Redstate

I don't think Blunt has the votes to pull it off.

What do people think are the chances of throwing out this entire leadership team and starting over?

If Roy blunt wins, it will have to be on the first ballot. Experts agree that he appears to have the votes.

We can only hope that it goes to a second vote, then our man here at Redstate, John Shadegg has a chance.

There is a palor of doubt stretching across the House floor enthused by assocation and mistrust. Blunt's leadership is in question, and those shrouds of darkness also cover his pick for a replacement, Eric Cantor (R-VA). The next Majority Whip - an election still likely - must have the experience and consensus of solid leadership, while maintaining a cautious distance from clouds covering DeLay and Blunt.

In vision, experience, and integrity, such a man is Todd Tiahrt (R-KS). Congressman Tiahrt's balanced approach and teaming attitude are simply a part of his everyday character. And unlike others, he does not shy away from the tough issues. Instead, Todd has risen to respect among his colleagues for tackling economic competitiveness, jobs growth, and heartland values. A conservative voice of reason on the powerful Appropriations Committee, Tiahrt now uses the Leadership Liaison position as an effective platform to listen. He is loyal to his Party, loves his family, and is a tenacious consensus builder.

Todd Tiahrt is not the Blunt insider that Cantor is, and presents a clear option of much-needed reform.

He has the votes to become majority leader like Kerry had the votes to become President and Kennedy had the votes to filibuster.

...any specific proposal in this .pdf is more than cosmetic???

But if it goes to a second ballot, the bottom vote getter is dropped.  Right now I don't see how that isn't Shadegg.  Thus, the second vote would be between Blunt and Boehner.  I think Boehner would be a good Majority Leader so I'm not that bothered at the prospect, but I don't see any way Shadegg wins on the second ballot.

Republicans should realize that Blunt may not be majority leader for long.

This stink will hurt the Republicans at the ballot box, and their majority isn't THAT large in the House.

Going with the status quo and keeping the attitude of "to hell with the people" is what got Tom Foley and the Democrats thrown out back in 1994. The Republicans would be wise to learn from this lesson.

Given that it's a secret ballot, I'm wondering if Shadegg doesn't win outright, or land in 2d. That's why I think the "deal" Shadegg and Boehner arrange has many caveats, covering who finishes where and by what vote. In essence, I suspect they figure if the not Blunt vote is big enough, they move to make the second ballot a real free for all and open up all the leadership positions, with the rationale of letting the "new" leader start off with a whole new team.

I think Blunt's only hope is to win outright (duh!) or come so close that some serious boodle and lagniappe can get him the last few votes. If he falls more than 10 votes short I don't see how he'll make it up on ballot #2 - what is his follow up plan for getting Shadegg or Boehner votes given that he's publicly remained aloof to them?

Okay, I have to point this out.  Roy Blunt talks about being the candidate of continuity and leadership, but I have to ask, the continuity of what?  

The continuity of the largest infiltration of corruption into Congress in modern times?  

The continuity of the interests of big business and special interests over taxpayers?  

I mean, come on.  

How can we let these people forget what Bob Walker, Newt Gingrich and others faught so hard for?  

Remember the efforts of reform, term limits, balanced budget amendments, etc???  Where is that mantra?  

Instead, we get the "candidate of continuity"?  Is that the best we can do?  

Mark these words, in the general media's eyes, Roy Blunt as Majority Leader sends a message that House Republicans don't get "it" and that they aren't serious about why they are in Washington.  It will depress the base and result in us losing the majority in November.  

didnt win on the 1st ballot in 98 he'd lose too.  I believe it took him at least 3, if not 4 ballots (and he was the incumbent) and he won by one vote.  24 hrs later, the media predicted the same old, same old from the GOP Majority.  48 hrs later everyone forgot there was a race.

I'm not so sure that "the base" gets revved up or depressed due to an interal leadership election in one of the chambers of congress...

sounds a little inside the beltway to me.

Assuming this is a hard and fast rule, wouldn't it be smart for both Shadegg and Boehner to recruit one person to vote for a dark horse candidate, so that they both stay in the race for the second (and third?) round?  That way, members who promised to vote for Blunt in the first round could fulfil their promise, but then switch to one of the others if Blunt doesn't win in the first round.  Under these circumstances, it really could be a two-way race between Boehner and Shadegg.

Well over 90 members have said publicly they will support Rep. Blunt, dwarfing the  numbers for Reps. Boehner and Shadegg.  

For House leadership races which are notoriously secret, that's a mighty impressive figure.  

The real vote-counting test is up to Rep. Boehner and Shadegg, to see if, behind closed doors, they can prevent the few remaining members from going to Rep. Blunt.  I see no evidence of their vote counting ability.

Blunt has over 90 "commitments". That is impressive unless you consider that the "secrecy" you call notorious doesn't come into play until it counts, at the time of the actual ballot.

None of Blunt's whip tools (promises and threats) are of any value if he doesn't know who votes for him or against him. They'll vote their minds with no one watching, and Blunt's promised votes might dry up and blow away, at least after the first ballot.

I think it's completely possible that if Blunt doesn't capture it on the first ballot (and his committed voters don't stay committed), he's done.

Who do you work for? Delay or Blunt?

Okay, read this on The Hill.  If this is true, how in the world can CONSERVATIVE Republican House Members support this man for a leadership position?  

Blunt has reason to be careful about interactions between his office and his family. According to The Washington Post, Blunt tried to slip a provision on Internet tobacco sales that would have benefited Phillip Morris into the conference report of 2003's appropriations bill for homeland security. At the time, Blunt and his future wife were dating. When Scott Palmer, Hastert's chief of staff, found out, he yanked the provision out of the bill.