Being a conservative columnist for a Democrat leaning, pro-labor paper doesn’t lead down the road to popularity. And I suspect that things are about to get worse as I am now going to admit something in my past that many people, even conservatives, are having a problem admitting these days:
Last year, in November, I voted for Matt Blunt. In fact, I not only voted for him, I put up a yard sign… I had a bumper sticker... I even cajoled others to support him with bumper stickers, yard signs and votes. I was a virtual Matt Blunt groupie.
I did it because I wanted someone to sign those tort reform bills and worker’s compensation bills that the legislature previously passed, but couldn’t get past a veto.
And out of the gate, Governor Matt Blunt did exactly what I wanted. He knew how to sign his name. And with his signature, the liberal road blocks to a host of long needed legal reforms of Missouri’s anti-business laws were lifted.
But I also wanted a great conservative leader to stand up and lead the new Republican-controlled legislature. I wanted a smart, articulate, unafraid giant of a man who could boldly argue for the conservative agenda without cow-towing to the critics in the liberal media. I wanted John Ashcroft.
Now I know many of this paper’s Democratic readers hated John Ashcroft with a passion. But you have to admit, you hated him for the same reason that conservatives hated the late Mel Carnahan: each was an extraordinarily effective leader for their respective side’s agenda.
In 2004, young Matt Blunt showed a great deal of promise to be that kind of leader.
After all, he came from good stock: his father was Congressman Roy Blunt, our newly minted number two guy in Congress. Roy Blunt has proven himself to be the Achilles of the Republican Majority on the Congressional battlefield… as cunning at pushing conservative legislation as Former Majority Leader DeLay, but charming enough to be as well liked as Speaker Hastert among the rank and file. Arguably, Roy Blunt is the real power in Congress.
So we fought for Matt Blunt. Frankly, we started with a great advantage. And his name was Bob Holden.
Governor Holden was so vulnerable that he got wiped out in his own party primary. The vulnerability was not because he pushed a Democratic agenda: rather it was because he was not effective at pushing any agenda. He waffled. He flipped. He flopped. In the end, his own base hated him.
We also had the perfect issue in gay marriage. The mere thought of two men living in wedded bliss fractured the Democratic Party. And it’s hard for a divided house to stand.
With that issue, Republicans had the support of many traditional Democrats, including African-American Church leaders from St. Louis City. I took that as a good sign for Republican chances in November.
The planets aligned and the people of Missouri happily crowned Roy Blunt’s son.
But this first year has not gone well. From his first misstep in cutting First Steps, one of the more successful government sponsored educational programs for autistic children, to his latest “plane” old mistake in attempting to acquire a new jet for the state fleet, Matt Blunt has engaged in a pattern: he takes a bold position, the Democrats (usually through Roy Temple’s blog site—firedupmissouri.com) attack his position, the Post-Dispatch jumps on the issue, and the Blunt administration overreaches or runs away looking foolish.
Lately, the Administration has been spending its time sending letters to the editor, some signed by the Governor himself, responding to Democratic attacks. And rumor has it that Governor Blunt speaks to his father less often than any other member of the Missouri Congressional Delegation, even the Democrats. Apparently, he only had a lukewarm reaction to Roy Blunt’s recent promotion, sure to be fruitful for the good people of Missouri. Recent polling shows that Matt Blunt’s public approval ratings are extremely low. Like I said, things have not gone well.
A little unsolicited advice: the Governor needs to stop his clipping service (or at least stop trying to answer it), call his very capable father (and start listening to him), and decide what he stands for (while never backing down). When Ashcroft was Governor, I didn’t always agree with him, but I always felt like he knew who he was and what he wanted to do. Matt Blunt needs to grow into being a similarly decisive leader. And he needs to do it by mid-terms next year.
Otherwise, his gubernatorial re-election campaign in 2008 may mirror the image of Holden’s efforts in 2004. Stem-cell research may fracture the Republican party’s solidarity in the same way that gay marriage reeked havoc among the Democrats. And just like Claire McCaskill before her, an ambitious woman hearing her political biological clock ticking, State Treasurer Sarah Steelman, may decide that she doesn’t have anymore time to wait her turn. The Republican Steelman looks to be positioning for a primary challenge against Matt Blunt in the same way McCaskill unseated Holden in 2004. If Governor Blunt’s approval ratings again dip below forty percent, the Republican freight train will come off the rails in 2008 (if it hasn’t already left the tracks in 2006).
Hello. My name is Alex. I voted for Matt Blunt for Governor in 2004. I don’t know who I am voting for in 2008…
