Posted by 
A reader with some campaign experience was underwhelmed by Parker Griffith’s announcement of his candidacy last Friday.
who in their right mind would do their announcement on Good Friday during Spring Break? With the added boost that having the paper run news of it on the Saturday before Easter?
Conclusions:
1) guy has no media sense
2) guy has no advisor with any media sense: OR
3) guy does not listen to good advice
none of that bodes well for his chances–amateurish timing mistake, coupled with unimaginative choice of location and absence of any significant show of “face cards” supporting him—this is the most free media he was going to get in the campaign and his chance to set tone and image—and he–inadvertently–gives voters a pretty accurate insight into his lack of experience and significant support.
I see the point, though perhaps one could make too much of it.
Money can overcome a lot of shortcomings. If Griffith is able to drop (or raise) serious money for his campaign, then perhaps a fumbled opportunity to shine in a showcase for a free media splash may not be that big of a deal. There is some perceived advantage to being “first in,” and Griffith may have figured that it was worth grabbing that title.
We’ll know in coming weeks if this was a harbinger of future missteps or a moment whose details are forgotten.
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
He was ready to get into the race. Whoever sent this puts way too much stock into the timing of announcements, and seems pretty hackish.
This will be a multi-million dollar election being run on a short calendar, and his little announcement speech is by no means the biggest free media hit he’s going to get. Danny, I’m disappointed that you posted this poor analysis, as it amounts to a ill conceived hit piece against Griffith.
Griffith’s campaign right now is a two week push to keep any potential challengers out of the primary. He got his announcement in before Tammy Irons, Steve Raby or John Robinson went to church on Sunday and got told how wonderful they were by all their friends. When you’re working on a two week calendar, you do what you’re ready to do as soon as you’re ready to do it, including holding announcements on Good Friday.
Danny – it appars to me that a number of Montgomerty Democratis party insiders have been pushing Parker Griffith for this job (and discouraging Susan Parker from running) from early in this process.
I think those efforts may represent large political mistakes by the Demos . . .
Response to #2:
In order to win this seat Dems will have to win Madison County. Given Huntsville’s overwhelming reliance on federal spending, it’s reasonable to assume that a large number of the City’s voters are going to vote for the candidate they trust to put Huntsville’s interests first. A candidate from Huntsville fits this mold better than Susan Parker.
That’s one theory at least. I’m not sure it’s correct, but it does hold some water. I’m curious why you’re certain Susan Parker would have been the better candidate.
It seems as if he was in a race to get his name in first. Susan Parker almost immediately withdrew her name from consideration…I may be a little off on the timing.
She’s a team player I suppose. His age is still sort of a problem. If I’m not mistaken, the Democrats are very seniority oriented, as I stated once earlier. The Republicans I believe to be more fundraiser-driven. Even if it were the other way around, I doubt Griffith would be a very prodigious fund-raiser.
I’ve certainly been wrong before though.
#4 hits a huge reason Susan Parker would have been the better candidate. Griffith is 66 and even if he serves to 70 that is just TWO TERMS. It keeps the Demos from putting an incumbent in now who can hold this seat for 20+ years which would SEEM to be a major consideration -this is a swing seat and it is BIG for control of congress in the future. As it is so difficult to defeat incumbent congressmen I cannot fathom why the Demos would push an elderly freshman for this seat who cannot (in all probablility) serve even one decade.
Griffith is “first in” only on the Democrat side. Ray McKee (R) was the “first in” – he announced way before Bud Cramer announced his retirement.
I don’t see Griffith’s timing as a problem – people who pay attention saw it and he’s got enough money to get his name out. Plus, his recent campaigns have raised his visibility quite a bit: won State Senate, lost Mayor.
To paraphrase “The Natural”: You don’t start being a congressman at 66, you retire.
I would like to remind those that consider Griffith’s age a problem that John McSame as Bush (R. Arizona) is 71 years old. I cannot fathom why the Republicans would push an elderly Senator for President.
As for the “mistake” of announcing on Good Friday, I don’t see it as a mistake. Fortunatly, Griffith doesn’t have to rely on “free media” in order to get his message out to the voters.
The President doesn’t have to jockey for committee assignments or chairmanships based on seniority. On Day One you ARE the Chairman in the executive branch if you are the Prez . . .so age is not as big an issue.
Whoever said that the person talking to Danny is over thinking this is dead to rights.
His announcement did what it needed: got his name in the hat, and pushed Susan Parker out. Also, anyone else considering an announcement now has to figure out who Parker Griffith has locked up as commitments already, and how to over come his potential to put his own money in the race.
Also, anyone lamenting his age has clearly never seen the guy. He might look 60, but only because of his gray hair.
The Repbs better get someone better than Tom Butler, or it’ll be Congressman Griffith on November 4!
When you have his money you can have facial work done!
Tammy Irons is better looking.
I’m hearing that a wealthy car dealer may enter on the Republican side. Numerous Republican friends of mine have said the same thing but no one can put a name to this person. Any ideas on whom it might be?
Anonymous #9, age is not as big as issue as you and other Republicans are trying to make it. Parker Griffith is fully capable of jockeying for committee assignments or chairmanships, since they are based on SENOIRITY. Surely Republicans aren’t in favor of age discrimination?
Seniority is not based on age; it’s based on years in Congress. The concern isn’t discrimination due to age, but the fact that Griffith might not be in Washington long enough to climb the ladder of seniority. On the other hand, some folks stay in Washington into their eighties.
This is just speculation, but from what I’ve witnessed my guess is that Parker Griffith intends to stay in politics well into his 80’s. The man is in good health and still drips with ambition. There’s no reason to assume that he wouldn’t hold the seat as long as Cramer.
Margaret,
Your concern for the longevity of Griffith’s tenure in Congress is touching. I didn’t know you cared.
[...] Doc’s Political Parlor: Griffith’s Not-So Good Friday Announcement [...]
I don’t really care, homey. Not only is this not my district, but I don’t know much about any of the people involved. I wrote that post because you seemed to misunderstand how seniority works.
This guy’s age is going to be an issue in this campaign. Anyone who thinks otherwise is terribly naive.
Personally, I don’t think the age issue is as damaging as the fact that whoever happens to become the Democratic Presidential Nominee is going to be terribly unpopular in this district.
Republicans might try and make age an issue, and it that’s all they have Bring It On.
And I wouldn’t count on whomever the Democratic Presidential nominee is being unpopular in his district either. No one is as unpopular as Bush and McSame as Bush.
For an unpopular party, the Republican turnout was higher than Clinton vs the Boy Wonder in Madison County.
Homeboy, when did I ever say that REPUBLICANS were going to make Griffith’s age an issue? If it is an issue at all, it will be in the Democratic Primary.
BTW, the latest polls seem to contradict your statement about the Democratic Presidential nominee.
[...] John Hannah is not going to run for Alabama’s 5th Congressional District, I’m told. I hear that Mazda dealer Jeff Sikes is considering a Republican run. Sikes was apparently mentioned, not by name, in a comment here in the Parlor. [...]
Hey Sandman,
Who are “the latest polls” polling, the GOP?
I can assure you that Griffith’s age is not an issue for Democrats.
Hey JD,
What can I say about Madison voters? They obviously love the GOP more than they do our country.
Homeboy –
I was referring to Rasmussen Reports, not exactly Republican hacks by any means.
Check it out for yourself:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
I don’t think Parker Griffith’s announcement had anything to do with Susan Parker’s decision not run! I also think Tammy Irons will run and will be the Democratic candidate. Democratic leaders from all over the state are encouraging her. Ms. Irons has a huge ability to raise money and has a great name recognition in a large part of the district. Besides, it is the Shoals Area’s turn to have representation in DC! Sen. Griffith’s charm may run out on this one…
What y’all are forgettin is:
a) Parker is loooooaded! Money will not be a problem.
b) Parker won a state senate seat that ain’t true blue; its a purple trending red district, even considering HSV’s Democratic history.
c) Parker knows that you bring a gun to a gun fight. The GOPers wont’ have a “babe in the woods” or the baby jesus on their hands w/Parker; he’ll be loaded for bear and won’t mind pulling the trigger if need be.
We’ve got a winner in Parker Griffth; let’s not do locally what Clinton and Obama are doing nationally.