In an interview this week, Politico Magazine reported:
Parker Griffith (D-Ala.)
“[Parker Griffith] won by a hairbreadth in 2008 — with 51 percent of the vote — and . . . [he] said he wasn’t sure exactly how loud the message from Tuesday’s Democratic losses in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races were, but he said the point was clear.
“I should be nervous,” he said.
He said the current Democratic agenda has “the potential to cost some of our frontline members their seats.”
He also asks that he be identified as a conservative, independent Blue Dog — rather than as a Democrat.”
Politico Magazine, By JONATHAN ALLEN & MANU RAJU | 11/5/09 4:43 AM EST.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29170.html
Mo’s Response:
Mr. Griffith should be nervous. His policies have angered and alarmed his constituents. In the first ten months of his tenure, millions of Americans around the country have become politically active to oppose them. Millions of other Americans have lost their jobs.
In North Alabama, hundreds of high-tech and defense and NASA support jobs have been lost due to changing Washington priorities. More job losses are expected because Mr. Griffith’s party has NASA and national defense at the bottom of their priority lists.
If Mr. Griffith does not want to be identified as a Democrat, then why did he run as one, and why is he running again as one in 2010?
If Mr. Griffith does not want to be affiliated with Washington Democrats, then why did he help empower Nancy Pelosi by voting to make her Speaker of the House?
It is obvious Mr. Griffith wants to be all things to all people. That is not leadership America needs, especially in these challenging times.
America needs leaders with a clear vision of where we have been, where we are, and where we must go. A leader does not have association by convenience, switching his loyalties to whoever provides the most political mileage.
Trying to be all things to all people is not a new strategy for Mr. Griffith. He voted for the Cap and Trade Tax Increase . . . before he voted against it. *1
Mr. Griffith voted against the $780 billion stimulus package because, he says, it was too big and America could not afford the debt . . . yet he voted against every single amendment to reduce its size. *2
America needs leadership, not a politician who plays both sides of all issues, and definitely not a politician like Mr. Griffith who tells people in the 5th Congressional District that he’s doing one thing while his voting record proves he does something entirely different.
I am a candidate for Congress because I believe in the foundational principles that, for six decades, have made America the greatest nation in world history. I have defended those principles as a legislator, district attorney and county commissioner. I’ll fight for them as a Congressman.
Shifting political winds will not cause me to change my course from right to wrong.
*1. On 6/26/09, Griffith voted for the Cap & Trade Tax Increase (House Roll Call vote 476) before he voted against it (Vote 477). Vote 476 was on a substitute bill that was an alternative national energy proposal (no tax increases with an emphasis on more nuclear power and off-shore oil exploration as the means for handling America’s energy needs. Vote 476 gave Griffith a choice: he could vote for the substitute or to protect Cap & Trade from the substitute. Griffith chose to protect the Cap & Trade Tax Increase from all procedural and substantive threats.
*2. On 1/28/09, Griffith claimed he voted against Obama’s Stimulus Bill because it was too large (“maxing out our credit cards”; H. Times, 2/18/09), yet Griffith supported the Stimulus Bill by voting against all amendments to cut its size (House Roll Call votes 42, 43, 44).
Vote 42 was on an amendment to strike $355 billion in discretionary funding from the Stimulus bill.
Vote 43 was an amendment to strike supplemental funding for Amtrak.
Vote 44 was an amendment to strike income tax “refunds” to be paid to people who don’t pay income taxes (i.e. – wealth transfers to people who either do not work or who don’t earn enough money to pay taxes). Absurd, but true.