Posted on 12/22/2009 8:05:01 AM PST by Danae
POLITICO has learned that Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama, will announce today that he’s switching parties to become a Republican.
According to a senior GOP aide familiar with the decision, the announcement will take place in this afternoon in his home district in northern Alabama.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Not much.
I’m from Huntsville.
Griffin is weak. He ran as about the most conservative candidate you can imagine.... as a Democrat. He proclaimed over and over that he shared our values. Whe he got to Washington, he voted with Pelosi and company about 85% of the time, per the Washingon Post.
Conservative candidates are lining up to run against him. They are already hitting the radio programs in North ALabama. He saw the writing on the wall and switched parties to try and preempt their campaigns and salvage re-election.
What is a typical Parker Griffin act? He promised the local conservative talk show host that he would appear on his morning program at least once a month to talk the issues. He even signed a pledge to do so.
He never appeared.
We’re doing all we can to defeat him in the primary.
He’s not a conservative. He’s a typical Alabama Democrat. All hat on the big ticket items and no cattle on the nuts and bolts of being a conservative.
Interesting. I wasn't aware Griffith's district had been in the RAT camp that long. Alot of these deep southern districts represented by "moderate" white Democrats had at least flirted with GOP congressmen once or twice since the 60s and 70s, especially in GOP landslide years like 1994. Griffith's switch kind of makes the district like Jefford's Vermont in reverse (The seat that Jeffords occupied had been held by a Republican from 1857, when Solomon Foot became a Republican, until 2001 when Jeffords became an Independent, making it the longest Republican-held seat in U.S. history.)
According to wikipedia, there were two non-RATs who held Parker Griffith's seat since the civil war, the aforementioned John Benton Callis, Republican, from 1868-1869, and Albert Taylor Goodwyn, elected on the Populist Party ticket (I assume that means he beat the RAT on the ballot?) from 1896-1897.
I'm sure the district has changed radically in shape since the 1860s, but apparently even back then it was still centered in Huntsville like it is today.
>> In 1869 Democrats were the conservative party and Republicans were the liberals. <<
I can't say I agree with that statement. The GOP in the 1860s was pretty much a single-issue "anti-slavery" party made up of various anti-slavery factions that defected from other political parties (Whigs, Democrats, Know-Nothing, etc.). Aside from all the members being committed to killing off slavery, they didn't have any unified beliefs on any other issues, which is why the GOP platforms from those eras were intentionally vague. They eventually formed their own little factions within the GOP, and by the 1880s the three main types were Stalwart Republicans (formerly "radical Republicans" during the slavery era), Half-Breed Republicans, and Liberal Republicans. These terms don't necessarily translate into today's politics either, as many of today's conservative Republicans would have been considered "moderate Republicans" by 1860s standards (because today's conservative Republicans tend to favor equal opportunity for all races, but do not favor using big government intervention to do so)
The RATs of the 1860s are even harder to explain. In that case there was a a huge regional difference between northern RATs and southern RATs. In some cases, the Dems have completely switched their views 180o degrees from their 19th century counterparts. But even the reconstruct era RATs were very different from the Jacksonian era RATs. One place where the two parties haven't changed at all is the GOP was always seen as the "corporate friendly" party that encouraged pro-buisness policies, whereas the Dems were seen as favoring more farmer and laborer friendly policies.
Overall it seems the RATs have changed their positions over the decades much more than the GOP has.
I'd say by the late 1890s, the two parties nationally had aligned into the political ideologies we associate with the GOP and Dems today.
BTW, where are the freepers who attacked Norm Coleman and Trey Greyson as "RINOs" on the basis that they "used to be Democrats" over a decade ago? (regardless of whether they switched because they were no longer comfortable with the RAT idealogy) They should be hoping mad that lifelong Democrat Parker Griffith is in the GOP now! :-)
Dale Jackson is the owner of the Attack Machine Blog. If you took the time to read about the details you would know what you are trying to talk about. You figure out who he is. Anyone conservative from around here knows who he is.
That is why many responded with the link. Most of us on FR respond to a post and we don’t read every response when we have something accurate or factual to add to a post. I am glad others here have the facts at their fingertips also. It does not surprise.
Sorry, folks in Parker Griffith’s district do not appreciate someone taking the Lord’s name in vain just because they are being put on the hot seat. There is a saying, “you see what someone is made of when you poke them”. In this case Parker was poked at a townhall meeting for consistency in his responses and look what oozed out.
If your not from around here or if you are and new to politics in this district it is better you read and learn. You have no dog in this fight and you sound ignorant of the facts.
No politician who lies about another just to get ahead, is playing dirty. Yea, it is done but it is WRONG. They will not get my vote nor many other peoples vote in our district.
We’ve been here since ‘92. Before that we were in Fort Worth TX in ole Jim Wright’s district. He too was good for Fort Worth and Carswell and General Dynamics . . . now both are gone and so is he.
The Attack MAchine is a site by Dale Jackson, a local radio host. He attacks politicians of ANY stripe.
I’m from North Alabama, and I have NO USE for Parker Griffin whatsoever. He is a “say anything to get what I want” kind of guy.
He’s about as conservative as John McCain. He’ll come of sounding conservative on a few big issues, but on the smaller stuff he’ll fall right in line with the liberals.
Parker Griffin is NOT a conservative. He is a typical Alabama politican - Conservative on a few social issues but a believer in big government.
I agree and Parker Griffith is not a conservative BUT I’ll take the headlines and the B*TCH Slap to Nancy Pelosi with him being a doctor and an oncologist with the Death Care Debate going on. It can’t look good. We’ll have to work and defeat him in the primaries. In the meantime, a b*tch slap to Pelosi will sting.
Theodore Roosevelt was a liberal by any definition of the word. There is no denying that.
Most of the states that were Democratic in 1900 are Republican today and vice-versa. That shows that the parties switched. In 1900, Republicans were liberals and Democrats were conservatives. Today, that is reverse.
And if Lincoln were alive today he’d be a Democrat. Same for Grant and same for all of the radical Reconstruction guys. There has never been a more liberal president than Lincoln till now and there has never been a more liberal program than Radical Reconstruction
That’d be a mistake. Even in a staunchly Republican year like 2010 she probably keeps her seat on the Public Service Commission as she’s the first one since Wallace Jr. that people have actually really liked. And hell, no one knows what Jan Cook looks like and she consistently gets re-elected using the same signs she did 30 years ago.
The one caveat to this is if hell froze over and Les Phillips won that nomination. If that happened, Parker wins that seat because the rural people aren’t gonna vote for a candidate of Phillips’s persuasion.
The one interesting thing about that is that Parker’s base is in the Shoals while Griffith is based out of Huntsville. That would actually be a close race because it would be classic rural vs. urban set up and as I recall, that’s what Strange vs. Folsom turned out to be and Folsom carried the territory in that district in a real walk.
Some Tea Party activists and the Club for Growth (CFG)aren’t enthralled about Parker Griffith. The CFG is leaning towards to Les Phillips.
The upcoming AL-05 primary reminds me of the TX-14 in 1996. A Texas Dem switched parties to join Newt and the cotnract with America. He had the backing of Dick Armey, Tom Delay, and the NRCC. But Ron Paul challenged him and beat the incumbent. GOP Insiders feared that Paul, winning the primary, would hand the seat back to the Dems. But Ron Paul won the seat in the general election and kept it ever since. Could history be repeating itself?
Course your “my guy is great”, “everyone else sucks” is equally silly.
Vote everyone out and bring in a real conservative. An ex-dem is not worth my vote.
Like traitors in the war. NEVER trust them.
Well then, you shouldn’t vote for any Republican in the state of Alabama then. You see, this was a one party state until only a decade ago. Where you had to run as a Democrat in order to be elected. I myself am an ex-Democrat and you will find that if your purity test is no ex-Democrats allowed that there would be no Republican Party in this state
Non-Southerners shouldn’t speak about the intricacies of Southern politics and if you’re not from Alabama or the Tennessee River Valley you shouldn’t be saying anything about Griffith because you don’t know the situation, why Griffith is such a valuable convert and what his conversion could mean for the GOP in this state if he can be on the November ballot next year stumping across North Alabama in the process.
I want Griffith campaigning with Republican legislative candidates in the fall and I’m willing to put forth time and money to make that happen. There was one person who more than anyone had a heart attack at this announcement. His name is Paul Hubbert. If you’re from Alabama you’ll know why I said that.
I disagree. Teddy Roosevelt was certainly no conservative icon but I would say he was well to the right of full-fledged socialist Woody Wilson. Liberals might have been very happy with some of T.R.'s policies like his zeal for busting corporate monolonies, but certainly no liberal alive today would stand and applaud Teddy's "warmonger imperialism", especially in building up national defense and invading other countries, nor would they support his staunch promoting of hunting and gun rights, or his immigration policies ("there's no room for hypthenated americanism in this country" for that matter). It was Teddy who denounced Wilson's scheme to nationalize the railroad industry in 1912 as "rank socialism" and who returned to the GOP fold and endorsed conservative Charles Hughes in 1916 after seeing Wilson's "New Freedom" program had been diasasterous for America. And not all the "reforms" we associate with the "progressive" era are necessarily bad, for instance many conservative support the idea of Recall of public officials, which was introduced during 1910s "progressive" era.
>>> Most of the states that were Democratic in 1900 are Republican today and vice-versa. That shows that the parties switched. In 1900, Republicans were liberals and Democrats were conservatives. Today, that is reverse. <<
Absolutely wrong. Go back to the 1900 election and look at the top of the ticket and see what the two parties are advocating. William Jennings Bryan was a socialist loon who continually bashed the GOP as mean-spirited, heartless, "party of the rich" (sound familar?). McKinley supporters said Bryan was a demagoguing, socialist, naive peacenik who appealed to statist Euroweenies (again, which party is associated with that today?) McKinley was the conservative pro-market traditionalist and Bryan was a radical leftist nut. The same was true in most cases (but not all cases) further down the ticket. I doubt any credible historian would accept the argument that McKinley and his followers were the liberals in that race.
>> And if Lincoln were alive today he’d be a Democrat. Same for Grant and same for all of the radical Reconstruction guys. <<
I disagree. Lincoln had been a corporate lawyer for the railroad industry and was a social conservative. He would not be too fond of today's Democrats. Lincoln certainly wasn't a "radical reconstructionist", the radical Republicans in Congress were rivals of Lincoln in the GOP and constantly complained about his policies being too wimpy. Lincoln was a moderate (anti-slavery, but not obsessed with it) trying to placate every faction of the GOP at the time, and none were too happy with him.
>>> There has never been a more liberal president than Lincoln till now and there has never been a more liberal program than Radical Reconstruction <<
Absolultely disagree. Wilson, FDR, and Johnson (and now Obama) instituted far more liberal policies than Lincoln ever did. And again, Lincoln DID NOT SUPPORT the "radical reconstruction" policies. In fact, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both mourned the death of Lincoln as disastrous because it was the death of someone who wanted a consolatory mild reconstructive policy towards the south. Read your history books.
Oh, one more thing, why should I trust you? If anything you should be taking the word of fellow conservatives in the district of Parker Griffith rather than spewing every politician lies about their opponent. Now, that is not true and even if it was what in the world do you think is very wrong with the DC pols and American people.
FLASHING NEON LIGHT:: We are now in the fight for our lives to change the flow of the mighty river called American Marxism. I suggest you start paddling like crazy to help us get out of this mess. Parker Griffith is just more of the same of what is wrong in DC.
Lincoln was a damn near communist. He would regularly decide over dinner whether or not captured Confederate soldiers would be summarily shot. He approved William T. Sherman committing the kind of war crimes that would have gotten him tried at Nuremburg if they were attempted in modern times
And when during Reconstruction and for decades after it the Democratic Party appeared on the ballot in this state as the Conservative Democratic Party. That should tell you exactly who the conservatives were 100 years ago and who weren’t.
A lot of people don’t like that the parties switched but the parties did switch. Thats why liberal formerly staunch Republican areas in the Northeast are now Democrat and its why the South is now Republican. The parties switched. That’s just the way it is.
I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. His record seems to back up his words.
Read the facts for yourself. The Radical Republicans OPPOSED President Abraham Lincoln's terms for reuniting the United States during Reconstruction, which began in 1863, which they viewed as too lenient. They proposed an "ironclad oath" (which Lincoln blocked) and the Wade-Davis Bill (which Lincoln vetoed) in 1864. s. Radical Republicans were often critical of Lincoln, whom they believed was too slow in freeing slaves and supporting their legal equality. Angry with Lincoln, In 1864 some Radicals briefly formed a political party called the Radical Democracy Party with John C. Frémont as their candidate for president, until the party collapsed and Frémont withdrew.
>> And when during Reconstruction and for decades after it the Democratic Party appeared on the ballot in this state as the Conservative Democratic Party. <<
By that logic, the major right-wing party in Japan and Australia must really be left-wingers in disguise, since they appear on the ballot as the "Liberal Party". "Conservative" can mean a lot of things and it certainly didn't mean what we associate with "conservative" today when people called themselves "Conservative" 140 years ago.
>> A lot of people don’t like that the parties switched but the parties did switch. Thats why liberal formerly staunch Republican areas in the Northeast are now Democrat and its why the South is now Republican. The parties switched. That’s just the way it is. <<
Ah, the ol' mainstream media argument that all the Republicans who fought for equal rights in this country were "really" liberals and all the Democrats that bitter opposed it were "really" conservatives. Unfortunately it doesn't hold water. Robert Byrd, the Senate's foremost klegal, is still a proud liberal FDR Democrat. Indeed, the only "conservative Democrat" who opposed civil rights and then "switched sides" to the GOP was Strom Thurmond, and he left his racial policies behind when he joined our side, rather than become a mean nasty racist Republican as the media would have people believe.
There's a reason why the mainstream media wants the public to believe the racist southern Democrats of decades ago "would be conservative Republicans today". It's unfortunate you don't see why.
Lincoln rejected that states had a right to secede and when the Confederate States of America asked him to remove his troops from Confederate territory he refused thereby starting his war of conquest over a sovereign nation
He was not as much of a flaming liberal as U.S. Grant or Thaddeus Stevens but he was a liberal. He believed that an overintrusive central government had the right to contravene the will of the individual states. He was the president who began the march towards the overbearing central government.
Lincoln was a liberal. That’s just the way it is. Lincoln is why we have such an overintrusive government today. His presidency started the rationale for it.
All true, there is a historian named DiLorenzo (spelling?) who has documented what you say, but DiLorenzo is not accepted by the establishment historians. Neither is Arthur Herman, who wrote the revised history of Joe McCarthy, based on Soviet archival materials.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.