I Want Dark Meat. Oh Yeah? Well, I Want White Meat!

Matt & Roy Blunt Discuss Presidential Politics Over the Holiday Weekend

Seventy-six days before Missourians have the opportunity to cast votes in a presidential preference primary, and endorsements from some of the state's Republican heavy-hitters are still coming in.

...keep reading, my naughty little gerbils...

Rudy Giuliani has been the fave thus far, with Missouri House Majority leader Steven Tilley, Representative Jo Ann Emerson and Senator Kit Bond all weighing in to endorse him. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is the man, according to former U.S. Sen. Jim Talent, state House Speaker Rod Jetton and Governor Matt Blunt.

Oddly enough, Congressman Roy Blunt has been mum as to whom he'll be endorsing thus far, though he has utilized Giuliani to help him raise funds for his re-election bid. And, we all know how money talks.

So, I begin to wonder, what kind of Thanksgiving will it be at the Blunt manor this year?

There's more: "I Want Dark Meat. Oh Yeah? Well, I Want White Meat!" >>

H CON RES 63 YEA-AND-NAY MO Delegation

Missouri's Congressional Delegation voted along party lines:


QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution

BILL TITLE: Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq

---- YEAS 246 ---

Carnahan (D-3rd)

Cleaver (D-5th)

Skelton (D-4th)

---- NAYS 182 ---

Akin (R-2nd)

Blunt (R-7th)

Emerson (R-8th)

Graves (R-6th)

Hulshof (R-9th)

Roy Blunt took to the floor to in opposition to the resolution, entering into the Congressional Record the latest wingnut talking point, courtesy of Politico:

2.16.2007

“Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to urge a no vote on this non-binding resolution. We have spent the week discussing the situation in Iraq, and trying to find out what the resolution may really mean.

“As I said at the start of this debate, it is hard to imagine a group less qualified to determine tactics on the ground in a time of war than 535 Members of Congress.

“There is disagreement on how we should fight this war on Islamic totalitarianism, but this fight is the challenge of our generation.

“Mr. Speaker, many of my friends on the other side of aisle supported this mission in the beginning, but now they’re ready to give up in the middle of this fight.

“Those who join me in opposing this non-binding resolution have been saying all week that, while this resolution will have no impact because it is non-binding, it is still the first step toward cutting funding on our troops.

“Yesterday we were told that this is the first step toward pulling the rug out from under our troops in the field.

“This week one of the veterans on our side of the aisle was accused of being ‘dishonest’ in her ‘representation’ when she said that this resolution we’ll vote on today did ‘not support those who are deploying.’

“But the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha said just yesterday during the unveiling of his strategy to pull the rug out from under our troops:

“‘They won’t be able to continue. They won’t be able to do the deployment. They won’t have the equipment. They don’t have the training, and they won’t be able to do the work.’

“Mr. Murtha also said:

“‘I think first of all we have to be careful that people don’t think this is the vote…, the real vote would come on the legislation we are putting together. This non-binding legislation, it is just an opinion.’

‘‘This resolution says just enough to not say anything at all, but we have already heard Democrats calling the debate this week the ‘bark before the bite.’

“The so-called slow bleed approach is a bite that will surely hurt those fighting under America’s flag overseas. “This non-binding resolution is the first step in an all too binding spiral toward defeat in a fight we cannot afford to lose.”

It appears that Clay (D-1st) was not present for the vote, but had this to say from the House floor two days before the vote:

February 14, 2007

“Mr. Speaker, honorable colleagues, I rise to declare my absolute and unwavering opposition to the President’s plan to escalate this tragic and unnecessary war. Four years ago, I stood on the floor of this House to oppose the original force authorization resolution.

I believed then, and I still believe today, that great nations do not start wars as a matter of policy, they exercise diplomacy and negotiation to avert threats and achieve security.

I was convinced that invading Iraq, without international support and without unequivocal evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11, would dangerously drain our military strength, distract us from fighting the very real terrorist threat and ultimately weaken our credibility around the world.

Today American troops are embroiled in a bloody quagmire that has already resulted in over 26,000 American casualties.

And now, just this past week, the Defense Department Inspector General reported that senior administration officials engaged in a deliberate misinformation campaign about Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. We have learned that officials in our government deliberately distributed altered intelligence assessments.

This administration is denying the facts. It has repeatedly misled the Congress and the American people and undermined our nation’s integrity in the world community.

Now the President is asking Congress to register more support for a policy failure. Escalating the military violence in Iraq by injecting 21,000 more U.S. troops into a civil war, reflects nothing more than this administration’s obstinate refusal to face present realities.

I want to conclude by quoting from one of this body’s most knowledgeable and trusted voices on military affairs and foreign policy, my good friend and fellow Missouri, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee: Ike Skelton.

In a recent statement he said,

“Only the Iraqis can change the situation there and bring lasting security to their nation. I remain convinced that a gradual and responsible redeployment of U.S. forces is the best way to help the Iraqis take responsibility for their security and to restore the full strength of our military.”

Mr. Speaker, our troops are magnificent.

Our brave sons and daughters have done everything we have asked them to do in Iraq, and much more. I honor their courage.

I commend their service.

I salute their sacrifice, and that of their families who await their safe return.

I urge the passage of the concurrent resolution and I pray that this is the first step towards bringing them home…soon.”

There's more: "H CON RES 63 YEA-AND-NAY MO Delegation" >>

The Missouri Delegation: How They Voted February 5-9, 2007

The House of Representatives took up three issues for roll call votes last week, and the Senate held two.

House Votes

Alternative Fuel Infrastructure (HR 574): Voting 400-3, the House passed a bill to enable the transport of clean alternative fuels through a U.S. pipeline and storage system now designed for petroleum. For example, the bill would fund research and development to speed the development of low-sulfur diesel fuels, and would authorize funding to help service stations convert tanks and pumps to handle alternative fuels. A Yes vote sent the bill to the Senate.

Liquefied Coal (HR 574): Voting 200-207, the House defeated a Republican motion to broaden the definition of alternative fuels to include natural gas and Hydrogen, as well as liquefied coal technologies that yield low-sulfur diesel and aviation fuels. A Yes vote backed the measure.

Speaker’s Aircraft (HR 547): Voting 385-23, the House added language to the alternative fuels measure to require production of such fuels for large aircraft. Republicans introduced the measure to criticize Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the assignment of a large military jet for her trips. The Republicans are criticizing the speaker because a larger jet is required to get from Washington to San Francisco non-stop than the smaller jet that carried Speaker Hastert from Washington to Chicago non-stop after the Speakers security was increased by legislative fiat in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. A Yes vote backed the amendment.

In the House the votes from the Missouri delegation were:
Clay: 1-Yes, 2-No, 3-Yes
Akin: 1-Yes, 2-Yes, 3-Yes
Carnahan: 1-Yes, 2-No, 3-Yes
Skelton: 1-Yes, 2-No, 3-Yes
Cleaver: 1-Yes, 2-No, 3-Yes
Graves: 1-Yes, 2-Yes, 3-Yes
Blunt: 1-Yes, 2-Yes, 3-Yes
Emerson: 1-Yes, 2-Yes, 3-Yes
Hulsoff: 1-Yes, 2-Yes, 3-Yes

Senate Votes

Iraq Debate Dispute (S 470): Voting 49-47, the Senate fell short of the 60 votes needed to end a GOP delay and begin debate on a bipartisan, non-binding measure opposing president Bush’s plan to add 21,500 additional troops to Iraq. Republicans said they would allow such a debate only if it included their non-binding measure in opposition to any Iraq war cuts. A Yes vote was to begin debating the bipartisan measure.

General George W. Casey: Voting 83-14, the Senate confirmed General George W. Casey as Army Chief of Staff. Debate centered on the extent to which he should be held accountable for U.S. military failures while he was the top commander in Iraq. A Yes vote was to confirm.

(Bond voted No on both, and McCaskill voted Yes on both).

There's more: "The Missouri Delegation: How They Voted February 5-9, 2007" >>

Roy Blunt: WATB

Hard Times in the Congressional Dining Room

Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) has fallen on hard times. How else to explain why the man is insisting on a raise of his already significant Federal salary $165,000 per year?

Mr. Blunt...said the raises were crucial for members of Congress who are not independently wealthy and must operate two households on the current $165,200 salary. The annual raise for this year was set at 1.7 percent, about $2,760.

Shorter Blunt: $165,200 per year, bad; 167,960, good. In all fairness, Blunt is one of the, ahem, poorer members of Congress, with a reported net worth of between $118,000 - $345,000, making him the 315th most affluent member of Congress. Lest we forget, however, Mr. Blunt is married to a high-powered lobbyist for Altria (formerly Phillip Morris Management Group), who still lobbies members of Congress. Why is it I doubt his pleas of poverty?

Abigail Pearlman Blunt and Rep. Roy Blunt smiling in the face of adversity

There's more: "Roy Blunt: WATB" >>

The Missouri Delegation: How They Voted, Jan.22-26

This week, those we chose just didn’t get a whole lot done. The House took up exactly one floor vote, and the Senate deadlocked on the Minimum Wage bill that the House sent to them last week.

By a vote of 226-191, the House extended limited voting rights on the House floor to delegates from American Samoa, The District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. It was a largely symbolic resolution that allows the five non-state representatives to vote on amendments to bills, but not for final passage. The measure is truly symbolic, as no issue can be decided on the votes of these “representatives.”

In the Senate, they failed to achieve the magic number of 60 to overcome GOP opposition and advance the bill that would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour. GOP Senators opposed the House version of the bill because it omitted tax breaks for small businesses that might be forced to pay higher wages. The vote was 54 against to 43 for. A Yea vote was to pass the measure.

The Senate also voted 28 for and 69 against abolishing the federal minimum wage and sending the issue to the states. (D.C. and 29 states have a minimum wage higher than the federally mandated minimum.) A Yea was to abolish the federal minimum.

Voting 49 for and 48 against, the Senate also failed to achieve the 60 votes needed to advance a proposal that would empower presidents to block entitlements and discretionary spending in a line-item basis. Under the GOP sponsored amendment, presidents would be able to reject individual items within overall spending packages approved by the Congress. Such rescissions would be sent back to Capitol Hill where a simple majority in both chambers, conducted within eight days would be required to ratify the cuts. Under the legislation, presidents would have been able to exercise the line-item rescission four times per year. A Yea vote was for passage.

Next week the House will take up stopgap appropriations for agencies still operating without regular budgets for FY 2007 after the 109^th congress failed to pass the budget.

The Senate will be taking up floor debate on the presidents proposed troop escalation in Iraq.

Your handy-dandy reference chart on how each member of the Missouri delegation voted is here:

Senators	House: HR 78	Senate HR 2	Senate HR 2 (amnd)	Senate (HR 2)
Bond (Rep)		Nay	Yea	Yea
McCaskill (Dem)		Yea	Nay	Nay
Representatives
Clay (Dem)	Yea
Akin (Rep)	Nay
Carnahan (Dem)	Yea
Skelton (Dem)	Yea
Cleaver (Dem)	Yea
Graves (Rep)	Nay
Blunt (Rep)	Nay
Emerson (Rep)	Nay
Hulsof (Dem)	Nay

There's more: "The Missouri Delegation: How They Voted, Jan.22-26" >>