intellectual and informed opinions that underlie our nation’s policies rather than a resort to policies based on buzz words, media blurbs, teleprompter speeches laced with ‘yes we can’, and knee-jerk partisan attacks.

Newt Gingrich is uniquely capable to lead that debate, no matter whether you love him or hate him. Newt, no matter the attacks of Newt-haters, is more than capable of taking the conservative debate to Barack Obama, head to head, which is the only way it should be.

But Newt is not an ideologue. During the period of the Clinton presidency, Gingrich displayed immense ability to work with the Clinton folks for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Mitt Romney on the other hand is incapable of leading a philosophical debate with himself much less Barack Obama. [This blog originates from Kentucky for those in South Carolina that read this endorsement. Kentucky is viewed as a safe state for Republicans in most polls. Some have suggested that Biden may leave the ticket in the fall and be replaced by Hillary Clinton. Whether that occurs or not, no matter, the fact is that Romney versus Obama is going to be a closer race in Kentucky than expected, and the blog predicts that Obama/Clinton would beat Romney in Kentucky.]

In summary, there is no doubt that Newt Gingrich is capable of being President on day one. The only question for Republicans is one of electability. The blog believes that it is far better for the GOP to be led by a candidate that stands for something even if everyone doesn’t agree, than one who stands for nothing.

MITT ROMNEY’S CRITICISM PROVES GOVERNOR HUNTSMAN IS THE BEST CANDIDATE

Mitt Romney, in criticizing Governor Jon Huntsman for his service of his country as Ambassador to China, has displayed the very heart of the problem we face in America today: the inability of leaders to put country first and politics to the rear. Jon Huntsman did that by serving as Ambassador to China, perhaps the most important foreign policy position other than secretary of state. Yes, he was asked to serve by Barack Obama. But Mr. Romney fails to grasp two very important points: Number one, he fails to note that Governor Huntsman also served when he was asked to serve by US Presidents George W. Bush, as trade ambassador, and by President Ronald Reagan for whom he was a staff assistant in 1981. Does Mr. Romney care to discuss his comments about Ronald Reagan when he was a liberal Massachusetts candidate attempting to distance himself from President Reagan? The author of this blog was on the floor of the nominating convention for Governor Ronald Reagan in Detroit in 1980 and perhaps those of us who admire Ronald Reagan would find your response interesting. Number two and more importantly, this is the precise type of “put the politics first” style that has led our nation into retreat over the last few years. Governor Huntsman by putting his country first has proven that he is the kind of leader that we can trust to make America Great Again. Finally, the blog urges New Hampshire voters to consider another practical point. The fact that Governor Huntsman did serve his country when called, even by a Democratic president, is going to handicap the Obama billion dollar attack dogs from attacking nominee Huntsman. It is hard to attack a guy you appointed to a high position. Stick to the facts Mr. Romney! If you do, the voters will know that Governor Huntsman is the best candidate. Fact 1. Huntsman is the most qualified by experience. Fact 2. Huntsman is the most consistent conservative, no flip flops here. Fact 3. Huntsman is the most electable in the general election.

An appeal to the independent minded people of New Hampshire

For many around the nation it may not seem immediately clear why New Hampshire rightly is the first state to hold a national primary.

Being a voter in a smaller state, you, my friends in New Hampshire and you alone, will have the chance to meet and come to know in a personal way these candidates, divorced from the highly scripted, marketed and teleprompter laden styles which are literally forced into the rest of our homes
by way of television or internet.

Therefore, this independent blog speaks on behalf of many independent minded folk from around Kentucky and across the nation to make this appeal to each of you in New Hampshire as you contemplate your vote next week.

The history of New Hampshire voting proves that you will take your awesome responsibility seriously and we know you will. As you make that choice, however, please my friends in New Hampshire consider one fact you may have not entertained.

That fact is that there are millions of other similar minded, independent voters across the country who depend on YOU to make a choice that is the right choice, but also one that will afford the rest of us in America an opportunity to be a part of a cause to make America great again
and restore some common sense to the national political landscape.

You have had the opportunity to come to know Jon Huntsman. There is no doubt, that John Huntsman’s resume is the strongest of the Republican field and there is no doubt that he is the only candidate that has a working knowledge of foreign affairs, the conduct of which is arguably the most important role a President possesses.

Most importantly, Huntsman has the demonstrated ability to speak with common sense and restore some kind of bipartisanship to Washington while at the same time standing firm on mainstream conservative values.

We strongly believe that you will agree that Jon Huntsman is the most electable candidate IF he can get the Republican nomination.

We, no, YOU have the power to say that he can.

Blog Makes Election Endorsements-Galbraith the best choice

Whether you believe that David Williams is a principled leader or a political bully, or that Steve Beshear is an adequate Governor or a political hack, one fact is for certain. With either of those candidates you will be getting more of the same kind of politics we have had in the past. Gatewood Galbraith on the other hand offers voters a candidate who is knowledgeable enough to do the job but more importantly a candidate capable of serving without being bought by special interests, one who will not put politics first and the public interest last. Galbraith/Riley is the best choice. Other candidates who should be elected include Bob Farmer for secretary of agriculture. The attack on Farmer for being a promoter/comedian is not well taken. Farmer makes a good argument that he is capable of using his skills to promote Kentucky's brand as ag secretary. The blog believes that some of the statewide offices such as state auditor need to be eliminated by constitutional amendment but since we have to vote, Adam Edelin is the best choice. The race for attorney general is sickening. Jack Conway is an utter disgrace and should not be elected pooper scooper. Problem is the other fellow may not be much better. The blog holds its nose to vote against Conway.

A bright star of this year's ballot is KC Crosbie who is far better than Todd Hollenback for state treasurer. Lexington Mayor Jim Gray gives a great endorsement of KC and it appears she has done her job well on the Lexington council. She deserves a chance. Another candidate who deserves election is Bill Johnson. Johnson's resume is exemplary. The problem is Johnson is pitted against Allison Lundergan Grimes (you have to say it a couple of times, and then see if you can think of anything else that rhymes.) Allison Lundergan Grimes may be capable and will surely win, but the blog doesnt like the politics that is based on these blatent name recognition efforts. Maybe next year Ritchie Farmer will have his name changed to Ritchie Wildcat Farmer.

Jon Huntsman- the most qualified and sensible candidate for U.S. President

In this climate of sound bites and political back biting on both sides of the aisle in Washington, there is one candidate who exemplifies the common sense and experience that will move the nation forward in a positive way on economics and in our foreign policy.

The story of Jon Hunstman for those who have'nt taken the time to look at is, is a story of accomplishments in private business and as Governor of Utah.  Much of that story can be found on Huntsman's web site and won't be repeated here. http://www.jon2012.com/about-jon

The real reasons Huntsman should be president have to do with real facts and real issues not partisan politics. For example, Huntsman is the only candidate including the President who has set in a succinct and sensible way what he would do to get the American economy moving again. That plan won the praise recently of the Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904583204576544703176083600.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

For another example, on the issue of foreign policy, Huntsman is the only candidate on the Republican side with actual foreign policy experience. http://www.jon2012.com/blog/Tags/Foreign-Policy

More importantly, Huntsman is the only candidate on either side to have the common sense to with reference to foreign policy to know when to hold'em and when to fold'em. Mr. Obama has been the Bush 3 we heard so much about in 2008 when it comes to the insanity in Afghanistan. The only other candidate that has opposed the continued "episode" in Afghanistan is Ron Paul, who is basically advocating an isolationist policy that is dangerous to America.

For those who are concerned about a foreign policy that protects American interests but at the same time values hard nosed common sense, consider the statements of former Homeland Security head, and Pennslyvania Governor Tom Ridge:

Ridge called the former Utah governor and ambassador to China "the only candidate with demonstrated success at the state, national and international levels." He said that Huntsman "has the unique ability to bring people together, to build consensus around the kind of ideas and the kind of change we need to affect to make America more secure, more prosperous, and more competitive.

"I'm certainly proud to join him .....and to publicly announce my strong support and endorsement of a man who I think would be a great president of the United States of America. A great country needs a great leader with a great vision and I think he's standing next to me." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20107419-503544.html

It is time for us to get this thing right and the jimmy brannon blog appeals to the good common sense and independent streak of the people of New Hampshire and others to give Jon Huntsman and in the process, the United States, a good strong hand up.

Ten Years Is Nine Years Too Long In Afghanistan; Past Time For Obama

Ten years ago Friday, the United States invaded Afghanistan launching America on what has become likely the nation’s most prolonged ludicrous use of military force in a century or more. Following 911 armed with substantial evidence that the Taliban in Afghanistan was responsible for much of the 911 tragedy, the United States correctly begun the Afghan conflict to force the Taliban out of power and kill the terrorists responsible for 911. Few Americans disagree with that. Most of that military exercise was and should have been concluded in a matter of weeks. But now for ten years, the United States has and continues to muddle through an insane project that becomes even more absurd when you listen to military spokesmen who support this horrible waste of America’s best. Consider General McChristell interviewed on October 3, 2011 by CBS News wherein he says that the afghan war is a job half done: "We didn't know enough and we still don't know enough," he said. "Most of us — me included — had a very superficial understanding of the situation and history, and we had a frighteningly simplistic view of recent history, the last 50 years." What is even more troublesome are the statements of current U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Marine Gen. John Allen, who told CBS this week about the “plan.” "Well, the plan is to win. The plan is to be successful. And so, while some folks might hear that we're departing in 2014 as a result of the Lisbon Conference and the process of transition, we're actually going to be here for a long time," Allen said. This blog vigorously resists a return to isolationism and fully supports the use of military force when (a) immediate security interests of the United States dictate, and (b) when military force is necessary and can achieve identifiable results. With the fall of the Taliban and the disruption of terrorists in Afghanistan it is debatable whether immediate security interests of the United States are present in that far away land. But one thing is NOT debatable. Military force at least to the point of ground troops is NOT necessary in Afghanistan and there is zero possibility of favorable results by 2014 or a lifetime thereafter. There is an important analogy to make with the war in Iraq. In Afghanistan we clearly went to war for the right reasons, while as Democrats point out in Iraq, we were mostly sold a bill of goods. Even if actions against Iraq were desirable, the Bush Administration had at its disposal many other means which were less intrusive, less expensive and less deadly for American troops. Continued use of UN and international sanctions against Hussein, imposition of no fly zones and even use of air and strategic military force against Hussein’s government would have crippled that government and allowed the not insignificant Iraqi resistance with the assistance of U.S. and allies to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s government over a period of time. The expense in dollars and lives would have been a fraction of what the Iraq war has cost. BUT, the fact is that this debate is now one for academics because the fact is we are in Iraq. And the further fact is that there is an end game in Iraq. Despite the questionable basis for going into Iraq in the first place, the fact is that there is a light at the end of the tunnel and it appears likely that if the United States is willing to see the matter through, a sustainable, somewhat democratic government may come to exist in Iraq. And such a result is important to American security interests due to the importance of Iraq, geographically, strategically and economically. The verdict is still out on Iraq and we should see it through to the end. But in Afghanistan there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Not one single diplomat, politician or American military leader can tell you what it means to “win” in Afghanistan. Aside from isolationists and opportunistic politicians no one ‘necessarily’ suggests that the United States ‘abandon’ Afghanistan to use General Allen’s term. But a couple of air force bases, advisors, some intelligence and special forces operatives is a completely different matter than ground troops that had no business being there in Afghanistan in the first place. The Obama Administration should have enough sense, if the Pentagon does not, to understand that terrorists exist all over the globe in many different countries. This ridiculous exercise in Afghanistan is probably the most ludicrous action of the United States military in the nation’s history. All ground troops should be immediately moved to safe locations in Afghanistan to begin their withdrawal not in defeat but in recognition that “we came, we saw, we conquered,” but in the end we’re not interested.

A message to Libyans, Egytians, Syrians....

President Obama has done a good job in handling America's role in the matter of Egypt, Libya, Syria and the Middle East generally......What has NOT been done by the Adminisitration to the extent that it should be is to emphasize the philosophical bases for the revolts in these countries. The people of Libya and Syria must be told, and the US. President is the one person who should do it, that the war they are fighting is not just about removing a dictator but rather is one that is based on principles of liberty and freedom that transcend generations, governments, religions and indeed are rights that belong to the citizens of those countries as human kind.

As Americans we have an obligation to speak out about freedom as the very first of the revolutionary democracies.  It is true that a motivation is to win the hearts of the young people fighting on the streets in freedom, but it is also an obligation that is born from America's own beginnings.

Mr. President to the people of the Middle East perhaps we say:

"When we survey the wretched condition of man, under the monarchical and hereditary systems of Government, dragged from his home by one power, or driven by another, and impoverished by taxes more than by enemies, it becomes evident that those systems are bad, and that a general revolution in the principle and construction of Governments is necessary.

What is government more than the management of the affairs of a Nation? It is not, and from its nature cannot be, the property of any particular man or family, but of the whole community, at whose expense it is supported; and though by force and contrivance it has been usurped into an inheritance, the usurpation cannot alter the right of things. Sovereignty, as a matter of right, appertains to the Nation only, and not to any individual; and a Nation has at all times an inherent indefeasible right to abolish any form of Government it finds inconvenient, and to establish such as accords with its interest, disposition and happiness. The romantic and barbarous distinction of men into Kings and subjects, though it may suit the condition of courtiers, cannot that of citizens; and is exploded by the principle upon which Governments are now founded. Every citizen is a member of the Sovereignty, and, as such, can acknowledge no personal subjection; and his obedience can be only to the laws.

Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791

President Obama needs to be clear and forceful in call for departure of Syria's Assad

President Obama is reportedly poised to change American policy and call for the departure of Syrian President Assad on account of his treatment of dissenters over the past few weeks in Syria. The president has been thus far on the right side of this critical movement in the Middle East and can ill afford to lose this opportunity to support those in the region who support the quest for freedom.

It is a delicate balance and the President does not want to appear to be "driving" the issue too forcefully for fear it may backfire with the masses. The view of this blog, however, is that the President need only tell the truth and continue to reemphasise that the issue to America is not simply about politics but rather is truthful statement about the fundamental beliefs of America, which is the first of the revolutionary democracies. That our own quest for freedom was born in the same manner as those protesters on the streets of Egypt and Libya and now Syria.

Obama/Afghanistan War Watch

Today, is the 202nd day of Obama's Presidency.

1049 troops have died in Afghanistan since Obama took office. More than 64% of the total deaths.

The War In Afghanistan is costing America at least 43 billion dollars a year.