Brooks claimed Blunt could "loosen the baggage" on Republicans after DeLay's indictment, but new leader has also faced ethics questions
Appearing on the September 28 edition of National Public Radio's (NPR) All Things Considered, New York Times columnist David Brooks suggested that new House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-MO) could "loosen the baggage on the party" caused by outgoing leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), who has been indicted over allegations of a conspiracy to launder illegal corporate contributions into Texas House races. But, in fact, Blunt has faced significant ethics charges of his own.
Many of the ethics charges against Blunt concern his dubious efforts to use his position to benefit members of his family. For example, in 2003 Blunt sought a provision to Homeland Security legislation that would have benefited a company that had contributed approximately $150,000 to his campaign committees and that employed his son and future wife as lobbyists. As Knight Ridder reported on September 28, the provision aimed at "crack[ing] down on illegal and Internet-based cigarette sales," which was eventually removed from the bill by other House leaders, would have been a "huge boon to Altria, parent of cigarette maker Philip Morris." At the time, Blunt had a "personal relationship" with Altria lobbyist Abigail Perlman, according to a September 29 Associated Press report; Blunt and Perlman later married.
Blunt's lobbyist son, Andrew, also represents the United Parcel Service, which benefited from an amendment inserted at Roy Blunt's behest into an Iraq spending bill in 2002, according to a September 29 Associated Press report.
Other ethics charges have focused on Blunt's other son, Matt, who was elected Missouri governor in 2004. For example, the Springfield (Missouri) News-Leader reported on August 10, 2003, about a "series of transactions in which a campaign committee controlled by the congressman [Roy Blunt] had contributed $50,000 to a state 7th District Congressional Republican Committee, which then gave $40,000 to Matt Blunt's campaign eight days later." The News-Leader also documented that "[a]nother committee controlled by the congressman, called Rely On Your Beliefs, or ROY B., also gave money to the 7th District Congressional Republican committee," and was "eventually fined $3,000 for improperly giving money to state candidates in Missouri, according to a consent order between the committee's treasurer and the state Ethics Commission."
Further, The Washington Post reported on May 17 that Matt Blunt "awarded one of the few remaining patronage plums in the state" (franchises to collect fees for driver's license renewals, tax payments for new cars and processing motor vehicle titles and registrations that can provide recipients with as much as $1 million over four years) to the wife and brother-in-law of U.S. Attorney Todd P. Graves, whose office has jurisdiction over Roy Blunt's congressional district. The Post noted that, in response to Democratic complaints, the associate deputy attorney general determined that there was "no existing conflict of interest that requires further action at this time."
As with DeLay, there is evidence that Roy Blunt is connected to Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is currently the subject of a criminal investigation led by the Justice Department. As The Washington Post documented on March 13, Blunt joined DeLay and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) in signing a letter threatening to hold Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton accountable if she failed to benefit Abramoff's client, the Louisiana Coushatta tribe, by blocking a bid by another Native American tribe to develop a casino in Louisiana.
Blunt also has ties to one of the consultants currently under indictment with DeLay. The Associated Press reported on September 29 that Federal Election Commission records show that Blunt's political committee, the Rely on Your Beliefs Fund, has paid "roughly $88,000 in fees" to Jim Ellis, head of DeLay's national political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC).
Several outlets, including the Los Angeles Times and Blunt's home-state newspaper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, made no mention of Blunt's ethics questions in September 29 news reports on his ascension to majority leader.
From the September 28 broadcast of NPR's All Things Considered:
BROOKS: I think it's likely it's the end of his [DeLay's] career in the leadership. For a number of months, and maybe even a couple years, most Republicans in the House have been thinking, you know, "This guy skates close to the edge." The idea that he's the Hammer, that he's this ruthless guy, that's not true. He's a normal guy. He treats his members fairly. But they're tired of him skating close to the edge, and they have been talking for months about getting this guy, Roy Blunt, who's very popular, very well-liked, up in that job just to loosen the baggage on the party. And so I think they will be unhappy to give DeLay back his old job because, you know, he's just one bit of trouble after another.














one of the biggest lies here is that brooks denies that delay is vindictive. "he treats his members fairly". he's like all the gop leadership in threatening anyone who gets out of line. and the fact that the republicans are promoting an ethically challenged representative like blount is just proof that the republican party is no better than the mafia.
"the republican party is no better than the mafia."
_____________
Come on now. Do you honestly believe that?
yes. the republican party is no better than the mafia. they're content to rip off the government and the american people for their own ends.
"yes. the republican party is no better than the mafia. they're content to rip off the government and the american people for their own ends."
________________
I thought that half the country voted Republican in the last election. That represents a significantly large constituancy of "the american people," wouldn't you agree?
yes i would, and the fact that so many republican voters revealed themselves to be so misinformed in the last election, [you know, we found wmd, saddam was connected to 9-11] shows they are quite willing to be duped.
Yes, and history is the best teacher for how extreme things can get. Witness the German citizenry in the 30's, the southern whites in the era of lynchings. "Conservatives" are not so hard to spot. We're not even close to hitting bottom. At this point, Monica is still more offensive in their rationalization than: yellow cake phony reporter
outing Ms. Plame
Saddam & 911 lies
Saddam & Al Quaida lies
the DSM
Abu Graib
and.... (drum roll please) the combo of $Iraq, $Homeland Security, and $the deficit on behalf of the party of balanced budgets.
"... the fact that so many republican voters revealed themselves to be so misinformed in the last election, [you know, we found wmd, saddam was connected to 9-11] shows they are quite willing to be duped."
The complacent, corporate-owned media had a lot to do with that.
The GOP today is kind of like Jim Jones' cult. A few nuts at the top, lots of earnest and well-meaning people at the bottom. Some will quit when it gets weird, but everybody else ends up drinkin' the koolaide.
by Sagra - Friday September 30, 2005 09:39:36 AM EST ------------------------------
You might also mention that the DNC didn't offer much of an alternative since Kerry "would have done the same thing" Bush did. Put up an anti-war candidate if you want a real choice. Dean was right there ready to roll and the Dems cast him out.
I agree with you on the WMD thing, that's why I thought Bush would lose, but not so much on the Saddam-9/11 ties. That was never explicitly stated by the administration. I would like to see the percentages of people who actually VOTED for W because they believed that.
"I agree with you on the WMD thing, that's why I thought Bush would lose, but not so much on the Saddam-9/11 ties. That was never explicitly stated by the administration."
Well I'll start by stating the obvious. Explicit statements are surely not the only way to influence people's opinion. In fact, anything as overt as explicit is probably less effective than implicit. However, how about this from Cheney...
"If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
[link to msnbc.msn.com]
Is that explicit enough? If not, I'm sure you can take 5 minutes and find something more explicit than that.
by losingfaith - Friday September 30, 2005 10:51:15 -------------------------------
Thanks for posting the link to that interview. I didn't see it at the time. You're right, the administration had nothing to lose by letting people believe what they wanted to regarding Iraq and 9-11. The media dropped the ball on that, although personally I didn't realize that it was a point that needed clearing up since Bin Laden ADMITTED BEING BEHIND IT.
Russerts follow-up question right after your pasted excerpt was:
MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that.
So as I said earlier (and also agree with you that implying something can be more effective than explicitly stating it) they never claimed Iraq was responsible for 9-11 but it was critical to remove Saddam in the overall war on terror, in their opinion. (That's how I remember it)
DOH! Yup I should have read a little further. So much for trying to rush things. I'll just leave them for when I have more time to do them properly. Cheney's statement afterward does make it less explicit, but the intent is rather clear, even within his follow up. I think anyway. He's playing relational games and denying them under direct questions. There are quite a few other examples (I'll look for them if you're interested since I posed the position) and they may have played those word games there too, but put them all together and, I feel, it's fairly blatant what their intent was.
The media put forth a little bit of truth right before the election. The military under Bush's command was not securing high explosives that could be used to kill our troops. The media allowed the Right to spin the story as a false partisan attack against poor President Bush.
Meanwhile, Americans still die every day because BushCo didn't make those thousands of tons of explosive material a priority.
It's not even a matter of one party wanting to stay the course and another wanting to cut and run. Much of our problem in Iraq is the manner in which the war is being conducted. What would you have said if Kerry ran a "Kerry Won't F**k the PUCs" campaign?