Full Version: New House Leadership
With the vote for House leadership coming up, I wanted to see what 
members thought about the candidates. Here is Time's view.
Questions for Debate:
Which Congressman's promotion to House leader would send the greatest reform message to the public? Which member would send a message to the public that nothing is intending to change?
members thought about the candidates. Here is Time's view. QUOTE
All three candidates have suggested that they would support earmark limits, a favorite McCain cause. Only Boehner has been specific about what he would change, saying he would try to prevent federal dollars from going to private entities for exclusively private purposes. This still wouldn't stop wasteful spending on unneeded bridges and other projects. But one plan would identify the sponsors of earmarks and force members to defend them, eliminating the many mysterious entries that now bristle in the budget. Blunt defends earmarks but has proposed tracking those who request them and how the money is spent. Boehner and Shadegg both say they have never had an earmark directed to their congressional district.
Questions for Debate:
Which Congressman's promotion to House leader would send the greatest reform message to the public? Which member would send a message to the public that nothing is intending to change?
QUOTE
Which Congressman's promotion to House leader would send the greatest reform message to the public? Which member would send a message to the public that nothing is intending to change?
William F. Buckley Jr's National Review is sold on John Shadegg. They have written up an interesting piece on him. They credit him with being the least known among the three in regards to K street and stickign true to the '94 reformist platform. He voted against No Child Left Behind and the recent drug coverage plan. Not only that, but he's offered some measures to make the lobbying system more transparent and as stated previously, he has a *Newtonian* reform tinge about him still. If the NR endorses him, I take that as being a sign that this guy is the real thing. Just as NR was launched to decry the Nixon liberlas/moderates who Buckley felt, were betraying the party, so now is the NR rallying the faithful behind the guy they believe truly represents conservative values.
I was listening to Shadegg (R-AZ) this morning on NPR. He brought up a plan to take away a Congressman's pension is he/she is convicted or admits to taking bribes. I can't believe that this isn't in place yet. Sounds like a minor change, but it would be a start.
I think that Blunt is the man for the job. He seems like a solid member and person. I think that he would help to improve the Republican Parties reputation in the wake of the Abramoff scandal. I also think that he is serious about the job and not driven by being in limelight.
I have nothing against Boehner, yet I am a bit turned off by the recent reports of his hardpartying ways.
To answer the questions of which member sends the message of reform and which does not?
Obviously, Shadegg has the reform reputation. However, he just does not have the backing that Blunt and Boehner have worked hard to get. Blunt, to me, sends the message of corruption reform more than Boehner.
I have nothing against Boehner, yet I am a bit turned off by the recent reports of his hardpartying ways.
To answer the questions of which member sends the message of reform and which does not?
Obviously, Shadegg has the reform reputation. However, he just does not have the backing that Blunt and Boehner have worked hard to get. Blunt, to me, sends the message of corruption reform more than Boehner.
Shadegg would be a great choice.
He doesn't play around and holds pretty firmly to his Contract with America era convictions. Even here in AZ you don't hear much about him in the news--he does his job, does it well and doesn't play any games--and demands the same in return.
He would get in Dubya's face if he had to.
Closest GOP'er to the Reagan values left in that party.
Great choice-never happen.
It will be Blunt.
He doesn't play around and holds pretty firmly to his Contract with America era convictions. Even here in AZ you don't hear much about him in the news--he does his job, does it well and doesn't play any games--and demands the same in return.
He would get in Dubya's face if he had to.
Closest GOP'er to the Reagan values left in that party.
Great choice-never happen.
It will be Blunt.
I voted for Shaddeg. I second everything Chris said. This WaPo piece articulates why Blunt, or another well-connected Congressman, will replace DeLay:
It sounds like we have the necessary complacency for Democrats to replace a Republican majority until their constituents back home yawn at the next scandal under Democratic watch.
QUOTE
In interviews, more than a dozen Republican lawmakers who are home for a long January break said constituents are talking a great deal about high gas prices and even a best-selling book about killing the Internal Revenue Service, but not much about the intrigue gripping Capitol Hill. Even many of those voters who are closely following the leadership contest or the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal reportedly tend to deride all lawmakers as money-grubbing operators, and express little faith that Congress can be cleaned up by any politician.
"I don't get the sense many people are paying attention," said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), who has been hoping party activists would lead demands for a shake-up. "Corruption is still 90 percent an inside-the-Beltway" issue.
- GOP Contest Prompts Yawns Outside Beltway
"I don't get the sense many people are paying attention," said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), who has been hoping party activists would lead demands for a shake-up. "Corruption is still 90 percent an inside-the-Beltway" issue.
- GOP Contest Prompts Yawns Outside Beltway
It sounds like we have the necessary complacency for Democrats to replace a Republican majority until their constituents back home yawn at the next scandal under Democratic watch.
QUOTE(Politaca @ Jan 17 2006, 11:51 AM)
I think that Blunt is the man for the job. He seems like a solid member and person. I think that he would help to improve the Republican Parties reputation in the wake of the Abramoff scandal. I also think that he is serious about the job and not driven by being in limelight.
...Blunt, to me, sends the message of corruption reform more than Boehner.
...Blunt, to me, sends the message of corruption reform more than Boehner.
Why do feel that Blunt is the guy for the job? To me he is the one candidate who is just more of the same. He didn't rise through the ranks of the current system by being a maverick. Plus, didn't he take $69.000 from Abramhoff?
The National Review is hardly impartial on this, but it appears that for someone who largely has the lead, he close to losing, at least according to them. As a matter of fact, they believe he won't even retain his majority whip seat!. 
Rich Lowry has an interesting article concerning this interesting tidbit. I don't know if the NR has a vested interest in bashing Blunt, but it certainly appears that they have no love for the guy. I think Just Leave Me Alone is correct in his assessment of the guy. He just moved up the chain of command by adapting to the leadership and not necessarily taking the lead himself.
Rich Lowry has an interesting article concerning this interesting tidbit. I don't know if the NR has a vested interest in bashing Blunt, but it certainly appears that they have no love for the guy. I think Just Leave Me Alone is correct in his assessment of the guy. He just moved up the chain of command by adapting to the leadership and not necessarily taking the lead himself.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.