Wednesday, January 11, 2006


The former majority leader of the House says Rep. Roy Blunt may be "decent," but he's always been someone else's pawn. Yowza. National Review has the story; here are a couple grafs:
Armey says he sees a two-man race for majority leader — between Roy Blunt and John Boehner — and that either man will face a compelling need to reestablish the GOP as the party of spending restraint and fiscal responsibility. Asked whether Blunt or Boehner are too close to the previous, compromised leadership to restore the integrity of the party, Armey tells NRO, “Obviously John Boehner doesn’t have that problem. But Blunt is a decent guy, and he should get benefit the doubt. He’s never been free to be his own man in Congress, and if he’s elected then he’d be free to assert himself, and I don’t think we should reject out of hand the possibility that he could be exactly what we’re looking for. The question is does he rise to the occasion when he’s really free to do it on his own terms.”
With his choice of words, Armey clearly questions Blunt's ability to lead. Not a good sign for Roy Dean Blunt.


Anonymous said...

Your assessment is way off, Ron.

You're not reading between the lines on this one, you're WRITING between the lines.

Armey was clearly cautioning against painting Blunt with the same brush as Delay.

What part of "...he should get the benefit of the doubt" and "I don't think we should reject out of hand the possibility that he could be exactly what we're looking for" confuses you?

Armey was telling the House Republicans to give Blunt a chance. There is nothing in those statements that was questioning Blunt's ability to lead.

I read this as a very GOOD sign for Roy Dean Blunt.

Anonymous said...

Blunt is not supposed to be "his own man" in Washington, he's supposed to be "MY man", and "YOUR" man, in Washington. "HIS" man is up to his eyeballs in the stink of Delay and Abramoff.

I hope all those damn expensive steaks are giving him indigestion about now.

Ron Davis said...

Anon: So it must be good that Blunt has "never been free to be his own man in Congress"? Or that it's all right for a member of the leadership to be viewed as a cypher when discussion turns to his being able to "rise to the occasion"? Sorry, but the phrase "damning with faint praise" comes to mind.

Anonymous said...'re looking at it all sideways, RD.
While that can be a good thing in the sack, in politics it can lead to false analysis.

CLEARLY Armey was letting Blunt off the Delay hook.

My interpretation of Dick's quote, and I don't have a dog in this hunt, is this:

"Roy should not have to pay for the chum created by Tom. Despite his perceived elevated position, the whip is not as powerful as you all might think to control the behavior of other party leaders. Tom did what Tom did, and Roy had no power to prevent it."

It was not damning with false praise, it was some insight into the power structure from one who knows to those who may not.

And it was necessitated by those Exodus junkies who believe the iniquities of the father should be visited upon the son.

Should be interesting! Groundhog Day can't get here soon enough!

Ron Davis said...

Anon: It's always better sideways. Unless you're one of those Exodus junkies.