Putting it Bluntly

   After his election today as House GOP whip, did Missouri's Roy Blunt give a peek at a Republican strategy to split Democrats? And didn't he shoot down any fledgling attempts at bipartisanship?

   Referring to Hoyer vs. Murtha, he noted that "149 Dems demonstrated yesterday that they are willing to buck Nancy Pelosi. We'll work each day to give those Democrats a viable alternative to her liberal, San Francisco agenda."

Posted by Keith Chrostowski

Comments

[Huh?]

Read the quote again. Bipartisanship doesn't mean you have to agree with the leader of the other party. How in the world can you say his offer to work each day to give 149 Democrats a viable alternative is shooting down fledgling attempts at bipartisanship. Go get a dictionary.

[jenniferm]

Here's the whole quote:

“For twelve years, the Democrats have gotten away without leading, without offering an agenda, and without saying what they’re actually for. Now they will be forced to govern.

“Under this Republican leadership, the job of the Minority Whip will no longer be to go to the House floor every day and lose. Instead, each time we hold our team together and force the Democrats to vote like Democrats, we’ll be taking one more step toward recapturing our majority in 2008.

“One-hundred-forty-nine Democrats demonstrated yesterday that they are willing to buck Nancy Pelosi. We’ll work each day to give those Democrats a viable alternative to her liberal, San Francisco agenda."
*****
Granted, it's all how you interpret it, but I don't read bi-partisanship in what he said. Plus the "San Fran agenda" reference, to me, read "gay agenda".

[LarrytheScrabbleGuy]

Amazing the GOP pats itself on the back for "getting the message" from the elections and then promptly puts some of the exact same foxes right back in the hen house. Boehner, Blunt, McConnell and Lott: yeah, they just scream reform, don't they?

The American democratic process is based on debate between both sides of the issues. Nothing wrong with that.

[Engawyer]

WOW, WE WILL ALWAYS HAVE DIVICIVENESS AND HATE WITH THESE GUYS AROUND. BLUNT USES "LIBERAL" AND "SAN FRANSCISCO" AS DERAGATORY TERMS, AS DO SO MANY NAME-CALLERS ON THEIR SIDE.

YOU RARELY HEAR THE REST OF AMERICA LABELIZING AND STIGMATIZING (E.G., "CONSERVATIVE SALT-LAKE AGENDA") DURING THE NATIONAL DEBATE. ITS BEEN 16 YEARS OF IT AND THERE IS NO END IN SIGHT. WHY DO THEY SPREAD HATE IN THIS COUNTRY SO CALLOUSLY. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, JUST LISTEN TO TALK RADIO EVERYDAY.

IT SEEMS THAT THROUGHOUT ITS HISTORY ONLY A CERTAIN SECTOR OF WHITE AMERICA PERPETUATES THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR AND IS RESPONSIVE TO IT.

I'M NOT RACIST; JUST CALLING IT LIKE I SEE IT.

ENOUGH LABELIZING -ENOUGH STIGMATIZING -ENOUGH HATE. WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS AS A NATION.

HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF A BUNCH OF INFLUENTIAL AMERICANS WERE GOING AROUND OPENLY AND CONSTANTLY DESPERAGING "KANSAS CITY"???? THERE ARE GOOD AMERICANS IN SAN FRANSISCO JUST LIKE YOU AND I.

THE TOURISM BOARD OF SAN FRANSISCO SHOULD SUE ROY BLUNT IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY FOR INTERFERENCE WITH A BUSINESS EXPECTANCY.

ONE LOVE. ONE NATION (INCLUDING S.F.) NO LABELS.

[What?]

I saw Roy on National Journal on CSPAN yesterday morning. He basically said that Dems don't stand for anything & the voters did not know what they were doing on Nov. 7th.

Brilliant strategy Roy - blame the voters!!

Hehehehehhehehe!

[Jeff]

"...a viable alternative to her liberal, San Francisco agenda."

Like what? Your far-right Southwest Missouruh agenda?

[Mark]

I lean to the right in most elections, but I have to admit that our state and party would be much better without any Blunts in elected office. Based on the tone and word choice by Roy Boy it's fairly obvious that he has little interest in bipartisanship. His one and only interest is in making the Democrats look bad so that the Repub. party can regain control of Congress in 2008.

Still waiting for a politician that actually decides to put the people's interests ahead of their party's interests.

[Political Moderate]

Mark-"Still waiting for a politician that actually decides to put the people's interests ahead of their party's interests."

That would be better than the typical politician who puts PERSONAL interest ahead of the people's and the party's interest.

[Old Drum]

Political Moderate, aren't you being a little unkind to the sainted Roy Blunt from SW Missouri? I'm sure that his opposition to increased tobacco taxes is just good people's politics and has nothing to do with the fact that Mrs. Roy Blunt the Second is a flak for the tobacco lobby. Don't you agree.

[Political Moderate]

Silly of me to insinuate that Mssrs. Blunt have anything but the interest of the people at heart.

(excuse me while I go puke after typing those words)

[Political Moderate]

Hey Drum,
Excuse me for shifting topics, but I can't figure Pelosi out...
First the Murtha thing and then the support for that impeached judge/turned congresswoman.
Does Madam Speaker realize the message she is sending?

[dh]

I totally support Blunt , Pelosi showed she can't even get her man elected and her San Fran. values are not Americas!!!

[thurston]

Nice, dh.

However, Americans decided Roy Blunt wasn't for them, and choose Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats instead.

[CultureNinja]

Rotting flesh, and broken bones, a pox be upon those who voted the devilish liberals into office! Behold the chaos and vermin which run rampant now in the halls of congress... Tis but the beginning of an era of doom and destruction all in the name of moral relativism and plurality... prepare for the worst...

[dh]

sorry thurston , they did'nt like bush so they voted Democrat, 08 will show you
and as far as Pelosi, her party went against her already on Murtha .

[J-Sizzle]

Roy Blunt dosen't make any sense. John Murtha is a conservative (vetran, pro-life) Democrat! How was rebuffing her choice a rejection of the "Liberal San Fran Agenda" (whatever that means)? Hoyer, the liberal choice won the vote, does this mean that America has rejected conservatism? Hmm..

[Razbot]

Wow. It's "Leg's hammer Blunt" day. Give the guy a break. At least you know EXACTLY where he stands. Unlike the Dems, we at least admit our mistakes. How many lawsuits are in progress on the many close races including the two Senate races. If you disagree that they were close, we no longer have a basis to communicate.

At least the Republican's say "we lost, move on.". If this were Al Gore and his friends, we'd be reading that the "Conservative kool aid drinkers" fixed the vote and the lawsuits would be too many to list.

Be real. Blunt is a breath of fresh air. Even if you don't like him, at least you have no questions about where he stands on an issue.

[Razbot]

Sorry for the typo in line one. It's "Lets Hammer Blunt Day".

[Razbot]

And if it were me, I would have said basically the same thing with a few explatives thrown in. That's why I could never be in pulic office. Explatives don't go over good in the press.

[SPSLE]

Razbot, "expletives" go over fine in the press if you misspell them. However, what I take issue with is your statement that, "we [Republicans] at least admit our mistakes." Can you cite a single instance of that? Mark Foley--"I only chase young boys because I drink"; Sandra Thomas--"The missing $195,000 was the Treasurer's fault...no, wait, it was the audit team's fault...no, wait, quick, look over there"; Jim Talent--"There was a Democratic wave that swept the state" (which apparently had little effect on the Missouri House or Senate). Should I add Bush, Cheney, Lay, Lott, or a dozen others to the list. Democrats DEFINITELY do it, too, but for a party that constantly prattles about personal responsibility, the Republicans have been notorious the past few years for blaming everything and everyone whenever anything goes wrong. And my favorite excuse: "Well, look what [Clinton, Kennedy, fill-in-a-Democrat] got away with." We wouldn't accept that from an eight-year-old, but when a good conservative Republican spouts it, dozens on this blog come rushing to his defense.

Finally, DO you know EXACTLY where Blunt stands? If so, you're one of very few, because he's fooled his own colleagues a number of times (and one ex-wife).

[Razbot]

You know SPSLE, I read the first line....then it was 0q3(*I(^&*%**U&)*(Y(HOUH:>JUBIU*Y(UYIUY:LUIUH :LIUHIY*I&Y*IHOUIUYOLIG:IUGHOUYG:IUHLI:UH"OHNOUH:IHN.

You jive?

[SPSLE]

A good, Republican, response.

Blunt's ties to tobacco industry

In 2002, Blunt attempted to insert a provision in support of tobacco corporations into the legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security. According to the Washington Post, "The provision would have made it harder to sell tobacco products over the Internet and would have cracked down on the sale of contraband cigarettes, two practices that cut into Philip Morris's profits."[25] Blunt said that he pushed for the provision after speaking with John F. Scruggs, vice president of government affairs for Altria. At the time, Blunt was dating Altria (the parent group that owns Philip Morris) lobbyist Abigail Perlman, whom he later married. His son, Andrew, also works as a lobbyist for Philip Morris in Missouri.

[Proud Dem]

No strategy. No bipartisanship. No surprise.

Blunt is an embarrassment to all Missourians.