Suitably Flip

Rep. Roy Blunt Conference Call

The conference call with Rep. Roy Blunt has just finished up.

Going into this call, I thought the best argument for Blunt (despite it being his primary vulnerability) was his incumbency.  As Majority Whip and acting Majority Leader, he is a more practiced hand at implementing the legislative agenda and is presumably more focused on such things than an "outsider" running on a platform of change.  All 3 candidates seem committed to fundamental ethics reform and similar reform ideas will in time bubble forth from the GOP with any of them at the helm.  As such, I would give a lot of points for a solid plan to implement ethics reform without losing focus on critical agenda items like making the capital gains and dividend tax cuts permanent, reauthorizing the Patriot Act, offing the AMT, passing the deficit reduction bill, and others.

---

In his opening remarks, one of Congressman Blunt's primary themes was keeping our Congressional eye on the ball legislatively, even as we embark on these ethical reforms.

Good start.

Blunt also cataloged his own CV a bit, centered mainly on recent legislative track record, his confirmed conservative credentials, and his strong relationships among the members of the GOP conference.  Had only positive things to say about Shadegg and Boehner, noting that no one wants to do anything to diminish our ability to work together after the election.

Matt Margolis asked how Blunt would counter Democrats who attack Republicans over alleged corruption, despite their own extensive connections to Jack Abramoff.

Blunt agreed the Democrats do have their own ethics problems and that they've stalled Republican-led ethics reform processes in the past.  He stated he wouldn't allow them to do that, but conceded the Republicans, as the majority party, may be more hurt by this episode than Democrats.

Tim Chapman asked Blunt if he had an opinion as to why many bloggers had endorsed either Rep. Boehner or Shadegg for Majority Leader.

Blunt said he didn't have any better understanding than his/ours.  He did take the opportunity to run down his conservative credentials again, then repeated that both Shadegg and Boehner are fine candidates.

I asked the question I outlined above.  Given the immediate and critical nature of several legislative agenda items (making the capital gains and dividend tax cuts permanent, reauthorizing the Patriot Act before it expires in the first week of February, suspending the Alternative Minimum Tax, and passing the deficit reduction bill), in concert with the attention that will be paid to ethics reform, I wanted to know how Congressman Blunt intended to move the agenda forward and what his highest legislative priorities were, given the crowding effect of ethics reform.

Having heard Blunt's opening remarks, I expected him to take this ball and run with it.  And I was eager about hearing him do so.  I think Blunt's ability to move the agenda at the same time we take up sweeping ethics reform would be his key distinction, as his transition to leadership duties would be the least frictional.

Sadly, I was a little let down.  Blunt's initial reaction was to defend the legislative track record in the 109th first session.  To his credit, and as he pointed out, last year was a highly productive year, which saw critical legislation passed on lawsuit reform, tax policy, energy, and more.  And he did ultimately identify a few legislative priorities (namely deficit reduction, making the tax cuts permanent by March-ish, and border security).

I'm not saying Blunt didn't answer my question - he clearly did.  But I didn't get the impression that he recognized this possibly key benefit of his own incumbency - that he may be able to run faster than a newcomer, implementing procedural change without slowing down legislatively.

In my opinion, that 1-2 punch has to be landed convincingly between now and November if the Republican conference is to maintain its majority.

John Hawkins asked if (as John Shadegg has speculated) Blunt might use his post as Majority Whip to retaliate against Shadegg or Boehner, if either beats him in the election.  He also asked whether Blunt would relinquish his seat as Whip if, as he suggests, his ascension is more or less locked up.

Blunt disagreed with the assertion that the leadership and the conference couldn't come together and work productively, given any outcome of the election.  He didn't give any indication he was considering abdicating as Whip, but noted that the race to fill that seat has been heating up, suggesting others may think it a foregone conclusion that Blunt will be elected leader.

Ed Morrissey, on the topic of 527s, asked whether Blunt had any plans to address the underlying mischief of BCRAs.

Blunt cited his efforts to fight what he called "ill-conceived" campaign finance legislation and identified reclassifying 527s to be treated like PACs as the quickest route to substantive finance reform with real impact on the 2006 election cycle.

---

I like Congressman Blunt and I think he's been an effective member of the House leadership to date, but I didn't hear much on this call to move me out of the Shadegg column.  (That said, I didn't get to participate in the earlier conference calls with Reps. Shadegg and Boehner, so I don't have a precisely level playing field from which to judge.)

One talking point from the call that was encouraging (though difficult to distinguish as candor or lip service) in that light, whatever the outcome of the leadership election, was Blunt's intention to work to the best of his abilities to make either Shadegg or Boehner as effective and successful as possible, should he not win the post.  If I get my [somewhat conflicted] way and Shadegg is elected, hopefully Blunt will indeed be able to bring his experience to bear and help the 109th move its vital and highly time-sensitive legislative agenda forward.

Ethics reform is a crucial and timely concern, and certain to be used as a wedge issue in the midterm elections.  For many Democratic challengers, I suspect it will be their overwhelmingly central campaign issue.  But this Congress will ultimately be judged by the legacy of its policies moreso than of its rules.  To let an overly narrow focus on process thwart legislative progress (especially with so many truly critical measures in the pipeline) would be an irony outweighed by tragedy.

Others on the call:

Matt Margolis, GOP Bloggers
Tim Chapman, Townhall.com
John Hawkins, Right Wing News
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters
Ian Schwartz, The Political Teen

Elsewhere:

Radioblogger offers transcript and audio.

Previously:

Conference Call With House Majority Whip Roy Blunt
Shadegg Enters Leadership Race As Candidate For Reform and Renewal

Comments

Rep. Roy Blunt Conference Call

The conference call with Rep. Roy Blunt has just finished up.

Going into this call, I thought the best argument for Blunt (despite it being his primary vulnerability) was his incumbency.  As Majority Whip and acting Majority Leader, he is a more practiced hand at implementing the legislative agenda and is presumably more focused on such things than an "outsider" running on a platform of change.  All 3 candidates seem committed to fundamental ethics reform and similar reform ideas will in time bubble forth from the GOP with any of them at the helm.  As such, I would give a lot of points for a solid plan to implement ethics reform without losing focus on critical agenda items like making the capital gains and dividend tax cuts permanent, reauthorizing the Patriot Act, offing the AMT, passing the deficit reduction bill, and others.

---

In his opening remarks, one of Congressman Blunt's primary themes was keeping our Congressional eye on the ball legislatively, even as we embark on these ethical reforms.

Good start.