TPM Reader SA chimes in …
As an Alabamian, I believe that Parker Griffith’s party-switch is a blunder. Early opinion is that he read the tea leaves, but I’m certain that he misread them.
What are the tea leaves? To be sure, all of Alabama’s congressional delegates are conservative. The least conservative of them is Artur Davis (who was Obama’s peer at HLS and campaigned for Obama). But since the campaign ended, Artur Davis has shifted dramatically to the right, speaking out against cap and trade, health care reform, and other Democratic agenda. Davis’s shift is even more dramatic, after all Davis is from a safely blue district. But Davis is running for governor of Alabama, and his re-positioning is quite understandable, though not always defensible.
This brings me back to Griffith. The tea leaves are quite clear that he cannot be reelected on anything less than a conservative record (but don’t equate this with being Republican). His voting record bears this out quite clearly, although it does not guarantee his reelection. But neither does switching parties. Reactionary pundits will be quick to argue that he has a better chance to win as a Republican, but I very much doubt it. As the TPM has already pointed out, establishment conservatives will not support a johnny-come-lately who is already vulnerable when they can elect their own to the seat. That’s what I expect them to do. Griffith’s decision is a blunder for this very reason. He just relinquished the support of the DCCC (which spent about $1.2 million on him last year) for the uncertain support of the RNCC (which, as NY-23 showed, has no sway over its electorate). In fact, the worst thing that Griffith could have done was to deflect. He just cost himself substantial support for reelection and is almost guaranteeing defeat.
As an aside, this is one of the many disadvantages of the Democrat’s big tent idea. I believe in a big tent but a more critical version that does not leave the party vulnerable to the whims of fickle members from vulnerable districts.
