Kevin McDermott of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch excoriated retiring Senator Roy Blunt as a symbol of a cowering GQP establishment that failed to stand up to Trump. McDermott wonders why newcomer Josh Hawley has a national profile (as a Trump lackey), but the senior senator from Missouri is virtually unknown outside the state.
Unfortunately, Blunt also has personified what establishment Republicans became during the Trump era: passive enablers to a chronically mendacious, constitutionally malicious, mentally unfit president.
And now Blunt is, once again, personifying the GOP establishment, this time by exiting the extremist bunker that his party has become — a trend that intensified under Trump, as Blunt and others at the grownups’ table stared down at their plates in mute terror...
Blunt, just by virtue of his position in the Senate Republican hierarchy, could have forced a historic shift in the narrative of the Trump era had he done what he could have — shouldhave — done at any point during Trump’s tenure. Blunt could have walked up to any microphone in sight after some Trumpian outrage or other (the available choices were constant) and said what he knows is true: “This isn’t who we are. As a party, or as a country. Acceptance of this ignorant, corrosive sociopath of a president isn’t a valid trade for tax cuts and judges. It’s a selling of the soul, and I won’t do it anymore.”
Yes, he would have lost his Senate Republican leadership role and probably his seat — the same seat he is now leaving willingly anyway. Meanwhile, it would have forced a badly needed self-examination by the GOP. Most importantly, Blunt might have provided a little cover for lower-ranking Republicans of conscience to follow suit.
Instead, Blunt mostly held his tongue for four years, voting twice to acquit Trump for his clearly impeachable offenses of trying to extort election aid from Ukraine and for inciting violent insurrection in an attempt to overturn the 2020 vote.
In essence, Blunt consistently backed a president who represented the most dire threat to constitutional democracy that we’ve seen in our lifetimes. The fact that Blunt did this quietly, without the toxic enthusiasm of Hawley and his ilk, is irrelevant. What’s the point of having a grownups’ table if its occupants let the children overrun the place?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Maybe Blunt is a coward. He is afraid of the death threats to him and his family that would come his way from Trump’s hard-core racist, lame brain white supremacist militias, the same kind of fascist thugs that attacked our government in DC on January 6..
Maybe Blunt is indeed a Trumper at heart and in soul. I think it’s dangerous to characterize these people as “silent” or “cowards” or “reluctant party loyalists” or whatever. They’ve always been with us–en masse–and many, many of them believe(d) fervently in what Trump (or previous favorite strong men) is doing (or did). If they don’t participate directly, they aid and abet by looking the other way, making excuses, lying, acquitting, gerrymandering, denying access, stuffing the ballot box, redlining, quoting the Constitution and the Bible, dressing up in suits, selectively engaging in community service, etc etc etc.
Paypal’s founder, Peter Thiel, who is a big GOP supporter announced he’s putting $10,000,000 behind J.D. Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy, in his bid for Portman’s seat. Thiel said women voting in a capitalist democracy is an oxymoron.
Well, Thiel was actually right, albeit probably by accident because ” Capitalist democracy” is itself an oxymoron.
Or in the case of Great Britain, an oxfordmoron
I know everybody’s into Hillbilly Elegy, but after seeing Vance in an interview a couple of years ago, there’s no way I would ever read his book. His “poor, poor, pitiful poor white folks” schtick was too much for me.
Peter Thiel, a gay Republican billionaire, is an oxymoron.
Gay Republicans are truly some of the oddest creatures I have ever encountered. Very close to Black Republicans. Might as well be a Jewish Nazi.
There’s always Republican Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina, who has seen racism all his life yet still supports Trump and Graham.
Thiel is a toxymoron
Hillbilly Elegy is a long advertisement that thinly veils the book’s purpose- Vance’s election to high office.
Try “White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America” by Nancy Isenberg—a better read.
I just read your comment after making a similar comment.
Obviously I agree.
Calling them cowards, party loyalists, or even ignoramuses effectively let’s them off the hook.
Many of them are partners in crime.
Same goes for people like Jeff Flake and Mitt Romney who criticized Trump (and in Romney’s case voted to impeach) yet voted for the vast majority of Trump’s policies.
Apparently, it doesn’t matter how you vote on policies as long as you say the right things at other times.
And then , of course, there is George W. Bush, who has had a reputation reboot by some Democrats (including Democratic presidents) as a result of his criticisms of Trump.
“they aid and abet by looking the other way, making excuses, lying, acquitting, gerrymandering, denying access, stuffing the ballot box, redlining, quoting the Constitution and the Bible, dressing up in suits…”
Especially by dressing up in suits.
Undoubtedly the worst offense of them all.
That doesn’t make Blunt a Trumper, it just makes him a power-monger. I.e., go along to get along as long as it keeps him in power. His retirement at 71 says to me that he doesn’t think his party affiliation can keep him in power for his last decade of life—or perhaps just that the struggle to remain in power against further-right primary challengers—whose extremism makes Rep wins slimmer– pales compared to a calm decade devoted to family life. I expect this viewpoint is shared among other senior Reps taking the same path.
“Meanwhile, it would have forced a badly needed self-examination by the GOP.”
But it wouldn’t have, that’s the problem. They would simply have made him into another “enemy of the people”. Another punching bag.
Remember who we’re talking about here: Republicans.
Would a teacher accept from a third grader : Johnny made me do it!. When people tell you who they are by their actions . Perhaps that is exactly who they are.
The assumption that it is ” passive enabling” needs to be checked.
Many of these people like Blunt did not say no to Trump because he was doing what they had dreamed of doing for a very long time : dismantling the Federal government.
Never attribute to cowardice what is more plausibly attributed to opportunism.
I enjoy typos sometimes. I think Mitch McConnell is a member of the GOP. I think the GQ P would probably include Matt Damon.
And the GQanonP would presumably include the Qanon Shaman
Also known as the Neanderthal Party
Or the PaleOP
Hear me out, I’m not defending Blunt, everything above is correct. Recently I bemoaned the fact that few if any public education advocates in Congress with actual power actually go out on a limb and do something substantive about public education funding (press releases expressing outrage do not count). I have a professional interest in National Institutes of Health funding, having paid close attention to the issue for the past 23 years.
As we all know, the bipartisan assault in education is now almost 20 years old. The same as been true of NIH funding. After FY 2003, through FY 2017, for the rest of the Bush administration through the Obama administration, when factoring inflation and measuring the amount of research activity actually funded, NIH funding was stagnant. It did not keep pace with the actual opportunities. When the Idiot assumed office, he consistently cut NIH funding dramatically in each of his proposed budgets. But with Blunt as the chair of Labor, HHS appropriations, he fought back on those proposals to provide substantial increases for the first time since 2003. The differences between the final enacted amount as compared to the Idiot’s budgets was: $7.3 billion in FY 2018, $4.54 billion in FY 2019, $7.3 billion in FY 2020, and $4.2 billion in FY 2021. Over five years, the increase in NIH funding was almost $10 billion. The total would have been bigger, but the House conferees always reduced NIH funding from the Senate recommendation in conference. For the first time since 2003, NIH funding is robust and actually making a tangible difference in cancer, respiratory diseases, brain diseases, and, most importantly, laid much of the groundwork for much of the science behind Remdesivir and COVID vaccines, whether they were developed in Europe or the U.S. Blunt deserves credit for this. It would have happened without him.
But this is not meant to be a defense of his otherwise indefensible record. It is a lesson and a sharp contrast that I think emphasizes my earlier remarks about the impotence of congressional public education advocates, especially those in positions of consequential power (which, as much as we all love Jamaal Bowman, he ain’t nowhere near). Blunt demonstrated what an appropriations subcommittee chair could achieve on an important issue (to him) that few pay attention to, one that affects them more than most will ever know. Where is our Roy Blunt who can play this role in education. Not being pessimistic, just stating facts.
It would not have happened without him. (Big difference when one leaves out the word “not!”) WordPress!!!
Realistically, Greg, you are right. We have few champions in Congress. But don’t be a defeatist. If we can awaken the American people to the fact that their state legislatures (and courts) are trying to take public money away from their public schools and give it to entrepreneurs, big corporations, religious schools, and other nonpublic corporations, they will be mad as hell. And when the people get mad, Congress listens.
Again, I am not a defeatist. I would hope I could challenge some members of Congress to stand up and HONESTLY TRY to deliver. If they did so, then the burden would be up to us who agree with them to pressure our representatives to join them. It’s a lot easier (not that it’s easy) to say, “please join Rep. or Sen. so-and-so on this issue” than it is to say, “please take the lead on this issue.” The fact is that we currently don’t have enough people who get mad to get Congress to listen. We need patrons to carry our water. Jamaal Bowman, for example, would be doing a much more effective job to recruit appropriations subcommittee chairs or other powerful members to take up his issues. He could then pledge to engage the grassroots.
I was reminded yesterday on a segment of CBS Sunday Morning on Lady Bird Johnson of how this strategy can be effective. She had substantive ideas, but she allowed, motivated, cajoled, or flattered others to take the lead on them. This is effective advocacy. Check your ego at the door and let the issue lead. More importantly, motivate others in positions of tangible power to lead.
Think of it this way. We are all crushed by Joe Biden’s reversal on the testing issue as it was posed to him in a forum. How motivated, supportive, and willing to go out and pressure our representatives if he came out strongly to reiterate what he said during the campaign? Perhaps if a strong member of Congress or Senator did so, it would bring him along.
As I’ve said over and over and over again, it’s a process. But the only way it becomes a potentially realizable process is if we have surrogates who will carry our water. Remember, citizens DO NOT participate in government. Their role is to monitor and influence. That means paying attention, voting, and pressuring their representatives. That’s literally all anyone who is not in elected office can do. If one has no one to influence, especially, all that is left is the frustration of monitoring, knowing that bad things are being done. You have mentioned on various occasions how some members of Congress have asked you to be vocal on some issues. Why the hell aren’t they vocal, public and willing to call out their colleagues? The relative safety of having you speak out while they remain silent is not only counterproductive, it is a betrayal of what they purport to champion.
I know I’m far too long winded on this, but if I may, let me provide a plausible scenario. Jamaal Bowman (I know I’m picking on him, but he’s our only real friend in Congress right now) could go to Raul Grijalva and others on the Ed and Labor Committee (Chair Bobby Scott is a lost cause and the Republicans on the committee are a collection of duplicitous kooks), Rosa DeLauro and others on the Labor, HHS, Ed appropriations subcommittee (let’s see if Tim Ryan really has an liberal bona fides) to take the lead on a Dear Colleague letter that lays out an agenda every reader of this blog understands–no to standardized testing, vouchers, and charters; yes to teacher autonomy (treat them like the professionals they are and hold them accountable), nutrition for students, physical education and the arts, small class sizes, higher teachers salaries, local control, etc, and policies and funding that support those goals.
If that were to happen, we could find patrons in the Senate to do the same, starting with the HELP committee and Patty Murray (who also chairs appropriations), Bernie and Tim Kaine, not to mention Collins and Murkowski, as well as Labor, HHS, Ed appropriations members like Durbin, Merkley, Schatz and Baldwin, to do the same. This would be an effective way to influence the conference committees of all Ed-related issues.
More importantly, it would give advocates like us a real rallying point to push. Rather than, oppose vouchers letters that get responses from members saying they’ll “keep our views in mind should this issue be considered by the full House or Senate,” we’d have to get responses either saying they support and signed on or flush them out as frauds. And if they signed, it would be another weapon of accountability.
I am not defeatist. I am a strategist and tactician. We need concrete action and steps that give us a reason to influence and hold member accountable. We do not have that now, and I place the blame on people like Jamaal Bowman, Rosa DeLauro, and Patty Murray until they prove me wrong and give me a reason to be motivated.
“Perhaps if a strong member of Congress or Senator did so, it would bring him [Biden] along.”
So, we live in Upsidedown Universe now?
Thanks. I wouldn’t have noticed otherwise.
It used to be that the President was the one who” brought the recalcitrant Senators and House members along (kicking and screaming if need be)
Or maybe Sanders is actually the real President after all?
Sanders sure acts a lot more Presidential.
No he doesn’t. He sounds like the same ineffective ranter he always has. A bit nicer perhaps. Not presidential.
Biden won’t or can’t even bring the Senate Parliamentarian along.
It isn’t the parliamentarian’s job to kowtow to the president. Why would you think it is?
Then again, maybe I am wrong.
Maybe Biden DID bring her along and that is precisely why she disregarded the facts in order to rule the way she did on the minimum wage/budget reconciliation issue.
I’ll try to keep this short. The legislative process often drives executive action, and occasionally it is vice versa. Presidents will rarely go out on a limb on an issue without knowing there is legislative support. There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples of this. FDR on the New Deal. JFK and LBJ (remember him pushing MLK Jr. to continue to create noise to build a constituency for legislation) on civil rights. GHW Bush on the Americans with Disabilities Act. And Obama on the ACA, Obama actually had little to do with the shaping of what became Obamacare. You can’t have success in policy making without strong, persistent congressional leadership.
As for the recent Senate parliamentarian issue, there’s an issue (seemingly unknown and misunderstood) called separation of powers. It may seem nice on paper, but the idea of the executive branch meddling on procedure in this way–yes, yes, I know the VP is technically the leader of the Senate–would create constitutional meddling issues. This is an in-house Senate procedural issue and can only be solved by the Senate.
Finally, the idea that Sanders is an “ineffective ranter” demonstrates a stunning lack of understanding of the legislative process, oversight, and negotiation. Those ignorant of this reality will point to meaningless metrics like tallies of bills introduced and passed. They ignore the legislative impact on executive decisions on things like report language in bills, oversight hearings, influence on nominations, and building coalitions within each chamber of Congress. These vital functions cannot be distilled into checklists tied to one or few names. Ask any veterans group if Sanders was an ineffective ranter when he chaired the Veterans Committee. Ask anyone knowledgeable about the recently enacted stimulus bill if Sanders was an ineffective ranter in marshaling the forces on many of the legislation’s key issues. Sanders is anything but an ineffective ranter. He’s more responsible for setting the liberal big picture issues of the past decade than anyone. Well, didn’t keep it short after all.
Greg, the one issue where Sanders has been thus far ineffective is education. He sits on the Senate HELP Committee, yet seldom speaks about education issues. In 2015, when NCLB was belatedly authorized, all the Democrats on the Committee fought to preserve the punishments attached to low test scores. Including Sanders and Warren. Fortunately they lost.
Thank you for your encyclopedic expertise, but I’ve been around long enough to understand how the legislature works. In future, save you breath giving me lessons in things I’ve understood for decades. Btw, the Senate Parliamentarian serves at the pleasure of the majority leader.
As for Bernie, I’m afraid I’ve spent far too many hours listening to him drone on about how he knows exactly what’s wrong with every problem and how the nation would be paradise if only everyone would do what he says. I know Thom Hartmann is impressed. Me, less so.
I agree with you 100%, Diane. The same is true with my former congressman, Marcia Fudge. Although she was on the Ed & Labor committee, I am convinced after short interactions with her and longer interactions with her useless staff that they had no substantive idea about any education issues. Hence my prediction that she will prove to be the least effective cabinet member of the Biden administration. But I digress, as usual.
My theory (and it is my theory alone for you Monty Python fans) has long been that education is not high on any politician’s radar screen because there is neither punishment or reward associated with taking a stance on education issues. This is a sad fact. If they were required to read your last three books and Derek Black’s, many would quickly change their minds. But I’ll take grousing about education policy while I don’t have to obsess about every issue under the sun, as we were compelled to for the past four years.
Greg,
Your theory is being tested at this very moment on the filibuster issue.
And right now, it does not look promising.
Dick Durbin (a “strong Senator”) just made a scathing speech about the filibuster calling it a “weapon of mass obstruction” and calling, at a minimum , for significant changes to the rules so that it is not so simple to filibuster. Right now, one can literally do it by sending an email.
But despite the calls for such rule changes from strong Senators lime Durbin, Biden is recalcitrant :
“He believes that with the current structure that he can work with Democrats and Republicans to get work and business done,” — White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/03/16/weapon-mass-obstruction-durbin-blasts-filibuster-senate-floor
jsr whatever, you clearly do not understand the legislature (sic), because there is no such thing at the federal level. It is the legislative process, emphasis on process. You do not address the argument I made about the intrinsic value and power of oversight, influence, and checking ones ego at the door to create coalitions. And your example of “parliamentarian serves at pleasure of the majority leader” overlooks one important reality: precedent. As little as I think of Schumer, I will give him credit on this one. One must necessarily take incremental steps if the final one is to eliminate the position of parliamentarian. To put it in Carlin-esque parlance, you can’t shoot your load too early if you want to be effective. By not doing so now, the threat remains.
SDP, we agree. The example you cite of Durbin is instructive. It’s a shot across the proverbial bow, one that gives room for Biden to accept this viewpoint in the future to signal to other Democrats and Republicans on the fence (if such a thing actually exists). If I were an advisor/tactician, I would approve. One must set precedents, or arguments, to establish the justifications of potential action. I may well be proven wrong in trying to do so. But as of now, in the reality of today, this is all in all an acceptable course. Time will tell.
Matthew
I am curious.
Which of Sanders’ rants bothers you the most?
The one pointing out that billionaires are increasing their wealth by leaps and bounds while millions of Americans are going hungry?
Or maybe the one where he calls for a raise in the minimum wage so that people don’t have to work for peanuts like the elephant at the zoo?
Or maybe the one where he points out how absurd it is that an unelected officer of the Senate (parliamentarian) can go against the majority of Congress and thereby unilaterally decide the fate of millions of Americans simply by ruling (against the facts, no less) that a line item in a bill (in this case the minimum wage increase) does not fall under budget reconciliation ?
And incidentally, you are simply mistaken about the lack of power of the President over the Senate parliamentarian. The President has the authority to instruct his VP to overrule the parliamentarian.
Spell correct changed “jsrtheta” to Matthew above for reasons probably known only to Bill Gates.
Anyone who can’t distinguish between ranting and using the bully pulpit to highlight the plight of millions of Americans and call for policies that will address their needs (and twist arms in the Congress if need be) doesn’t understand what the presidency is about.
Missouri is a state which has had more than the national rush from blue to red….particularly in the legislature. For a long time the state department of education was all white members…….Jay nixon, governor from 2008-2016 named three very good people from St. Louis….two were black. Clumsiness by republican governors starting in 2017 has made the state board all white, again…..for a while, black member Michael Jones was a member in name only….no participation. A black woman from Edward Jones now serves….(previously anheuser busch and Bank of America….her heart is in the right place for the right people….not the teachers and the students…but there is hope in the two major sources of information for st. louis….KMOX (no more live Limbaugh, not sure how much more of the repeat packages) and their seem to be changes in how much right wing garbage they will continue peddling. The PD added a major figure to the editorial board…Antonio French…..some days it seems like the editorial department and the “news” gathering are from two different managements….but there is some hope. They still carry a place to find out exactly how much every classroom teacher makes if you want to look it up…….stuff about the kids……especially in the precious charters, continuously being added and managing to last long enough to pay off to investors…..changing the student population from 32,000 when the state took over down to 19,000 with the addition of charter schools….there is no real interest in the subject of education by the major media in st. louis……..hoping for improvement the next four years.
One good thing that Senator Blunt did by deciding to not run for re-election is lessen the chances of disgraced ex-Governor Eric Greitens winning the primary for the Senate seat. Greitens would likely run as the alternative to long time career politician Blunt. If Congresswoman Ann Wagner wins the election, at least we will end up with someone that does not have an unfortunate history duct taping hair stylists to exercise equipment and ….
“…at least we will end up with someone that does not have an unfortunate history duct taping hair stylists to exercise equipment…”
This belongs in a time capsule and would also have inspired Shakespeare. Mac-yechh. The visions that will go through my head the next time I get a haircut will be Kafkaesque.
Missouri (like others) lived with this man’s silence along with every other GOP legislator state and local who 1) turned away and pretended what the EXPres said was “antics” (I think that was Sen. Blunt’s word initially) and all they cared about was policy or 2) supported the lies (like the Rep you refer to above who stood at the first covid press conference in March 2020 and said “it’s like the flu” and “there are 4 million test kits on the way). And the state – back to Jim Crow meets privatization.
These legislators who once actually had integrity had a chance – for at least 3 years to speak about 500,000 dead, deregulation, guns, voter suppression, perpetuated election lies after the courts ruled and recounts… …. and not a word.