Justify the opposition to Bud Cramer
A couple of days ago WVNN morning show host Dale Jackson hit on a key question about Bud Cramer (D), north Alabama’s U.S. congressman. He pointed out that he frequently hears anti-Cramer comments from his presumably majority Republican audience, but he wanted callers to justify their opposition to Cramer. I thought it was a very appropriate solicitation because from my perspective there just aren’t that many reasons for voters to oppose him other than the fact that he is a Democrat.
Cramer is among the most conservative of Democrats inside the Beltway. He has shown significant autonomy in his voting record, often voting with Republicans on contested votes. His position on tax issues has been largely commendable, but more on that later. He isn’t a showy media whore like Chuck Shumer, always preening and demagoguing for the cameras. His support of DoD and NASA on Redstone Arsenal has been significant and his considerable clout has most certainly benefited those operations. And he is not bashful about bringing home the pork. He has also been relentless in supporting his pet issue, helping abused children, which is both noble and popular.
Easily his most controversial vote – a vote to increase gun control – happened way back in 1994. That vote nearly cost him his seat. Since then he has consistently won by comfortable margins. Some ardent Republicans contend that Cramer has recently cast anti-military votes, but that claim rings hollow based on Cramer’s obvious long term support of the military.
So, why oppose Cramer? Give it your best shot.
Personally, I have one major beef with Cramer: his refusal to endorse and co-sponsor the FairTax. There is broad support for the bill in his district and it fits in very nicely with his general philosophy on taxation. I would guess that his refusal to get on board can be attributed a couple of things. One, like most politicians he covets the power that the income tax offers him. Two, he is hesitant to blatantly oppose Nancy Pelosi, who is rumored to have black listed the FairTax.
I’ll admit that the FairTax is my pet rock and I will likely vote for a challenger who supports the bill. Fortunately there is such a candidate: Ray McKee. If Cramer changes his tune then he’ll quickly get my unqualified endorsement.
I also take issue with Cramer’s propensity for pork, although he is no where near as shameless about it as our august senior senator. But I probably share company with about four other people in the nation who oppose pork even when it comes to my neighborhood. It’s not exactly an issue that will hurt him with many voters.
Other than those items I can’t find many positions of significant consequence that I disagree with him.
From what I’ve heard from local folks in the know, Republicans believe their best chance to unseat Cramer will come in 2010. There is a pervasive belief within the party that a Democrat will take the White House in 2008. If that happens there will be a torrent of liberal legislation flowing through Congress towards the waiting signature in the Oval Office. Cramer will either have to really buck the party bosses – and face repercussions – or he’ll go along with much of the legislation and give would-be challengers ample opposition to use against him in 2010.
Update: I intended to mention that the Alabama Line at Doc’s lists Cramer as a 1-12 favorite to be reelected in 2008.
He votes to cut and run.
So that is it? I got quite a bit of traffic to this specific post today and the sum total of the reaction is that he “votes to cut and run.” I guess Bud should sleep easy.
Nope, that’s not it. I’ve responded on my blog, and here’s a summary:
1. Cramer voted against funding for the “surge” of troops into Iraq, which has been an integral part of Gen. Petraus’s revamped counterinsurgency strategy, a strategy that has succeeded beyond almost anyone’s expectations.
2. Cramer has also consistently voted in favor of forcing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in accordance with artificial timelines drawn up by Congressional Democrats. Most recently, on November 14 (just two weeks ago) Cramer voted in favor of a DOD supplemental appropriations bill that would force the President to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 30 days of the bill’s enactment. That bill has since been vetoed by the President, and funding for the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan remains unresolved.
3. Last April, Cramer voted for the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, which would grant the District of Columbia a vote in the the House of Representatives and a vote in the Electoral College. It also would be a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, which says in Article 1 Section 2 that House members are to be “chosen every second year by the people of the several states.” Last I heard, D.C. is not a state.
4. Last month, Cramer voted for the Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act of 2007. Anyone who finds the idea of race-based preferences distasteful will find this piece of legislation outrageous. Essentially, it would authorize the creation of a sovereign, race-based government for native Hawaiians.
5. Last February, Cramer voted for the Union Organization Bill, which among other things, eliminates workers’ rights to a secret-ballot election when voting on whether to form a union.
6. Last June, Cramer voted to provide federal funding for embryo-destructive stem cell research. One would hope that after last week’s announced breakthrough, this will cease to be an issue in the future. Nonetheless, Cramer’s support for this bill is disturbing for three reasons: 1) he gave his blessing to research that involves the destruction of human embryos, 2) he has no objection to allocating federal tax dollars to research that is ethically questionable, and 3) he has no qualms with the federal government handing out money to anyone for any purpose, as long it is politically popular; the constitutional authority granted to Congress under Article 1 apparently plays little role in his decision making.
7. Last January, Rep. Cramer voted to choose Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D.-San Francisco) as Speaker of the House. Need I say more?
…I could go on and on. In 2002, Cramer voted in favor of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, which is quite possibly the greatest affront to the First Amendment since the Sedition Act of 1798. In 2005, he opposed President Bush’s plan to create voluntary private investment accounts inside the Social Security system. In 2006, he voted against requiring voters in federal elections to present a government-issues photo ID.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
See my latest blog post for a reply.
- Lee P
Lee – my spam blocker trapped your initial comment…
Wow, you’ve got a good spam blocker!
Main reason to oppose Cramer is that competition improves the breed. An incumbent without credible opposition can get lazy and develops a tendency to view his interests and the districts as the same. When forced to compete for votes (and local fund raising) he has to pay attention to local matters.
Cramer stinks for the above reasons and that he always slaps his name onto any local project that is looking good so he can claim credit. (See the Lincoln Village Project in Huntsville.) He also gives out my money and then acts as if it came from his own pocket.
bud Corporate Whore…. is gone and finally a non CHRISTIAN CRUSADER might be elected to tell israel that the fight for Jewsylvania is all theirs. that the USA will no longer send U.S. tax dollars to the 13th richest nation on earth to allow them to continue to act as TERRORIST!
bushlovers be damned……and bud was and is a biblethumping bushlover
“pigs pocket” (aka lots of other names) you asked for it and you got it – you’re now become the first person in my two years of blogging that I had to ban.