Comments on: Parker Griffith: More loyal than Nancy Pelosi

By: Flashpoint » Blog Archive » 2008 Election Recommendations

Flashpoint » Blog Archive » 2008 Election Recommendations — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 03:50:38 +0000

[...] two years as a state senator he pushed through a grand total of one bill and voted with his party over 99% of the time – more than even Nancy Pelosi. And we can’t forget the peer review of Dr. Griffith’s [...]

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:35:56 +0000

And which side does Griffith fall on?

By: Talmadge East

Talmadge East — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:26:55 +0000

There is a difference between being partisan and being essentially monolithic when it comes to issues.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:31:37 +0000

Jonathan,
Maybe not. Many identify with a particular party and want their party to win. They will only crossover if an absurdly bad candidate is on the ballot for their party. Voting is like rooting for a sports team to them and they will be loyal. That’s why there is the “All Democrat” and “All Republican” options on ballots.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:25:43 +0000

If the differences between parties in Alabama are usually so minor; then wouldn’t you expect more crossover voting and not less?

By: Talmadge East

Talmadge East — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:40:57 +0000

I think Artur Davis’s record speaks for itself in a positive way. My point being that there isn’t much to be gained by being independent in Alabama because both parties differences are usually incidental.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:21:40 +0000

Huge difference between AL and Washington Democrats, huh. Could be construed as an early shot against Artur Davis, a Washington Democrat who will likely try to brand himself as an AL Democrat in 2010?

As for Griffith, I’m just pointing out the absurdity of his claims that he is independent and that he worked with Republicans. When you’re more loyal than the speaker of the house then you are anything but independent. Quite honestly, his “leg” that he is standing on is probably his biggest liability because it shows north Alabama voters what they can expect from him and it is stark contrast to what he is saying.

By: Talmadge East

Talmadge East — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:27:29 +0000

Well, I am a partisan Democrat, so I guess that qualifies me as a die hard Griffith supporter. First of all there is a HUGE difference between a Washington Democrat and an Alabama Democrat (as you well know), but let me address something else. At least Parker Griffith has a leg to stand on (i.e. some kind of record we can look at) in stark comparison to his opponent who’s only record is one of someone who ardently seeks public office and is then rejected by the public. I winder why that is?

By: in alabama

in alabama — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:21:12 +0000

nice. so i guess it is worth asking, in case there are any die-hard griffith supporters, or independents lurking…is it ok for griffith to say he is independent but the facts prove otherwise? or since it is congress, are you going to argue that the slate should be wiped clean and we should “trust” him (based on zero prove otherwise) that he will change his tune and be independent? can you say that the large amounts of money that griffith has received and will continue to receive from largely liberal democrat groups has zero impact on the type of congressman griffith would be? and that this money is simply “free” without strings because those groups have spent so much time with griffith and feel he is just too good a guy not to have in Washington as a democrat? finally, will you answer the question, the million dollar question, why does griffith feel that it is not in his best interest to let the voters know who he supports for President? i mean, pretty big deal considering griffith wants to work side-by-side with that person. who will answer? we have asked and will continue to.