Parker Griffith Continues His "Democratic Suck Up" Campaign With Involvement In Siegelman Case

I am glad (4.00 / 2)

CATS have good memories - especially for who screwed them over, took their money, and ran away laughing. Parker Griffith needs to stay in permanent retirement.

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. -Churchill

---

by: julie @ Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 15:00:01 PM UTC

Also sponsored some kind of art or cultural event... (4.00 / 2)

I heard the blurb on WLRH giving him credit....

---

by: Gayla @ Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 15:08:40 PM UTC

Seriously? (4.00 / 3)

SERIOUSLY?  This is beyond my comprehension. It shows a huge DISRESPECT for voters, and Democrats specifically.

---

by: melmel @ Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 15:33:11 PM UTC

Disrespect is all that Griffith (4.00 / 1)

has ever shown anyone.  He's a party of one, for sure.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."  - John Kenneth Galbraith

---

by: countrycat @ Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 16:03:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Griffith is a pure opportunist (4.00 / 1)

This is a prime example.  Parker Griffith suddenly taking up Don Seigelman's case does absolutely nothing to help Siegleman.  He's exhausted all his appeals and his only hope now is a presidential pardon, so other than signing a petition, the only way to help him at this point is to have some influence with the President.  Parker Griffith has no cred with Pres. Obama and he won't have any cred with the next president, either, because he's been on all sides of too many issues and made himself a political pariah. 

This is all about glomming onto a popular cause and sucking up to the people who have supported Don since day 1.  Surely most of them are smart enough to realize it.

Giving interviews is not going to get Siegelman out of prison, even if Griffith might sincerely wish for it.  Parker Griffith did claim to be a friend of Don Siegelman back in the day.  I remember sitting around a table with a bunch of Democrats in 2005 and being amazed to hear Parker Griffith say something along the lines of, "Don Siegelman may be a crook, but he's a friend of mine.  Heck, some of my best friends are crooks."  He may have meant it kindly, but it generated a very awkward moment.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 19:23:08 PM UTC

parker (4.00 / 1)

i guess the evisceration (sp?) of griffith was earned and to be expected and i probably convinced nobody to think pragmatically and cooly about how we just might beat mo brooks.  maybe there's a little serendipity in this -- a rehabbed griffith running Democrat against brooks could still be expected to have a rough time trying to win and we'd be busting our tails in another lost cause. So let's have make-believe we've got-a-candidate campaigns we won't have to spend time and agonize over because it will be over when filing deadline passes. 

---

by: ivan @ Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:34:45 PM UTC

Griffith could have held that seat as a Democrat (4.00 / 1)

He would have been a crappy Democrat, but somewhat better than Mo Brooks.  However, once he lost his head and turned coat to Republican, then got beat in a primary, his political goose was cooked.  Maybe he could have started over in the GOP, but they aren't interested in anyone more moderate than Joe McCarthy these days. 

There's no way in hell a politician can get elected as a Dem, switch to Republican a year later, lose his primary and then come back 3 years later and win as a Democrat.  Has anyone ever done that kind of gymnastics successfully?  I'd really like to know.  The only narrative that would paper over Griffith's recent history is temporary insanity and it's hard to get elected by claiming "I went crazy for a while but I'm better now."

I agree that Democrats need to field a candidate with better prospects in AL-05, but Parker Griffith is not that candidate.  Given the redistricting and the much more GOP lean of the district now, it's an uphill climb for any Democrat.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 17:14:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You forget . . . (4.00 / 1)

Our beloved Guv who, after all holds a medical degree and thus is qualified in all things medical, has closed most of the psychiatric hospitals in the state. 

---

by: Doggone @ Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 18:02:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thinking time, folks (4.00 / 1)

mooncat is thinking pragmatically, as we depend on her to do. she asks if anyone can think of anybody who pulled a political trick like getting elected after doing what griffith did. not that i can think of. but (forget griffith for a minute)  we need to quit using old elections as a predictor of new outcomes. actually, i don't think griffith could or would put himself through the abject agony of full confessional, telling it all from the first lousy vote (lilly ledbetter) through to the party switch and reelection campaigns. chapter and verse on every mis step. of course, that might not get him a hill of political beans in an effort to reconstitute himself as a moderate/slightly conservative democrat who wants the nomination against brooks, and will pay a lot of his pwn way. meanwhile, who is is around that can raise or has a million bucks or so and wants to run?

---

by: ivan @ Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:19:51 PM UTC

What you need to win: (0.00 / 0)

A) Someone who wants to run, who ...

B) is clever enough to look at the AL-05 electorate and map a plan to win with the interests that exist in the newly drawn district so that he or she can ...

C) raise the money to run an aggressive campaign tying Mo Brooks to every stupid thing he's said and every vote he's taken against the interests of his district.

I don't think that's impossible, but step B is critical and I think too many candidates skip that one.  They go direct from "I want to run" to "Give me money" without the "Plan to win."  And then fail.

Plan, people, plan.  Figure out a path to victory.  Who are your voters?  What are their issues?  Where is Brooks weak.  That takes some time and it takes a little bit of money.  I realize someone like PG who has the money and also has the benefit of some (obviously imperfect) knowledge of what motivates voters in North Alabama has an advantage in this area, but I just think he's damaged himself too much to ever be viable again.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 13:33:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]