John Brady for Reelection–not
Jan 1st, 2010 by David Anderson
Some of my friends are starting to sign up for Recorder of Deeds John Brady’s reelection campaign out of force of habit. If you want to out of personal friendship or great admiration for his skills, that is your right as an American. I will take a different take.
I supported Mr. Brady in the past, but not this time. He ran off and left the party which gave him its best for the new wave. It was a sensible gamble. The Delaware GOP looked morbid. A person who had a desire to serve in public office could make that decision sensibly if they had no overriding loyalty to a party philosophy. The fact that Mr. Brady changed parties does not make him an evil person, but it does make him unworthy of my support. He has new friends now, let them take care of him.
What really irrates me about Mr. Brady’s switch is that it was after the party reaffirmed its favor toward him. John Atkins was rejected by the party. Joe Lieberman was as well. There was not a major conflict as with the MS congressman who was outside of the caucus on every major bill. It was just pure opportunism.
Now that the party is rising again, I think it is time to make an example of opportunists and support people who hold our values strong. A strong party can reward its friends and punish its traitors. It is time to find out if we are for real or not.
Corina are you game?
Mr. Brady threw the whole party under the bus for what he perceived as ill treatment by a few. I concur with D Anderson on this.
David, Tennessee I agree. Arlen Spector type politics shows the world the real problem of our system today. We have values and principles, on both sides of the political spectrum so it’s not, “I’ll run as a Democrat so I can get elected” .
Leadership is being a leader. I respect people who stand behind their beliefs and remain loyal to them.
Mr. Brady, should just take a long look in the mirror and think about why he is where he is today. Best of Luck in his future elections, but he is now one of them, so if you are one of the other side, support your candidate (please pick a good one) with your vote and contributions and let’s get it on in 2010!!!!
I agree. I do not have a problem with people like Margert Rose Henry or John Atkins who changed party for a reason not an excuse. MRH made an ideological switch. It made no sense for her to stay in the minority when she was really a Democrat in philosophy. She made a sensible decision for her district. John Atkins was unwanted by the GOP and wanted by the Democrats.
Mr. Brady has been around long enough to know that no one is universally loved. You stand up for who you are and make the case for your platform. I thought that he did that well. If he expects universal acclaim, it will not happen in either party. If you judged popularity by our website, Mr. Castle should just retire. (Fortunately for him, Frank, Tim, and I are not the only people voting.) Mr. Castle may be frustrating, but he is not a coward. He will stand up for himself and his values of appeasement and cooperation. He doesn’t run away offended because someone didn’t say nice things about him. He is a leader for better or worse.
I don’t believe that Mr. Brady is that thin skinned. I think that the accounts of a reassessment of the political landscape was more of a factor. That is what my sources said, and his account of a few people saying bad things is not credible. He is better than that. If not, then he is not up to the challenges of public life.
A certain section of Republicans wanted him out. He saw the writing on the wall and left. Maybe becoming an independent would have been a better choice, as it would have let him avoid charges of traitorous behavior.
No, he was right to change sides if he wanted to leave the party. Being an independent leaves you dead unless you are in a state like CT, Maine, MN, or NJ with more independents than either party. If he could not win with a party statewide, what would make you think that he could win without one?
He won the convention endorsement statewide. He won a primary in Sussex county. He had the backing of the legislators. What more could one ask to have? He did not seek to leave, he was recruited. That is fair. My point is that it is fair to dump him. Let’s send a message to the career politicians that we respect principled loyalty over personal aggrandizement.
“A certain section of Republicans wanted him out. He saw the writing on the wall and left.”
There are always a certain section of any party that disagree with some. If that was all that was necessary to run someone out of the party then Mike Castle would have left in 2007.
I have to admit. I went to one Kent County GOP meeting in 08. Brady was there and over all he talked a good game. Occasionally, I even used the pens he handed out for a couple months after that. Then came his switch-a-roo and I have to admit I wasn’t too happy. After that I had one of Brad Bennett’s pens handy so I switched too. Fortunatly loyaty to free pens isn’t nearly as important as loyalty to principles so I don’t feel too bad. Today my free pen is from Patterson Schwartz.
The Delaware GOP looked morbid.
‘Looked?’ Try looks. The first viable Republican candidate for the US Senate in years, and look how he’s treated. Brilliant strategy.
“Like the swallows returning to Capistrano, ‘Mike Miller in pumps’ has returned from her sabbatical in parts unknown- just in time for the senate race..
Sure.
Look at the statewide races in 2008. John Brady was probably the GOP’s best chance at picking up a statewide office, runnning in an open race against a Democratic challenger who did not have the party’s endorsement. If I’m sitting in that position, I’d expect the party to get behind me, both figuratively and financially. That didn’t happen. (Look at the campaign finance reports for 2008 and see how much the two raised.)
As it turned out, Brady was the only Republican challenger (we’re excluding U.S. Rep for obvious reasons) to hold the Democratic opponent to less than 60%. Imagine if he had more momentum coming from the GOP — he might have been the first Republican to pick up a statewide seat in more than a decade. Instead, the party threw its support behind other “established” candidates who couldn’t crack 40%.
I’m not stating an opinion one way or another about switching parties. But to say that “the party reaffirmed its favor toward him” is not entirely true. If the party had reaffirmed its faith in Brady, it would have shown at the polls and at the bank. Neither happened, and Brady made the decision to leave the party, obviously feeling that the party had left him when he needed it most.
Hmmm, you expected the party to forgoe the governor’s race, Lt. Governor’s race, and put all of its resources into insurance commissioner. I hate to say it, but not many people care about that office and historically it does not gain a great deal of fundraising clout. The party missed an opportunity to help me exploit a divided Dem party in levy court, but I don’t whine and leave. I know that the economy slammed our donors. I was shocked to see how the fear in the economy made a lot of people cancel their pledges. In my case it was 90%. I understood that the party had to retrench and focus on the state house. I didn’t like it, but that is exactly what I would have done. (My complaint is that they didn’t do more of it when we realized in October that most of the statewide races were lost except for IC).
I honestly think that the problem was not the quality of the candidates, but the historic environment of a VP candidate from Delaware and the first Black as President. You could have spent a million dollars and not have won that race downticket.
If he wanted to prove that wrong, Mr. Brady had do something like actually hold more fundraisers for the people to attend and give him the money or get big names to right him letters appealing for money.
Brady is a fair weather friend. When the rowing got tough, he left. Now the tide has turned, I want to reward those who kept rowing when it was tough.
Straight Scoop you need to rename yourself as Entirely Clueless. I have checked out the Republican 2008 fundraising reports and compared to other statewide candidates such as Christine O’Donnell and Bill Lee, John Brady did quite well with so “called establisment donations”
Charlie Copeland’s donation pages are extensive but of course Charlie actually had fundraisers and he lists every single contributor and not just those who contribute in excess of $100.00. So there are many names of folks giving $50.00
Being related to the Sharp’s, Carpenters and duPonts did not hurt Charlie’s fundraising as well.
Brady received over $11,000 from the Republican State Committee, (no small feat in the 2008 environment).
Brady also received contributions from insiders such as Joe Booth, Greg Lavelle, Joe Miro, Tom Wagner, Nancy Wagner, Terry Strine, and on and on.
Regular party people such as Carol Bodine and Lauretta Alberti are listed for John Brady not to mention Pete duPont and Mike Castle.
Straight Scoop acts as if a party official can order people to donate money to a candidate. Maybe one can do this with a gun but getting elected State Chairman does not come with a pistol and a list of donors. In the end the candidate must make the case to donors. If Brady fell short on fundraising he must first look to himself and accept responsibility for his own failures and not lash out at others who are trying to raise funds for a variety of worthy candidates.
Brady was actively soliciting funds from Legislative candidates despite the fact that Maintaining control of the House was much more important to the Republican cause than gaining a statewide row office. Maybe if Brady tapped into his resources in the legal community instead of going after the overtaxed party who had 60+ candidates to raise funds for, he might have done better in fundraising.
At any rate Straight Scoop has obviously done zero real fundraising. He opines that Republicans can snap their fingers and money magically appears. Pooper Scooper needs to come up with the language to tell O’Donell, Lee, Copeland, Spence, Lofink, Oberle, Stone, Hutchison, Cathcart, Sturdivant, Thornburg, Peterman, Hastings, Lee, Booth, Short, Filiben, Bowers, …etc. that their races should be sacrificed on the infinite wisdom of Straight Scoop and John Brady.
I agree with Tennessee. In most cases the first person to look at with poor fundraising is the candidate. I say that as a former candidate.
The party is has a lot of competing interests and can not magically pull money out of the air especially in a recession. I think Brady actually did well on all accounts. It was just a lousy year to be a Republican. It goes in cycles.
I can’t recall a 2008 fundraiser held by any candidate where Brady wasn’t an invited guest and enthusiastically introduced to the crowd. He was invited to Lee’s fundraising extravaganza at Granogue and every event where the GOP had a table or a tent. The party supported him no more and no less than any other candidate. He was treated EQUALLY. THAT is a FACT.
He left the party, even though he claims the party left him. He told the News Journal that he felt he couldn’t speak out about HB 99-which is a total farce since HB 99 was REPUBLICAN legislation. If Brady had an issue he wanted to champion, the Delaware Republican Party would have stood shoulder to shoulder with him. He never gave them the chance.
What Brady failed to recognize, in his vigor to portray Delaware Republicans as bigots on his way out, that the county where he HAD the most support, the county that elected him to county-wide office, was also the county with the largest number of far right Republicans.
The Delaware Republican Party didn’t leave John Brady as he claimed like a victim, it was John Brady who abandoned Delaware Republicans, Republicans who faithfully supported Brady in every single one of his political endeavors.
John Brady no longer deserves the support of Delaware Republicans.