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 ...
Are you going to argue that FDR was the "conservative" candidate in 1940?
Since I don’t live there, we can agree.
Since I am Conservative - I won’t trust them. My rep is Campbell - the majority of the time he does not vote with the DNC. But good luck down there and Merry Christmas.
BTW, don’t tell me I can’t tell you to jump off a cliff if I have never jumped off a cliff before...
I’m a little late to the discussion here, but I have to side with Billy. The problem of applying today’s ideological labels (Conservative vs. Liberal) to that of the 19th century is extremely difficult. The issues were entirely different. You couldn’t apply a lot of our modernist labels until at least 1896 when the parties began to officially set course to what we see as left vs. right today. Shoehorning us (or them) into one box or another isn’t going to work.
Even with the case of William Jennings Bryan and his nutty ‘96 Silverite Socialism, the man was stridently religious and would be defending Creationism being taught in schools to the hilt, he wouldn’t be comfortable with the “purge religion” stance of the Democrats today (though he probably wouldn’t be in agreement with the GOP on economics no more than he was 113 years ago). Theodore Roosevelt would also be disgusted with the cultural rot and anti-war peaceniks, and would find today’s liberals to be absolutely vile (even if he were to be presumed a “Progressive” of his time). Woodrow Wilson would be also repulsed that Black people were overwhelmingly in the Dem party today (TR and Lincoln would conversely be heartbroken and dumbfounded, not to mention Black activists of the era, Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington).
Thanks to the 1960s, issues today of a social nature that were NON-issues prior to that have been shoved to the forefront. How would Lincoln or Bryan or TR be on gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, drugs, welfare, (lack of) personal responsibility and the like ? I think they’d be disgusted we had devolved downwards to the point this stuff was even a part of the national agenda. Even more horrified our Founding Fathers would be, to the point of unbridled outrage that we destroyed so much of what they worked so hard for, with an obscenely oversized federal government interfering so deeply into our lives. Not even a “Big Government” type of the late 18th century would’ve found what we have today remotely acceptable. I know I certainly don’t.
heh.. See, thats your mistake...
Im not here to debate.
If you believe that one must run for office, win, and hold that office for a period of time to have an opinion on matters such as this... Then you, my freind, need to seek professional help.
“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.”
Here’s the Wikipedia page on Alabama’s congressional delegations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_delegations_from_Alabama I was able to figure out what the Huntsville-based CD was in the antebellum period, but I had assumed that the Huntsville-based CD had only had Democrat Representatives since Reconstruction because that’s what people have said for years. Looking at the Representatives from AL since the Civil War, it is difficult to ascertain which ones represented Huntsville or which district is the successor of which earlier one. Maybe another FReeper can be of assistance.
The district votes Republican for Senator and Governor too.
Make no mistake there is *no* chance the democrats will win this seat in 2010 now. He was likely to lose if ran as rat, that is *why* he switched.
I’m from Alabama and I’m sorry, but it actually doesn’t.
Excluding the part of Morgan that’s in the district (and it’s a Dem area specifically drawn by the legislature to help make a Dem district) the district went for Don Siegelman in 2002. Went for him in 98. Went for Folsom in 94. So on and so on.
The district voted for Riley but so did the rest of the state. In general, a Republican has to get a certain margin in Madison to take said district. Just the way it is.
So no, it’s not a Republican district. It’s represented by Dems in the legislature. Other than Huntsville its all Dem local governments. Now true, Griffith would have had problems getting re-elected as a Dem but the fact remains that this is a coup and he is far more valuable to us as a Rep winning re-election than as a Dem we’re running against.
Exactly. When did FR become filled with so many morons? I took pride in belonging to a group of learned, intelligent people at one time. Now I cringe when I see idiotic post after idiotic post on so many threads. I believe we have been infiltrated and overrun.
Thursday, October 19, 1961 at precisely 17:20:19.902 GMT.
I never use Wikipedia for that info, I keep my own personal records (with properly coded color schemes, ahem), and I also have Martis’s Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the U.S. Congress. I can tell you that where there is some confusion is that for some time until the end of Reconstruction, the district that now is the 5th was in two separate districts (one was the eastern corner, and the other the western corner). When I was analyzing the 5th last year, I thought it might’ve elected a Republican at some point in the 1870s, but it didn’t.
To follow it back, we go as follows:
5th District - 1973-to present
8th District - 1965-1973
At-Large (No Districts in AL) from 1963-1965
*8th District - 1877-1963
*The last non-Republican elected from what is now the 5th (when it was the 8th district) was Greenbacker William Manning Lowe. He was elected outright in 1879, and was initially the loser in 1881 (to the legendary Fightin’ Joe Wheeler), but was seated after an inspection of the returns showed he had beaten Gen. Wheeler. He died in office shortly after his seating and the Dems won it back in 1882.
From 1868 to 1877, the eastern corner of the state was the 5th district and the western corner was the 6th. Madison County (Huntsville) and Jackson were in the 5th (and the counties that sat below them) while Limestone & Lauderdale were in the 6th (along with the counties below them). In which case, it was from the Summer of 1868 to March 1869 when John Benton Callis of the 5th (who hailed from Huntsville) and Thomas Haughey of the 6th (who hailed from nearby Decatur) jointly hold the honors as the last Republicans to represent the modern-day 5th.
As an aside, I can go back even further. From 1843 to 1861, the 5th and the 6th flipped places (whereas the 6th then was the eastern corner including Huntsville, and the 5th was the western corner including Decatur).
1841-1843, the state was At-Large.
From 1833-1841, the NE corner was the 1st district (although it included both Huntsville AND Morgan County’s Decatur) and the NW corner was the 2nd district.
From 1823-1833, the entire Northern tier of counties was within the 1st district (which remarkably resembles the 5th district lines today !), it was also the smallest CD in AL, since Huntsville was (I believe) the largest city in the state then.
The entire state (non-Indian occupied areas) was one district from its territorial establishment in 1817 until its division into three districts in 1823.
So in conclusion, the district is about as historically Dem as they come, with only Republicans Callis & Haughey and Greenbacker Lowe being the only non-Dem occupants since the territorial days in 1817 until Griffith’s switch yesterday.
Yeah the close guv race in 2002 it voted rat you’re right, and prior to that. It hasn’t voted rat for Senator since the last close race, 1996 when it looks like the rat won the area over Sessions. My point was Republicans can win the district.
I actually got your post confused with that of someone else so I thought you were arguing that the rats were gonna win back the seat in 2010. Woops. ;d
I must conclude Griffith switched he did it cause he was very worried about his chances next year. He’s not mentally retarded so I don’t believe he suddenly realized there is no place for a conservative in the rat party.
The Governorship isn’t a great yardstick to go by here for figuring how GOP a district is, for one good reason. In the modern era, we’ve only won the office 5 times (1986, 1990, 1994, 2002 & 2006). Three of those were relatively close statewide for the Republican winner (Hunt vs. Hubbert ‘90 - 52-48%; James vs. Folsom ‘94 - 50-49%; Riley vs. Siegelman ‘02 - 49-49%), only two were wide, Hunt’s first win in ‘86 (13% - 56.5% to 43.5%) over Bill Baxley, and Riley’s reelection in ‘06 by 16% over Baxley’s ex-wife, Lucy (57.5-41.6%). So obviously we probably would’ve only carried the 5th (I presume) only in 1986 and 2006.
I’d pay more attention to its federal performance (such as Presidential), and it’s been GOP at the top for quite some time, but taking an unusually long time to finally trickle down. One reason it may have avoided going GOP for Congress in the ‘60s (at least the ‘64 election when 5 districts fell at once) was perhaps because of the lack of racial polarization in the district (or rather, because there were few Blacks) and the district was quite happy with its long-term member, Robert E. Jones, who held it from 1947-1977.
Jones didn’t even draw a GOP opponent in 1964, which may have saved him from the fate several of the remaining old timers met. His closest race was in 1966, where he beat a Republican in the old 8th by 72-28%. When Ronnie Flippo succeeded him in ‘76, he didn’t even draw a GOP general opponent. Flippo’s closest race was his last in 1988 when he beat one Stan McDonald by 64-36% (a closer margin than Bud Cramer when he beat party-switching State Agriculture Chairman Albert McDonald by in his first 1990 race, 67-33%). Until Wayne Parker came along, no Republican breached the 40% mark for a candidate, which he did in his three runs (49.5% in 1994, 42% in 1996 & 48% in 2008).
Worked all day yesterday so I couldn’t reply till now.
Should have seen this coming when he said weeks ago that he wouldn’t back Pelosi again. I said at time it didn’t matter cause he wasn’t gonna be there in Jan 2011 to vote for Speaker. He came to the same conclusion obviously.
Now he seems to voted against all the major crap this year so I wouldn’t have trouble supporting him. I think he’ll vote in the future like an average Republican congressman.
His GOP primary foes are staying in the race it looks like (they will probably face pressure to quit). They have terrible things to say about his record claiming he’s not as conservative as says he is, had a bad record in the state legislature and has voted with the rats on things this year.
The smart thing politically is to back to him and encourage similar rats to switch.
I will say though he is not entitled to win because he’s the incumbent. He’ll need to win the primary if Mo Brooks and Les Phillip stay in. Primary voters in the distinct will decide. If I lived there I’d be hard pressed not to vote for Les Phillip anyway.
Greg Laughlin of Texas switched after 1994 and then lost to Ron Paul in the primary (and has a loyal Republican and endorsed Paul). AFAIK no other recent era switchee faced primary difficulty.
I said if Bobby Bright was smart, he’d follow Griffith to the GOP. Now, if Artur Davis REALLY wants to be Governor of Alabama, he’d switch to the GOP, too, and that would draw enough (national) focus to him he might win the primary in a divided field. ;-)
New England was conservative before the depression. Their Republicans started going liberal after that. They had NOT always been liberals and then switched to the rat party. Conservative Calvin Coolidge was born in Vermont and was Governor of Massachusetts. As to the South since everyone was a dem, some were conservative, and some were very far from conservative.
Civil war area politics are a long way in the past. Neither Lincoln nor any one from back then would be in Obama's party.
Lincoln did some things I don't like. The Draft and the income tax for example. Sherman's march to the sea was deplorable in my opinion.
It's hard to put my modern views in that era. Put in a time machine and send my there as is and I would have been strongly against slavery. Not in favor of the south leaving in the interests of slavery. Against the draft and the income tax. For Whig-Republican economic modernization and "internal improvements" but probably for a tariff for revenue only (on this issue the parties have 'switched' dems were anti-protectionist, Whig-GOP strongly pro). In the reconstruction era I would have for a real solution for former slaves and would not have just ended it and left them to Jim Crow. The north didn't want them. I like the idea I heard that would have settled former slaves in the west. Between Douglas, Bell (less than 1% in my state IL), and Lincoln I don't know for whom I would have preferred in 1860.
If Bright is bright he will. He wasn’t bright in 2008 when he chose to run as a rat.
His district is not Griffith’s. I think Griff would have lost in 2010 but he could have won. However rats are be gonna powdered toast in Bright’s district in 2010. So I hope he stays a rat, I don’t like him.
On the western territories, this is something of a shibboleth: no one---NO ONE---entertained ideas of letting large numbers of freed slaves have, at no cost, western lands that free settlers were lusting after. There was a Kansas town founded by freedmen, but neither the people of the territory, nor the senate, wanted to let former slaves have the land they had, in their minds, reserved for whites.
As for the draft, I oppose a draft, but a nation's first imperative is survival, and in the case of the Civil War and WW II (though perhaps not WW I), I think a draft was in order. The supposedly "free" Confederacy had a draft as well (with more exemptions than the North allowed).
While Lincoln supported, in principle, all the tariffs and "big-government" programs that the Congress passed, I seriously doubt if there hadn't been a war going on that he would have pushed, or even signed off on, most of those programs. His view was, "whatever it takes to win the war" was what he would do.
I thought about what might’ve happened had the Civil War happened earlier, say, under President Andrew Jackson. He would not have been nearly as kind or charitable as Lincoln was in its conduction. Jackson would’ve been brutal beyond description, you’d have had a helluva lot more Shermanesque Marches across the South, and he would’ve publicly hung or shot the leaders of the Southern cause (even if he had to string them up with his bare hands). Jackson was a decided Unionist and probably would’ve made the most hard-line Radical Republicans blush. We can go by one of his contemporaries, Sam Houston, who had also been Governor of my state before a sad personal (romantic) event saw him quit Tennessee for Texas, and he was no supporter of secession there (and was nearly a de facto Republican by the start of the war as a Know-Nothing, the stand-in party of the Oppositionists opposed to the regular Democrats). Hard to imagine Andrew Jackson becoming a Republican, but he just might’ve had he lived to the 1860s (but unquestionably a Unionist or War Democrat, as was Andrew Johnson). By Azalea’s reckoning, that would’ve made the Southerner Jackson a “liberal” ! =8-0
I’m thinking I would have been for Clay and Adams against Jackson.
He was autocratic (hence the opposition choosing to call themselves Whigs). I believe you called him a whack job or something to that effect.
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.