Howie Responds to Parker Griffith's Republican Address
March 8th, 2010The Democrat who could be U.S. Rep. Parker Griffith’s opponent in the general election for North Alabama’s Fifth Congressional District responded to Griffith’s video comments today on health care.
Mitchell J. Howie said he was disappointed but not surprised to see Griffith use an opportunity provided by the GOP weekly video address “to roll out five minutes of Washington style talking points, to attempt to score political points based on partisan bickering and his newfound loyalty to his newfound political party.”
“Since Griffith chose not to speak for the people of North Alabama, he might not appreciate that our friends and neighbors are tired of these Washington political games,” Howie said in a statement. “The representatives in congress need to be focused on service to their constituents and service to this country more so than their next election.”
When people start sending to Congress folks who are dedicated to service, he said, “then the government will be able to assist in resolving the big issues of the day like health care and helping North Alabama’s small businesses to create jobs. Until then we will get more of the same from the likes of Parker Griffith and other professional politicians — all talk and no results.”
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Tags: Mitchell Howie Responds to Parker Griffith's GOP Address
March 8th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Howie makes an excellent point about sending representatives to Congress who will actually serve their constituents’ interests.
But, this problem is in no way unique to Parker Griffith, it pevades the entire membership of Congress, to the extent that a congress member who puts constituents first is a rarity.
How did this happen? There are several igredients in the toxic brew including lack of congressional term limits, little if any competition outside the two monopoly political parties, and lack of attention on the part of a significant part of the electorate.
Two of those things could be fixed relatively quickly.
Term limits could be imposed — it would take a federal constitutional amendment to do that — and state laws that effectively limit ballot access to Democrats and Republicans only could be changed. The latter would take a state-by-state effort, which in fact is already underway in the form of a political action group formed by libertarians, greens, and some other disgruntled third party types.
Term limits, although it would be a major struggle to get them enacted, would be the most effective part of the remedy. Many senators and congress members have been on Capitol Hill for decades. They are in no sense the “citizen legislators” envisioned by Madison and others — individuals who would serve a couple or three terms, at most, and then go back to being farmers, merchants, etc.
Instead, being in Congress has become a lifelong profession; members of Congress are much cozier with lobbyists and bureaucrats than their own constitutents. After all, many if not most have spent most of their adult lives in the Washington area. Effectively, they represent the Alice in Wonderland assembly of lobbyists, rent-seekers, special interests and the like who inhabit greater DC.
Again, Howie’s sentiments are correct, but simply “calling on the voters” of Parker Griffith’s district to do the right thing is not going to fundamentally change the nature of Congress, even if they boot Griffith out in favor of someone else. After all, there are 434 other members of the House, as well as 100 senators.
Without term limits, there will almost always be 90 percent or better incumbents getting re-elected, there will always be a coterie of decades-long members neck deep in the special interest corruption festival, and there will hardly ever be any “Mister Smiths going to Washington.”
March 9th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Not sure about term limits, although that would get rid of Sessions and Shelby real quick, unless they grandfather them in.
A better answer is a smarter, watchdog press that actually educates the public to make responsible voting decisions in their own self-interest. That would be in sharp contrast to the pandering corporate press interested only in making a 20 percent return on investment by keeping people ignorant.