Hennessy's View

Some St. Louis area conservatives cheered Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) elevation to the Number 5 leadership position in the Senate Republican caucus.

I didn’t. At least not politically. I like Senator Blunt personally, so I’m happy in that respect. But I’m not happy for the reasons some others are.

First, as I told Jo Mannies of the St. Louis Beacon, internal party stuff isn’t really a Tea Party matter. Leadership in the Senate’s GOP caucus is for Republican Senators to worry about.

More importantly, I’m a little disturbed about the expressed reason for the local happiness.

It seems some conservatives are eager for Senator Blunt to use his new power to channel more pork to the area. 

I don’t really understand how that’s conservative.  I thought we were trying to reduce the size and scope of government.  I thought our goal was to get Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers. 

When a Senator transfers money from one state to benefit another state, it’s socialism.

When a Senator writes regulations to help one business over another business, it’s corporatism, another word for fascism.

When a Senator bring home the bacon by borrowing from my future grandchildren, it’s generational theft.

Conservatives who protest wealth transfer though welfare payments to poor people can’t cheer wealth transfer to corporations.  Well, they can, but there’s a word for what that would make them.

The most difficult aspect of conservatism is eschewing short-term personal gain when it conflicts with the lawful role of government and good morals. On this point, I am far from perfect.  But I’m getting better at recognizing and correcting my own hypocrisy.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Roy Blunt has not given an inch in the battle over the debt ceiling. He deserves high praise for his resolve.

During the 2010 Republican primary, many on the right questioned Blunt’s fiscal conservative credentials.  As a member of the House, Blunt had helped craft some and pass unpopular spending bills, including TARP.  On the issue of debt and responsibility, though, he shows no sign of cracking.

Government debt is the defining issue of our time, perhaps of the American experiment. As Congressman Todd Akin warns, the consequences of kicking the can down the road could be as devastating as the Civil War.

I personally thank Senator Blunt and his fellow Republicans for treating this grave issue with the seriousness it deserves.  We are quick to attack when a politician disappoints, but are we willing to applaud when t hey do right?

Please drop Senator Blunt an emailthanking him for his courage and asking to remaining vigilant in this fight for our future. He’s under attack from the communists, and he deserves our support.

I just left a voice mail for Senator Blunt. Please contact him via phone, fax, or email. And leave a comment below or on Twitter when you’re done.

Washington, D.C. Office

Popularity: 2% [?]

Four men risked their political lives to help solve the problem of our lifetimes, but they forgot to massage Steve Tilley’s monstrous ego.

When John McCain (R-AZ) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) agree with Michele Bachmann and Rush Limbaugh, you can bet the issue is beyond debate.

In this case, the issue is the massive U.S. debt and what that debt is about to do to America.

McCain compared the U.S. situation to Greece and Spain, saying we should prepare for a “fiscal meltdown.”

Roy Blunt, meanwhile, said raising the debt ceiling without hard measures to cut spending would be “simply reckless.”

Has Missouri House Speaker Steve Tilley gotten the message?  Apparently not.

Tilley is threatening to knee-cap the spending deal struck by Missouri Senators Lembke, Nieves, Schaaf, and Kraus designed to wean Missouri off Washington’s teat.

According to the News-Leader.com:

And Tilley said the House won’t put too much weight on what he believes the Senate wants him to do.

“I’m not going to be held hostage by a few people,” he said.

Of course not.  Not unless the hostage takers are billionaires.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Dana Loesch invited Dick Morris onto her radio show today. Dana expected to discuss START with Mr. Morris.  But Dick has a mind of his own.

Morris decided, about a minute and a half into a five-minute segment, that he wanted to talk about the 2012 US Senate race in Missouri instead. Specifically, he wanted spend the segment campaigning for Sarah Steelman for the the Republican nomination.

Decide for yourself:  here’s the link to Dana’s show.

I honestly don’t know much about Steelman. Frankly, I’m a little burned out on electoral politics after 2010.  But I do know it’s rude to hijack a talk show to endorse a candidate in a primary two years away. 

I also know that Dick Morris has  a history of abusing his celebrity status to campaign for candidates outside of federal election laws.  On September 12, Dick violated protocols by dragging Roy Blunt onto the stage of the “Gateway to November” Tea Party in St. Louis. Seems to be a pattern of abusing gracious hosts, don’t you think? 

The question is, does Dick do it for money?

What do you think? Please leave your comments below.

Popularity: 2% [?]

When  you vote for a candidate for high office, sometimes you do so with fingers crossed. You just don’t know how they’ll handle the new responsibilities.  Will they succumb to pressure and influence?  Or will they remain true?

Luckily for us, Senator-elect Roy Blunt showed his courage in a recent Wall Street Journal article about the Tea Party and the GOP.

In a year when voters overwhelming demanded changes to business as usual in Washington, Roy Blunt showed he has the rectitude to stand strong for the tried and true practices of obfuscation, political double-speak, and deflection.

Take earmarks.  The Tea Party’s Contract From America demanded that Congress ban earmarks from deficit budgets and require full disclosure for earmarks at all other times.  Will Roy Blunt bow to the fanatical will of the people by swearing off earmarks?

Hell, no.  For that matter, to demonstrate his brave adherence to the Washington party line, Roy won’t even give a firm answer to the question.  In an era when meaning what you say and saying what you mean is treasured, Senator-elect Blunt is unafraid to dodge the earmark question by pointing out that Ron Paul requests many earmarks for his district in Texas. From WSJ:

"Rand [Paul] doesn’t agree with his dad on that. His dad is a leading advocate of earmarks on this side of the building. I’ll let the Pauls work that out and then I’ll see where they come down." We share a laugh over that.

Now that’s spine. Encourage a little domestic dispute to determine the fate of earmarks.

Any run-of-the-mill Tea Party politician might have given the simple, easy answer.  For example, “You know, I’m as guilty as anyone when it comes to requesting earmarks.  But with the trillions in debt and with the new understanding that our spending is destroying America’s future, I’m going to support the tea party’s Contract and co-sponsor legislation severely curtailing earmarks.  In fact, I think we should ban them altogether from budgets with a projected deficit.”

Yes, an answer like that is cowardly.  It panders to the sentiments of 60 percent of  the people who sent Roy to Washington.  And such a straightforward answer wimpishly admits complicity in the monstrous national debt. Who wants leaders to take responsibility for their actions?  

Congratulations to Roy Blunt for showing the testicularity to pretend the Tea Party never happened.

Popularity: 7% [?]