Missouri Representative Roy Blunt

spidey74 · #1 11-20-2006, 05:08 PM

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 · #2 11-20-2006, 05:26 PM

wait...what?

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

MiltonFriedman · #3 11-20-2006, 05:36 PM

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 · #4 11-20-2006, 06:36 PM

[ 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 · #5 11-20-2006, 07:11 PM

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%

Uglyowl · #6 11-20-2006, 07:22 PM

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 · #7 11-20-2006, 07:23 PM

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 · #8 11-20-2006, 07:33 PM

[ 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 · #9 11-20-2006, 08:50 PM

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 · #10 11-21-2006, 07:37 AM

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......