Roy Blunt Will Be As Good As You Make Him Be

On September 25, Reboot Congress wrote a post using Reagan's phrase, "Trust, but Verify" about the Tea Party Treaty.

His basic premise was that candidates would sign, and then would be held to account for their actions.  The recent furor over Roy Blunt and his stance on earmarks is one of these times, and St Louis Tea Party folks are letting him have it with both barrels - as they should.  Blunt's sentiment that he is a no vote on the earmark ban is unfortunate, but not exactly earth-shattering.  We knew what we were getting, and we knew his record and his statements. He believes that earmarks are a Congressional right, and plans to continue them. 

I think he's wrong, and I don't mind saying so, but I still see him as an upgrade over Kit Bond and a huge difference in voting in comparison to Robin Carnahn.  He will be more conservative than our other option and the last senator.  That is not a defense of his actions, but a defense of the man. 

And yet, Blunt needs to know there is a price to pay for his decision on earmarks.  No matter what his reasoning on the specific issue, we have a right to know if he thinks that Washington is fine just the way it is, and no changes need to be made.  If you're going to stand up for the right of Congress to utilize earmarks, then what are you going to do to fix the financial situation we find ourselves hurtling towards?  See, it's not enough to defend earmarks if you aren't willing to stand up and explain what does need to be done to correct Washington.  Defend your earmarks, but tell us what you are going to do different.

More disturbing is the failure to return calls or comment to the Tea Party.  It's one thing to differ and offer a spirited defense.  It's quite another to ignore us.  That's a game that ends badly.  There are plenty of people in the Tea Party movement who aren't afraid of making enemies because they don't plan to have political careers.  Ignoring polite questions is a political sympton we can't stand. It's the type of thing that leads us to pick up our video cameras and start asking pointed questions. 

Of course, some people will say there's nothing you can do.  Once you elect a Senator, he has six years to go before re-election.  You're stuck with them.  That's true, but there are new rules to live by.  A treaty has obligations on both sides.  Should one party fail to honor their obligations, the other party is free to drop theirs as well.  Our agreement is that we would stand up for politicians and support them when they were taking heat.  That applies not just to the individual, but to the causes and people he supports.  Blunt isn't running in 2012, but there are people he supports who will be running, including a likely presidential nominee looking to win Missouri. If Blunt ignores the Tea Party now, you can bet that we will be working against him in 2012.  There are various state-wide and national races that will be important, and a coalition builder like Blunt needs positive press and support to help push them.  

When the rubber hits the road, will we be there to support him?  Will he be Marco Rubio, or Lisa Murkowski?  I know which Senator's opinion I would trust right now.

And so with Blunt, we recognize that we take what we can get.  It's doubtful Chuck Purgason would have run a primary even with our support, and even more doubtful he could have competed statewide.  Blunt's 14 point win also helped raise the tide in the Missouri House and the State Auditor race, so yes, I'm still glad I supported him. But that was November 2.  Today, he is only another politician who must be watched, questioned, and trusted to do only what we put pressure on him to do.  The earmark issue is not a make or break issue for me on its own.  I don't like it, but I want to see more and hear more.  I'm not surprised, but neither am I enthused.  Earmarks don't get my blood boiling until I see them, but ducking and hiding from your constituents?  Yeah.  That's a problem.  Cowardice and arrogance look about the same on politicians.  I don't like either of them.

We're watching you Senator-elect Blunt.  So far, the impression we're getting is just another politician who smiles when he meets you but who lacks courage and vision when it matters.  Prove us wrong.

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Dolt]

He won't prove you wrong. What you need to do is start working on the new primary opponent now. try someone who's name isn't Blunt, Carnahan, Bond or the like. I know it's been over 15 years since we've tried that... and Missourians really hate to try new things... but for god sake, people. You get what you deserve. truly.

[CultureVigilante]

I agree that it is time to tee up the new player for 2012, but I also fear Blunt will initiate the demise of the Republican party with his arrogant attitude toward those that put him in office. Folks are gonna be afraid to follow anyone Republicans put up in 2012 for fear of more of the same old-same old.

http://culturevigilante.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/will-roy-blunt-be-the-cause-of-the-end-of-missouris-republican-party/

We need alternatives to the Old Guard Republican answers to candidates. If Republicans won't let go of the idea that they want control instead of being willing to just serve the folks, then they have learned nothing at all about the TeaParty/Patriot uprising and just what we will tolerate from elected officials.

[man bites back]

Blunt is a political predator. His votes do not represent the interests of the people, they represent the interests of big-money benefactors. This political practice has been accumulating for nearly a century in this country and has led to centralized power and control by Washington insiders, of which Blunt is a distinguished member. Centralization is in conflict with conservative tenets. The Tea Party challenge is as much top-down as it is left-right.

[lvanderiet]

I did not vote for Senator Blunt, I voted for Perguson so I have no loyalty to this man and if anyone follows a person because of their party, they're foolish. I would hope everyone has learned that when you follow a party, you are not living by your convictions. We all knew through the whole race that Senator Blunt was a typical Washington politician and is very close to being as corrupt as all the Dems. I hope the St. Louis Tea Party has learned their lesson and for the future, will not put their support behind such candidates, whether they be Republicans or Dems. This is why these politicians think we Tea Partiers are not too bright, we fall for their golden tongues and empty promises.

[Andrea B]

I know that Roy Blunts minions were at several of the Tea Parties I attended, but I never saw him at one.

I wasn't aware that the St Louis Tea Party endorsed Roy Blunt. I believe they were endorsing Chuck Perguson, and Michelle Bachmann was the one that came to Missouri to endorse Roy Blunt on behalf of the Tea Party CAUCUS, which she founded.

If she had bothered to contact the St Louis Tea Party headquarters, she would've known that we didn't support Blunt, because of earmarks, the bailouts, cash for clunkers, etc., but she didn't bother.

I, and many others from the Tea Party, called her offices and spoke with her staff about it, but we were, as usual, ignored.

Now we've got Roy Blunt SAYING one thing, and DOING another, even though he signed the Tea Party 'treaty,' and Tea Partiers are being smeared for having endorsed him.

I voted for Perguson in the Primary, and for Blunt in the election; not because I support him, but because I can't tolerate another Carnahan in office.

Trust me on this, ol' Roy will be hearing from me quite frequently over the next six years...

[Bev4FairTax]

Purgason could have beaten Blunt if more Missourians had known who and what he is and stands for. Blunt will never live up to that signature. He believes in earmarks and his family benefits from lobbyist activity. I hated voting for him but two McCaskills is two too many.

[Joe White]

Unfortunately conservatives and Republicans are pretty well known for letting their demands for perfection allow an election to be won by a liberal instead.

Just look at KS3. Dennis Moore would've been re-elected if he had run. The ONLY reason that seat went to a Republican is because Dennis retired, leaving no credible choice in his wake. But Democrats wont make that mistake again in 2012 and KS3 will swing back to the Dems.

Why don't conservative neighbors in Missouri learn a thing or two from this? Not sure why, but it's likely they won't.

btw how soon before we start hearing the name Bond mentioned among Presidential possibilities in 2012? Isnt that why he retired?