Cramer Endorses Griffith
Retiring Democratic Congressman Bud Cramer, a founding member of the Blue Dogs, had previously said that he could endorse a member of either party as his successor to represent Alabama’s 5th Congressional District. This afternoon he endorsed Democratic state Senator Parker Griffith.
Two Democrats and six Republicans have qualified for the race.
Related Articles:
>>had previously said that he could endorse a member of either party as his successor to represent Alabama’s 5th Congressional District. This afternoon he endorsed Democratic state Senator Parker Griffith.
That really came out of nowhere! Who’d have ever guessed he’d endorse the leading candidate of his own party?
Comment by Onelife — April 8, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
BTW, Rep. Artur Davis endorsed Parker Griffith yesterday at the American Society of Military Comptrollers luncheon.
Comment by Reactionary — April 8, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
Reactionary, thats a rather odd group for a Representative without a Defense Committee assignment to be addressing, that with the defense slant his Congressional web pages shows leads to all sorts of speculation. Wonder if he is aiming for Armed Services Committee next Congress
Comment by walt moffett — April 8, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
walt - IMO Davis doesn’t seem to be a much of a friend to the military or their mission.
FWIW: Bob Nichols, the current Redstone Arsenal ASMC President, is a black guy. Also, many of the attendees weren’t ASMC members. IMO seemed more like a campaign event…
Comment by Reactionary — April 8, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
Oh THAT’s a suprise. Cramer’s been prepping Griffith for the past four months. Parker knew good and well MONTHS ago that Cramer was stepping down. He made sure to do it in a way that wouldn’t give anyone else a fair chance at running. That crook Griffith has been “campaigning” all over North Alabama the last 4 months.
Comment by D2 Voter — April 8, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
Reactionary, could be he’s trying to have that appearance especially when it will result in jobs for his district, think the air tanker contract. But, I’m just speculating waiting on the coffee to brew.
Isn’t any public appearance by a politician in this age politicial? No doubt there was some discreet fund raising going on too.
Comment by walt moffett — April 8, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
“That crook Griffith” ????
Please elaborate D2 voter.
Comment by Gunney Highway — April 8, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
walt - I didn’t think that the tanker contract affected Davis’ district, other than it being good for Alabama. The Dems want to kill it anyway…
Comment by Reactionary — April 8, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
D2 Voter, I’m with Gunney Highway in comment 7… I’d be interested to know what you mean by “that crook Griffith.”
Comment by Danny — April 9, 2008 @ 7:40 am
You also have to keep in mind that Griffith has huge name id in the district right now because of his two previous runs for office. So that could be another reason why Bud endorsed him. One democrat in Florence jokingly told me yesterday that Griffith flooded the airwaves so much in ‘04 and ‘06 that people in southern middle Tennessee probably know more about him than they do their own politicians.
Comment by dan t — April 9, 2008 @ 10:11 am
Doesn’t matter much anyway - Griffith will lose when the seat goes Rep. in the fall.
Comment by Hunts4me — April 9, 2008 @ 11:56 am
I agree with “Hunts4me.” If Wayne could come close against an incumbent, he should be able to roll over a relatively liberal democrat in a conservative district.
Comment by PoliticalJunkie — April 9, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
How is Parker Griffith “relatively liberal”? He seems like a pretty darn conservative Blue Dog through and through to me. I just don’t see a two-time loser who last came close a decade ago pulling this one out. If Clinton’s at the top of the ticket, maybe, but, even then I doubt it.
Comment by SamfordDem — April 9, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
Haha I knew somebody wouldn’t read carefully! He’s relatively liberal compared to Wayne Parker. Of course he’s relatively conservative (Blue Dog! Yay!) compared to Obama, but so is Hillary.
Comment by PoliticalJunkie — April 10, 2008 @ 9:50 am
COmparing Wayne Parker’s run in 1994 to this year is comparing apples to oranges — no, make that to cucumbers. In 1994, his father-in-law was able to direct HUGE amounts of national Republican money to the race, Bill Clinton was the most unpopular President in recent history until more recent history, and the nation was in the middle of a Republican sweep that led Republicans back to a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, and swept out numerous Democratic Governors across the country, including every one in the South other than Zell Miller in Georgia, who survived by about the same margin as Bud Cramer.
Let’s look only two years later when Bud, with minimally more seniority, and having been “reduced” to serving in the minority was again opposed by Wayne Parker. The result then - Bud Cramer 56%, Wayne Parker 42%. Griffith wins this race, unless there is a major upset - although there were Republicans that would have had a much better chance, and possibly a better than 50/50 chance, at victory.
Comment by Montgomery — April 10, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
Apologies, I thought you meant relatively liberal for the district. I think Griffith will likely chart much the same path that as Cramer, who apparently had a pretty good grasp of the district.
Comment by SamfordDem — April 10, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
Re: SamfordDem
My fault, I should have been clear. Re-reading I can see that my comment could have easily been read that way.
Re: Montgomery
I couldn’t agree more. This election will be completely different, which is why is I think it’s naive to think that Griffith wins “unless there is a major upset.” (Emphasis on major.) No doubt that Griffith can win, but there’s a very good reason why every objective source (Cook’s Political, Politico, etc.) have listed the race as “toss-up” (or equivalent).
To assume a walk-off win for Griffith is to fundamentally misconstrue, or misunderstand, the state of politics in the state of Alabama and how it’s changed from 1994 to now.
In 1994 we had what basically amounted to a Blue Dog Governor (Fob James), a Supreme Court that was entirely Democratic in composition (with the first Republican ever elected to the court that year), and a state legislature that was dominated by Democrats. Compare that to now when we have a true Republican governor (not commenting on James’ conservative merits just party affiliation), a Supreme Court completely dominated by Republicans, and caucuses in both bodies of the legislature that are fairly close to majorities. That’s an enormous shift in one decade.
Furthermore, you completely discount the power of incumbency in evaluating Wayne’s losses. If the race in 1994 or in 1996 is for an open seat Wayne wins. I think that’s pretty uncontroversial as it relates to ’94, though I’m sure you’ll disagree on ’96 but the incumbency is worth a substantial percentage.
Wayne also has a substantial level of grassroots support. That was the real reason for his substantial showing in 1994, not the money from the national party. He still has that grassroots support and it will payoff as the campaign unfolds.
Comment by PoliticalJunkie — April 11, 2008 @ 1:32 pm