The Initial Answers Are Up
For those that don't know what I'm talking about, this past week, NZ Bear, blogger extraordinnaire, assembled a literal "murder board" for the GOP leadership candidates. I touched on this earlier this week when I posted the questions, and an interesting exchange between Rep. Roy Blunt and Q and O--one of the symposium members.
Needless to say, it wasn't pretty; at least not Q and O's response to the exchange.
However, I had read NZ Bear's good work, thus far, in transcribing the answers to the questions. And something caught my eye today, that prompted me to do some checking.
1. Will you introduce and support a proposal to require all 'earmarks' to be identified by the name of the requesting Member of Congress?
The question comes from Mark Tapscott, and it's an excellent question. It's also one of the ones that Hugh Hewitt asked Rep. Blunt during their interview. His answer is below.
I actually proposed that more than half a year ago, and I absolutely support that...
So, in my normal, curious way, I started doing some checking. I checked quite a few congressional records, not only of floor debates, but also of bills--whether approved or voted down--and I couldn't find the bill he was referring to. So, I checked Generalissimo Duane's site, and researched the answer to the question from Hugh's interview. I was looking for specifics, and this is what I read:
I actually proposed that more than half a year ago, and I absolutely support that. The member that makes the request should identify that it's their request. They should identify who that's going...what entity gets the money, as much about that entity as we determine needs to be on the public record, and then exactly what public service, what public purpose is served by this entity having this opportunity. And it may be a great public purpose of someone that the member knows about some entity, some agency, some not for profit, that can provide what the federal government's now doing at a much more reduced and effective rate, if they're given a chance to have just a little assistance to get that program off the ground.
No specifics here, either. So, either he didn't introduce it, or he did, and there's no record I can find of it. See, I'm not to high on the guy to begin with, and after the incident recorded by Q and O, I'm even more leary of him. The election isn't until 2 Feb., and it takes 117 members to vote in favor of a candidate to award them the leadership post. I'd like to have Rep. Blunt answer a few more--more candid--questions. Especially on this question. I'd like to see a record of it, somewhere. Without the proof that he did do this, then we have to assume that he lied about it.
Further, Professor Bainbridge uncovered this about Mr. Blunt:
"He played key roles pushing the Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 ...."
"He was criticized by watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for slipping a provision into a 2002 homeland security bill that would have benefited tobacco giant Philip Morris, now known as Altria. At the time, Blunt was involved with company lobbyist Abigail Perlman, whom he married the next year after divorcing his wife of 31 years. Altria is one of Blunt's top campaign donors and his son, Andrew, represents the company as a lobbyist in Missouri."
"He was one of three House GOP leaders who signed a letter in June 2003 endorsing the position of one of [lobbyist Jack Abramoff's] tribal gambling clients, the Louisiana Coushatta."
In short, ladies and gentlemen, Rep. Blunt isn't giving answers to questions that keep popping up. And if we're to embrace his word, he has the votes. No offense, but I'm calling as many House members as I can between now and 2 Feb. to tell them I don't want Rep. Blunt to be the new majority leader. We're still pulling for Rep. Shadegg. In OUR opinion, a vote for Rep. Blunt is a vote for the same status quo demons that plague this party right now. Americ'as sick of the status quo, at least the GOP base is. We want a change, and we want one on 2 Feb. That isn't Rep. Blunt. It should be Rep. Shadegg because he does stand for the necessary changes in the House, and to the platform and vision of the future of the party.
Publius II
For those that don't know what I'm talking about, this past week, NZ Bear, blogger extraordinnaire, assembled a literal "murder board" for the GOP leadership candidates. I touched on this earlier this week when I posted the questions, and an interesting exchange between Rep. Roy Blunt and Q and O--one of the symposium members.
Needless to say, it wasn't pretty; at least not Q and O's response to the exchange.
However, I had read NZ Bear's good work, thus far, in transcribing the answers to the questions. And something caught my eye today, that prompted me to do some checking.
1. Will you introduce and support a proposal to require all 'earmarks' to be identified by the name of the requesting Member of Congress?
The question comes from Mark Tapscott, and it's an excellent question. It's also one of the ones that Hugh Hewitt asked Rep. Blunt during their interview. His answer is below.
I actually proposed that more than half a year ago, and I absolutely support that...
So, in my normal, curious way, I started doing some checking. I checked quite a few congressional records, not only of floor debates, but also of bills--whether approved or voted down--and I couldn't find the bill he was referring to. So, I checked Generalissimo Duane's site, and researched the answer to the question from Hugh's interview. I was looking for specifics, and this is what I read:
I actually proposed that more than half a year ago, and I absolutely support that. The member that makes the request should identify that it's their request. They should identify who that's going...what entity gets the money, as much about that entity as we determine needs to be on the public record, and then exactly what public service, what public purpose is served by this entity having this opportunity. And it may be a great public purpose of someone that the member knows about some entity, some agency, some not for profit, that can provide what the federal government's now doing at a much more reduced and effective rate, if they're given a chance to have just a little assistance to get that program off the ground.
No specifics here, either. So, either he didn't introduce it, or he did, and there's no record I can find of it. See, I'm not to high on the guy to begin with, and after the incident recorded by Q and O, I'm even more leary of him. The election isn't until 2 Feb., and it takes 117 members to vote in favor of a candidate to award them the leadership post. I'd like to have Rep. Blunt answer a few more--more candid--questions. Especially on this question. I'd like to see a record of it, somewhere. Without the proof that he did do this, then we have to assume that he lied about it.
Further, Professor Bainbridge uncovered this about Mr. Blunt:
"He played key roles pushing the Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 ...."
"He was criticized by watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for slipping a provision into a 2002 homeland security bill that would have benefited tobacco giant Philip Morris, now known as Altria. At the time, Blunt was involved with company lobbyist Abigail Perlman, whom he married the next year after divorcing his wife of 31 years. Altria is one of Blunt's top campaign donors and his son, Andrew, represents the company as a lobbyist in Missouri."
"He was one of three House GOP leaders who signed a letter in June 2003 endorsing the position of one of [lobbyist Jack Abramoff's] tribal gambling clients, the Louisiana Coushatta."
In short, ladies and gentlemen, Rep. Blunt isn't giving answers to questions that keep popping up. And if we're to embrace his word, he has the votes. No offense, but I'm calling as many House members as I can between now and 2 Feb. to tell them I don't want Rep. Blunt to be the new majority leader. We're still pulling for Rep. Shadegg. In OUR opinion, a vote for Rep. Blunt is a vote for the same status quo demons that plague this party right now. Americ'as sick of the status quo, at least the GOP base is. We want a change, and we want one on 2 Feb. That isn't Rep. Blunt. It should be Rep. Shadegg because he does stand for the necessary changes in the House, and to the platform and vision of the future of the party.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:21 PM
1 Comments:
It looks like Blunt is caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He's not what we need. Keep up the good work. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home