Missouri Representative Roy Blunt

[spidey74]

Was flipping through C-SPAN and heard "Internet Gambling." Not sure how important this speech relates to us, but I figured I'd transcribe it for others to judge. Here is an excerpt from Missouri Representative Roy Blunt's speech on the Future of Conservatism:

"On the values agenda that's important to all of us. That we don't allow that to be portrayed as some cynical, political agenda. The press of course, the mainstream media wants to do that. They can't imagine why we'd be for these things because they are good for the country. They think we must be for them just because they're somehow politically helpful for us. And I think too often in recent years we have allowed ourselved to be drawn into that trap. We should not do the right thing for anything other than the right reasons. In September we had a very challenging effort to eliminate Internet gambling. I bet you couldn't read a story about that that didn't suggest that this was good for the conservative base as opposed to this was good for America.

If we can take this and focus on it, this is the same type of opportunity that we had in '64, '76, '92 and it can lead us back to a stronger, better, more grounded, conservative movement, and I think conservative majority in 2008."

[addictontilt]

wait...what?

Is he for or against it? The values agenda is the christian right - that is what frist wanted...

[MiltonFriedman]

He is CLEARLY against Internet Gambling and FOR prohibiting it ..... His point is that it is RIGHT to prohibit Internet Gambling, not just a political expediency.

That he chose THAT issue as an example is not surprising, since it is the ONLY "so-called family values" agenda bill which was rammed into law.

[MagCFO]

[ QUOTE ]
Was flipping through C-SPAN and heard "Internet Gambling."

They can't imagine why we'd be for these things because they are good for the country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does he expect us to believe this bull-[censored] knowing damn well they let certain interest groups be exempt from the legislation?

I'd like to give a big F U to that guy.

[Uglyowl]

Hopefully this guy has someone better running against him in 2 years. That smile and look peg him as a religious do-gooder.>>> (doing awful things behind closed doors)

We may be coming for you next ROY!

Blunt (Incumbent) 160,911 67%
Truman 72,573 30%

http://www.blunt.house.gov/media/gallery/About_Roy.jpg

[Uglyowl]

A little more about our buddy Roy:

He has been listed in the top 20 most corrupt Congressman the last two ratings.

http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/blunt.php

He received 94% lifetime and 96% 2004 ratings from the American Conservative Union, a 14% rating from the American Civil Liberties Union , and a 92% rating from the conservative Christian Coalition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Blunt

In June 2003, Mr. Abramoff persuaded Majority Leader Tom DeLay to organize a letter, co-signed by Speaker Dennis Hastert, Whip Roy Blunt, and Deputy Whip Eric Cantor, that endorsed a view of gambling law benefitting Mr. Abramoff’s client, the Louisiana Coushatta, by blocking gambling competition by another tribe. Mr. Abramoff has donated $8,500 to Rep. Blunt’s leadership PAC, Rely on Your Beliefs. If, as it appears, Rep. Blunt was accepting campaign contributions from Mr. Abramoff in exchange for using his official position to support a view of gambling law that would benefit Mr. Abramoff’s client, he would be in violation of the law.

[flafishy]

It's also good to ram this [censored] through as riders on slam-dunk bills when they know that the only way to get the stuff passed is to bypass the democratic process.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
It's also good to ram this [censored] through as riders on slam-dunk bills when they know that the only way to get the stuff passed is to bypass the democratic process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I agree with the legislation but it followed the democratic process pretty well.

[SparkyDog]

This is a sorry attempt to turn around legitmate political analysis into a talking point. The simple fact is, supporting this legislation is morality based and appeals to the evangelical base. It's not out of line for reporters to say as much, either.

Roy Blunt's also one of the more powerful and extreme conservatives. He's also unseatable; I live in his district.

[malo]

I too live in Blunt's district, and my greatest disappointment in this year's election was the fact the Democrat's could not manage to field a viable candidate for the seat. He was actually vulnerable this year (see Uglyowl's post) and the Dems could not take advantage.

He does oppose internet gambling, and does align himself with the Christian right on most issues. And the saddest part? He didn't used to be this way.

I knew Roy back in the early 80's when he was County Clerk and I was a local radio reporter. Would describe him then as moderate Republican---fiscal conservative, very moderate on personal morality/liberty issues. Southern Baptist, but not a Bible thumper type. Helluva nice guy actually---and voted for him as he moved up the politcal ladder to higher offices.

Somewhere along the way---he changed. Since I haven't talked to him in close to 20 years (I got out of the news biz in the mid-80's) couldn't even begin to pinpoint when it happened. A living example that power corrupts? Dunno......

[Jeff Oneye]

These "family values" Christian conservatives claim to represent the values of the Bible. In reality they represent those who wish to micromanage your personal behavior with the strong arm of government.

The Biblical justification for their political activity is lacking, if not non-existant. The Bible teaches Christians to submit to authority, "pay Ceasar's what is Caesar's" and adhere to the laws (unless they force one to sin). There is much Biblical literature to suggest man is basically incapable of 'good government.' That's why Christians (at least some) long for the earth's end when Jesus will restore earth to paradise and create his own kingdom, acting as ruler.

I personally believe that the Christian faith is being undermined, not bolstered, by legislators (such as Rep. Roy Blunt-MO) attempting to advance the church through the state. Conservatives have traditionally believed in preserving time-tested morals and values through the community. Unfortunately, there is a modern tendency for many politicians to mandate one-size-fits-all solutions from Washington. In the past, private institutions, churches, and local governments assumed the role as guardian of public morality.

The status-quo is unacceptable and gives relatively few power brokers too much control over our personal lives. Rather than looking for a speck in our neighbor's eye, lets focus on our own personal morality. Government policy doesn't create moral parishioners. Thinking the government can bolster the church by acting as its advocate and enforcer of morality distorts the proper role of both.

As conservatives, we used to expect consistent support for limited government. We demand lower taxes, less regulation, and personal freedom. It seems as though these simple values have fallen by the wayside. It is embarassing to think America's premier conservative party has been responsible for unprecedented growth in freedom-stifling government. Equally disturbing, is the creation of laws, such as the recent laws banning online poker, designed to protect citizens from themselves. We conservatives are rugged individualists who are quite able to make our own decisions and choose our own hobbies and recreation. Provided we are not victimizing others, we should be free to make adult decisions without the prying eyes of big government. I used to think only liberals and leftists were advocates of massive, intrusive goverment. Now I find the Republican party appears even more exuberant by inviting government into our bedrooms, bathrooms, telephone lines, bank accounts, and hard drives.

Jeffrey

[SparkyDog]

[ QUOTE ]

I knew Roy back in the early 80's when he was County Clerk and I was a local radio reporter. Would describe him then as moderate Republican---fiscal conservative, very moderate on personal morality/liberty issues. Southern Baptist, but not a Bible thumper type. Helluva nice guy actually---and voted for him as he moved up the politcal ladder to higher offices.

Somewhere along the way---he changed. Since I haven't talked to him in close to 20 years (I got out of the news biz in the mid-80's) couldn't even begin to pinpoint when it happened. A living example that power corrupts? Dunno......

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be interested in hearing more about him if you have any interesting stories or anecdotes. PM me if you don't want to hijack this thread.

[Uglyowl]

Roy Blunt has passed very pro-tobacco legislation and his wife is (was) a Philip Morris (now Altria) lobbyist. Tobacco negatively impacts EVERYONE who uses it.

With gambling, most people use it as entertainment and it negatively impacts only a very small portion. The idea of protecting the citizens and minors is absolutely absurd when you already have this out there.


NOTE: I think tobacco products are disgusting, but if people want to smoke, it is none of my business. That is not what I am arguing.

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]
Roy Blunt has passed very pro-tobacco legislation and his wife is (was) a Philip Morris (now Altria) lobbyist. Tobacco negatively impacts EVERYONE who uses it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob Goodlatte from Virginia is Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. These guys who support big tabacco (which contributes to 600,000 deaths a year) and then come off like they are saving the American family with this legislation are the most sickening of all.

[CaptVimes]

[ QUOTE ]

The status-quo is unacceptable and gives relatively few power brokers too much control over our personal lives. Rather than looking for a speck in our neighbor's eye, lets focus on our own personal morality. Government policy doesn't create moral parishioners. Thinking the government can bolster the church by acting as its advocate and enforcer of morality distorts the proper role of both.

As conservatives, we used to expect consistent support for limited government. We demand lower taxes, less regulation, and personal freedom. It seems as though these simple values have fallen by the wayside. It is embarassing to think America's premier conservative party has been responsible for unprecedented growth in freedom-stifling government. Equally disturbing, is the creation of laws, such as the recent laws banning online poker, designed to protect citizens from themselves. We conservatives are rugged individualists who are quite able to make our own decisions and choose our own hobbies and recreation. Provided we are not victimizing others, we should be free to make adult decisions without the prying eyes of big government. I used to think only liberals and leftists were advocates of massive, intrusive goverment. Now I find the Republican party appears even more exuberant by inviting government into our bedrooms, bathrooms, telephone lines, bank accounts, and hard drives.

Jeffrey

[/ QUOTE ]

This is certainly not the republican party that I can remember. The GOP has always, until recently, been for personal freedoms and small government. Now that they have had control for 6+ years it seems they are just a bad as the Dems. except they still try to expand govt and don't raise taxes to pay for it.

Morality can't be legislated because people's morality is subjective. What is moral for one may not be for another. Obviously something like killing points to wrong on most people's moral compass, but gambling, gay marriage, stem cell research and abortion have people placed all around the dial. So what does that leave us with? Morality based on the majority? So slavery was right because most people thought it was ok?

Religion is not a macro-concept which many groups, like the Christian right, are trying to make it. Its an individual's relationship with their God. Morality is how a person reflects that relationship with the world. I can explain my morality to someone, a law cannot. A law is just black and white, right or wrong, and amoral even in strictest sense of the word.

The internet gambling ban is not even a small victory for the anti-gambling crowd. It didn't really ban gambling its just changed the form in which it is done or will be done in the future. Besides until they do away with the Powerball type games, which is basically a tax for people who can't do math, they are not doing anything for the people for whom a gambling problem can be devastating, the poor. If they are going to try and convince me that they aret acting because they have some higher purpose, then governments themselves (states mostly), are going to have to suffer along with the rest of us. Like that's ever gonna happen.

Blah, sorry about the ramble...

[Jimmy The Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I knew Roy back in the early 80's when he was County Clerk and I was a local radio reporter. Would describe him then as moderate Republican---fiscal conservative, very moderate on personal morality/liberty issues. Southern Baptist, but not a Bible thumper type. Helluva nice guy actually---and voted for him as he moved up the politcal ladder to higher offices.

Somewhere along the way---he changed. Since I haven't talked to him in close to 20 years (I got out of the news biz in the mid-80's) couldn't even begin to pinpoint when it happened. A living example that power corrupts? Dunno......

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be interested in hearing more about him if you have any interesting stories or anecdotes. PM me if you don't want to hijack this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing that Blunt's views changed around the time that the GOP changed, and the descriptor "moderate" began to take on a negative hue.

As a former resident of Blunt's district, I'd also like to hear any tales of his earlier career that might exist.

[malo]

Really don't have any interesting tales to tell. County Clerk is an adminsitrative office that runs the elections. There were no close or contested elections when he was in office, so nothing controversial. He got along fine with the Dem office holders (what few there were.)

He was always very helpful toward the media, expecially on election nights when everyone was trying to get returns aired quickly. His office would have food out (sandwich and munchie stuff) for the election workers and reporters. Just a nice guy.

He'd laugh at--and tell an occasional dirty joke, chug a few brewskis at my employer's annual St Pat's Green Beer party. Nothing prissy about him at all.

Never heard any rumours that he liked to chase women---which made his eventual divorce and remarriage to the lobbyist a bit of a surprise to me.

Sorry I don't have any entertaining scuttlebut--but there really wasn't any. If you had told me back then he would end up on a list of most corrupt congressman, I wouldn't have believed it.