Griffith undermines Blue Dog claim on first day

I previously mentioned Parker Griffith’s first two votes in Congress.  One was for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. That is not surprising and is, in fact, understandable. It was more of a ceremonial vote since his opposition - if he actually has any - to her wouldn’t have changed the outcome and would have only earned scorn from the most powerful person in the House. Voting against her would have been a personal slight. I’ll give him a pass on that one. Heck, one could argue (although one would be wrong) that this vote wasn’t out of the mainstream in North Alabama since Wayne Parker did everything he could to conflate Griffith with Pelosi and a majority of people still voted for Griffith.

The second vote was in support of rule changes that Pelosi proposed. That vote is a good bit less forgivable. John Fund has a great column in the Wall Street Journal about what rules Pelosi changed and the impact it will have on the dynamics of Congress.

Tax increases will be easier to pass, tax cuts harder. Seniority will rule over merit. Procedural tactics that the minority party can use to send bills back to committee have been “emasculated.”

But more pointedly as to why North Alabama residents should be angry at Griffith for this vote is what the rule changes mean for “pay-go” and the Blue Dogs.

Ironically, some of the biggest losers from the Pelosi rules changes will be fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats. The “pay-go” rules they fought so hard for two years ago — to require new spending proposals be balanced with additional revenue or cuts elsewhere — have been gutted. And no term limits will mean they will have to stand in line for a taste of real power.

Remember way back during the campaign - back when empty promises flowed like beer at a frat party - Parker Griffith assured us that he was going to DC to be a conservative (or was it independent?) Blue Dog Democrat. Why in the world would the individualistic Griffith vote in favor of rules changes that hurt him and his fellow Blue Dogs? Could it be that he is no more a conservative Democrat than I am a major league baseball player? Nah, that would mean he was telling us a fib.

The rule changes also highlight a major gripe I have with both parties: shortly after gaining power, like moths to a flame, they start changing rules and/or gerrymandering districts to keep themselves in power and punish the new minority party. It is the beginning of a downward slide because it indicates the focus has shifted from doing what you were sent to do to doing what you can to stay. Ironically, the former will accomplish the latter while the latter works against itself. But politicians never remember this. How quickly the memory of being in the minority fades along with the empathy that accompanies it. A feeling of invincibility sets in, further emboldening ill advised changes. “We’ll never have to deal with these draconian rules,” the thought goes. Fortunately, with time, Americans wise up to these shenanigans and correct the imbalance.

Update: Credit where credit is due…  Griffith and South Alabama freshman Democrat Bobby Bright both voted against the “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.”  The Heritage Foundation explains what this legislation would have accomplished.  Sounds like it would have been quite a boon for the trial lawyers.  While Griffith made the correct vote, the explanation he gave to a constituent (see comments on first link in the update) was pretty weak.  He said he didn’t vote for it because it was introduced last session and no amendments were accepted.

Related content:

• Parker Griffith is a Democrat
• Parker Griffith “not afraid to defy Pelosi on legislation”
• Bud Cramer: From Blue Dog to Lap Dog