24thState

Children Need Positive Reinforcement; Politicians and Government Officials, Too

Bill Hennessey has some praise for Senator Blunt and reminds everyone that we should not only call our elected officials when they're about to do something stupid, but also to call them when they're doing a good job.

Blunt on the "Defensive"

The headline and the lede in the Springfield News-Leader might be misleading: Blunt defends budget-plan vote:

Sen. Roy Blunt is on the defensive about his vote in support of House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's budget plan, which would significantly alter the Medicare program for seniors.

...

Democrats charge that the Ryan proposal would "change Medicare as we know it."

...

When asked this week about his May 25 vote to consider the Ryan plan, Blunt defended his vote but not the plan. He said he voted to consider the plan because he wanted to encourage debate on a proposal that seeks to balance the budget.

"I don't agree with everything that was in it," the Springfield Republican said.

He also voted for a budget plan backed by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., that would balance the budget in nine years by reforming the tax code to implement pro-growth policies, pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and changing Medicaid to a block grant system while leaving Medicare untouched.

"It was a vote to discuss those budgets," Blunt said. "Of the four budgets we voted on, those were the two that had the best chance to balance the budget in the next 10 years."

Asked about his vote, Blunt explained it.  This only becomes "defensive" if one inserts a Democrat allegation first, I think.

 

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.