Parker Griffith – There When Nancy Pelosi Needs Him
There is much to be said about various aspects of Parker Griffith’s voting record, and much more will be said.
For example, the House has cast 477 votes so far this year. Nancy Pelosi’s side won every single vote.
Out of 477 votes, not once did Parker Griffith vote against Nancy Peloisi when she both needed him and when it would have made a difference.
The “Griffith voted for the Cap & Trade Energy Tax Increase, before he voted against it” voting sequence is a good example.
Historically, Griffith’s tie-breaking vote in the Alabama Senate that empowered the socialist wing of the Alabama Democrat Party to control the Alabama Senate (as opposed to siding with the conservative, bi-partisan coalition that needed Griffith’s vote to govern) is a good example of what America can expect should Griffith become entrenched in Congress.
If any event, the vote to empower House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Charles Rangel, etc., rendered all other votes insignificant because, to date, that one vote has determined the outcome of all subsequent votes.
If conservatives are going to stop the Socialist Democrats from undermining the foundational principles that have made America the greatest nation in history, we have to do it in the U.S. House of Representitives. Conservatives must unseat enough Democrats to recapture the House so that a bulwark can be erected in the House to protect our liberties and the free enterprise system.
If we fail, America fails, because what the socialist Democrats are doing just does not work. It never has and it never will.
Mo Brooks
Well said. Few of us reading Flashpoint need to be told that Griffith was permitted by Princess Pelosi to vote against Cap & Tax. He was permitted because he is representing a conservative district that has already fallen under Obama’s budget knife. Interesting months ahead for Doc Griffith . . .
“Socialist Democrats”? Really. Why not just say “English pig-dogs” and get it over with. I know you are running for the House and everything, but I would think that should predicate a serious use and discussion about the policies that are being enacted. What specific socialist programs are Pelosi and that all mighty “socialist wing” advocating that you oppose? Are you opposed to universal education? That would be a socialist practice. It just seems to me that you are running to the right in case of a close primary, but don’t try to pass politics off as principle.
Tal East: Challenge accepted. By way of background, one of my degrees is from Duke University where I graduated with highest honors in economics.
There are those in America with blinders on or who lack the wisdom or foresight to see Socialism for what it is. Let’s see if we can help them out a little bit.
As an overview comment, the Democrat Party is not the only party with a socialist wing. George Bush did a lot to continue the trends that got us into this economic mess. But, in fairness to George Bush, Obama & Co. have taken the worst of George Bush and expanded on it. The difference between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party is that socialists in the Republican Party are rare, in the Democrat Party they are becoming the norm.
As a second overview comment, I should emphasize that there is a distinction between government models (Communism, Fascism, Republics, Parliaments, etc.) and economic models (100% free enterprise on one extreme, 100% socialism on the other). Please don’t confuse socialism’s economic model with its close relatives (fascism and communism, both of which tend to be heavily socialist).
Socialism is bailing out (or taking over) banks, insurance companies, and other politically powerful industries with taxpayer money.
…. Thereby rewarding, and promoting, failure, rather than success
. . . while never correcting the cause of the problems.
Socialism is taking over general motors, firing the general motors president, telling general motors what cars they will build, and guaranteeing automobile warranties (thereby creating a breeding ground for fraud and corruption akin to AIG Executives paying Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and President Barack Obama $100,000s in campaign contributions in return for millions in bonuses that the free enterprise system never would have let these executives have because AIG would have been in bankruptcy . . .).
Socialism is what is about to be done to the health care industry.
Socialism is what many DEMOCRATS openly profess to believe in!!! Witness a Rasmussen Poll released April 9, 2009 wherein self-professed democrats stated that 30% prefer Socialism over free enterprise and another 31% have no preference (i.e. – they don’t know enough to tell the difference).
Stated differently, 61% of self-professed Democrats either prefer Socialism or don’t understand the difference between Socialism and our Free Enterprise System . . . now, that’s scary.
On the flip side of the coin, can you name a single thing this Democrat Congress has done over the last 2 1/2 years to promote free enterprise?
Sincerely,
Mo Brooks
I’m more interested in who belongs to the “socialist wing of the Alabama Democrat (sic) Party.” Would they fit in an average sized clothes closet?
Countrycat:
Please see my comments to Tal East, above.
Mo
I know, that lone Alabama socialist voice in the wilderness can’t be heard by me.
Wow! One post by a true conservative candidate and the “Progressives” are squealing like stuck pigs. This is gonna be a great run!
Mo: So would it be fair to call Griffith a “Nancy-boy”? Maybe you could use that in your ads.
I’ll add one more example of socialism to your list: Providing luxury apartments with swimming pool, internet, and cable television to people who either cannot or will not support themselves, thereby undermining the property values, neighborhood safety, and school quality for those who done the hard work necessary to earn these things.
To date, the largest social welfare program (the Medicare prescription drug benefit) since the “Great Society” was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President. I know what socialism is, and I don’t deny there are certain policies advocated by both parties that are “socialist” in origin, but to blanket one party as really anymore socialist than the other is a matter of minor degrees. If you want to be a teetotaler than I am sure the Libertarian Party is accepting nominations for Congress.
One main problem I have with President Obama is his unwillingness to draw back from the multi-party mess that has been created by our religious devotion to international “free trade.” Even in the climate change bill just passed by the House, President Obama insisted that a provision be taken out that allowed for tariffs on imports by countries that don’t have carbon restrictions. Surely, this can be taken too far, and I don’t advocate isolationism, but to some degree we need to make sure that our workers have a fair shot a competing with other countries.
As far as the poll goes, I would very much like a link so that I could look at the results. If it is the poll whose results were released in April, then it is very suspect. People have different ideas about what socialism is. Is it the Soviet model or some other? The poll was just a blanket question without any reference as to what Rasmussen meant by socialism or capitalism. Right or wrong, some people simply identify socialized medicine as pure socialism, which it most assuredly is not. At least some qualifier is needed when taking such a poll and none was given.
Tal East:
Thank you for the well-thought and reasoned reply. My source for 61% of self-described Democrats saying they prefer socialism over free enterprise a/k/a capitalism (or don’t know enough to have a preference) is the source you cite.
While there are varying degrees of socialism, one thing is certain with all of them. The more socialist you are, the less vibrant your economy. The more socialist America becomes, the less capable our economy becomes of providing us with the good standards of living we enjoy, with adequate domestic spending for our less fortunate, and the national defense that is needed to protect America and promote peace in the world.
No socialist economy in the history of the world has ever generated enough wealth for the central government to both provide for adequate domestic needs and strong national defense (except, of course, where those countries rely on someone else’s defense capabilities).
Mo
I don’t advocate for a purely socialist economy or capitalist economy. Personally, I can’t even think of a country that embraces pure unbridled capitalism. Surely we must lean towards a capitalist model, but I don’t think that Parker Griffith is in anyway advocating socialism as an overall economic model, nor for that matter is Nancy Pelosi. My main gripe is that to say so without some qualifier (which personally I don’t think there is enough of a case to be made) is fine in the realm of politics, I just feel that it is disingenuous to pass it off as a legitimate concern.
Tal East,
Is Nancy Pelosi calling for full-blown socialism immediately? No. But every political inclination she has is toward more state control, higher taxes, more regulation, more government intrusion into the private sector, more government power. If her entire agenda were adopted tomorrow, you can bet she would be back with a new tier of demands by next week. Whatever her current demands, her ideology points remorselessly toward full-blown socialism. Will she admit this? Of course not — she’s not stupid. But it is instructive to note that the Dems have embraced Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders with relish, even though he is a self-avowed Socialist.
I personally feel that Mo should tone down his rhetoric a bit simply to not sound quite so strident. But from a factual standpoint, he is absolutely on the money regarding the Dems’ (and much of the GOP’s) direction.
Speaking of Bud Cramer and his legacy…
This report (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124650399438184235.html) on Congressional travel perks notes that Cramer took a two-week trip to Europe at the end of last year “to conclude some issues I was working on” even though he was leaving office only two months later. He is now a registered lobbyist. I would really like to know what was so crucial that he had to spend thousands of dollars in taxpayer money on such a trip. Any bets on how much of that time was spend sightseeing and working on his new lobbying career?
The article also mentions trips by Richard Shelby and Bob Riley, by the way (and even has a picture of them together in Paris).
Ben:
Thanks much for your insight in the various comments you have written. They inspire follow-up research and thought.
Mo
Mo,
Thanks, but as I went back to reread the “insight” I have provided here, I came up on the following sentence in my first post:
“…school quality for those who done the hard work necessary to earn these things.”
I have no idea how that slipped through my proofing filter, but there was supposed to be a “have” in between “who” and “done”. Sheesh. Obviously, I need to knock off for the day.
Mo,
Can you explain “[the] ‘Griffith voted for the Cap & Trade Energy Tax Increase, before he voted against it’ voting sequence” comment?
I know he voted against final passage but I didn’t realize he had previously voted for it.
Thanks!
Political Junkie:
In House Roll Call Vote 476, Parker Griffith had a choice. He could vote for the Cap & Trade Energy Tax Increase or he could vote for a substitute bill offered by Republican Congressman Forbes of Virginia (legislation to promote energy independence for America via more nuclear, more drilling in USA, and viable alternative energy sources – but no tax increase).
Adoption of the Forbes’ substitute would have killed the Cap & Trade Energy Tax Increase.
Parker preferred and voted for the Cap & Trade Energy Tax Increase. The Forbes’ substitute was defeated.
Immediately after Parker supported the Cap & Trade Energy Tax Increase with his vote in Vote 476, Parker voted against the Cap and Trade Energy Tax Increase on final passage in Vote 477.
Of course, Parker was quick to publicize the second vote and never mentions his first vote that helped rescue the Cap and Trade Energy Tax Increase from defeat.
These votes can be found at either the Washington Post’s political web site or at Roll Call.
The Forbes substitute is entitled H. R. 513, “To ensure the energy independence of the United States by promoting research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of technologies through a system of grants and prizes on the scale of the original Manhattan Project.”
I hope you will share this information will all of those who care about the Cap and Trade Energy Tax Increase issue.
Sincerely,
Mo Brooks