What's wrong with Bud Cramer?

Brian over at Flash Point has challenged Republicans to justify their opposition to Rep. Bud Cramer, the Democratic Congressman from Alabama's Fifth District:

A couple of days ago WVNN morning show host Dale Jackson hit on a key question about Bud Cramer (D), north Alabama’s U.S. congressman. He pointed out that he frequently hears anti-Cramer comments from his presumably majority Republican audience, but he wanted callers to justify their opposition to Cramer. I thought it was a very appropriate solicitation because from my perspective there just aren’t that many reasons for voters to oppose him other than the fact that he is a Democrat. ...

So, why oppose Cramer? Give it your best shot.

OK...here's my best shot. Where do I start?

1. Cramer voted against funding for the "surge" of troops into Iraq, which has been an integral part of Gen. Petraus's revamped counterinsurgency strategy, a strategy that has succeeded beyond almost anyone's expectations.

2. Cramer has also consistently voted in favor of forcing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in accordance with artificial timelines drawn up by Congressional Democrats. Most recently, on November 14 (just two weeks ago) Cramer voted in favor of a DOD supplemental appropriations bill that would force the President to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 30 days of the bill's enactment. That bill has since been vetoed by the President, and funding for the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan remains unresolved.

3. Last April, Cramer voted for the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, which would grant the District of Columbia a vote in the the House of Representatives and a vote in the Electoral College. It also would be a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, which says in Article 1 Section 2 that House members are to be "chosen every second year by the people of the several states." Last I heard, D.C. is not a state. (See this NRO editorial and this article by NRO's Matthew Franck for more details.)

4. Last month, Cramer voted for the Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act of 2007. Anyone who finds the idea of race-based preferences distasteful will find this piece of legislation outrageous. Essentially, it would authorize the creation of a sovereign, race-based government for native Hawaiians. Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, wrote in opposition to the bill here; the Heritage Foundation has lots more information here.

5. Last February, Cramer voted for the Union Organization Bill, which among other things, eliminates workers' rights to a secret-ballot election when voting on whether to form a union. See this NRO editorial for more information.

6. Last June, Cramer voted to provide federal funding for embryo-destructive stem cell research. One would hope that after last week's announced breakthrough (which I commented on here), this will cease to be an issue in the future. Nonetheless, Cramer's support for this bill is disturbing for three reasons: 1) he gave his blessing to research that involves the destruction of human embryos, 2) he has no objection to allocating federal tax dollars to research that is ethically questionable, and 3) he has no qualms with the federal government handing out money to anyone for any purpose, as long it is politically popular; the constitutional authority granted to Congress under Article 1 apparently plays little role in his decision making.

7. Last January, Rep. Cramer voted to choose Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D.-San Francisco) as Speaker of the House. Need I say more?

That summarizes this year's objectionable votes by Congressman Cramer...at least the ones I could think of off the top of my head. But I could go on and on. In 2002, Cramer voted in favor of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, which is quite possibly the greatest affront to the First Amendment since the Sedition Act of 1798. In 2005, he opposed President Bush's plan to create voluntary private investment accounts inside the Social Security system. In 2006, he voted against requiring voters in federal elections to present a government-issues photo ID.

Et cetera...et cetera.

I've only hit the tip of the iceberg here, but I think that if a credible and adequately-financed Republican challenges Cramer next November, he will have a heck of a campaign platform.