RedState bumped from questioning Blunt
By krempasky Posted in Republicans — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Despite being promised the fifth question - no love for RedState on the call. Stand by for our report. In the meantime, thanks to RadioBlogger for posting the audio of the Blunt call. Listen for yourself.
Update [2006-1-19 15:33:7 by Augustine]: It's probably a good thing they didn't let me ask a question, because this is what I would've asked.
Congressman, in 2003 you turned your Congressional office into a "war room" for lobbyists from Pharma and other companies to lobby for passage of the Medicare bill - legislation that included a prescription drug package which resulted in huge windfalls for these companies, increased the size of government and will cost the taxpayers trillions. You did this in the wake of receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from Pharma and other companies to you and your PAC.
As Majority Leader, do you plan on continuing the practice of allowing paid lobbyists to use your offices as their own on critical votes? If not, why not?
Update [2006-1-19 16:36:9 by krempasky]: In response to the question posted above, Blunt's Communications Director emails,
"We always welcome help from those who agree with a position that we have already staked out.Mike, this is not what you're making it out to be -- the representatives of labor unions, corporations, or the farm bureau aren't writing legislation. They're signing up to help get the word out after a bill has been written, vetted in committee, and is slated for floor consideration.
It's important for legislators in a representative democracy to hear from companies or schools or firefighters in their districts when deciding which way to vote.
Lobbyists like Jack Abramoff are bad news. But not all lobbyists who represent the interests of legitimate businesses, medical professionals, you name it, are bad. Sometimes they're making sure
the "right to petition the government" is upheld for all."--Burson Taylor, Office of the Majority Whip
I'll leave it to the reader to check out the article above, but I wanted to make sure that Burson's response got posted as soon as possible.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | Blunt Conference Call Transcript — Comments (25) »
RedState bumped from questioning Blunt 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
This is entire week has been the best announcement of political weakness from someone not named Gore or Kerry in ten years.
Did he run a war room for lobbyists out of his office or didn't he? And will he do it again as Majority Leader? Nobody wants to answer this question.
Keep in mind, according to the Hill story, this was in the Capitol Building itself.
regarding lobbyists. I can't comment certainly on the specific 2003 incident to which Augustine refers in his question, but on the face of it, it carries at least the appearance of impropriety -- in that it's not clear-cut squeaky clean -- which is not a good thing for a leader.
Godspeed, Congressman Blunt. I support Shaddeg for Majority Leader, for what that's worth, and I'm not clear on the whip's race. Maybe Blunt could take over the Conference, as Pryce doesn't seem to be working out. But Boehner might want that one, as well.
"important that I don't - and you don't do anything that gets in the way of us working together"
I am waiting for the full transcript to see this context, but I cannot help but wonder if this thread would be considered by Rep. Blunt as something that gets in the way of us working together.
I also cannot help but wonder if me posting this comment would be considered by Rep. Blunt as something that gets in the way of us working together.
What I do know is that it (being Rep. Blunt's quotation above) sort of sounds like the kind of comment that gets in the way of us working together.
It's not just that lobbyists helped pass the prescription drug bill... It's a combination of that and most importantly, the fact that the prescription drug bill was the worst piece of governance this decade...
It's already almost twice as expensive as it was supposed to be and who knows how high it'll go...
I'll have a post up in a bit about some conversations I had today. The growing consensus seems to be that if Blunt runs this race as well as he's run the Whip's office, Boehner or Shadegg will be the next Majority Leader.
The call was very controlled and limited. Perhaps it had a lot to do with Blunt's busy schedule.
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/01/19/shadegg-conference-call/
Why you were bumped is another issue, though.
Just as an aside - they're out of session, so the the scheduling bit doesn't get us too far.
the subject of conference calls, "schedule" issues are ALWAYS bs. This guy's not even creative.
Well, it appears someone is trying to make it out to be 'nothing' but a bit of 'community service' on the part of the fair congressman. However, I sense that in your well crafted question, you imply that Blunt may not be in favor of reducing entitlement spending (sarc. understatement). What other things can we make it out to be, one wonders...
It seems that the way the Blunt call was orchestrated was designed to avoid him having to answer tough questions in the same way he has avoided appearing with his rivals.
Presubmitting questions and being assigned an order -- and then being booted -- raises more questions about Blunt's style and management.