Redstate

clap clap clap clap clap.

It's basketball season.

I personally hope for a Blunt victory, but after all of the back and forth her on the site, I hope we can all be united following the vote.  

we're guaranteed a Republican victory!

Call it "Debbie Downer," but it's so true.  These days Republican is not synonymous with conservative any more.  Sure, unity is great and all, but having leaders who don't represent core Republican beliefs is hard to unify behind.  All of my limbs/ligaments/fingers/toes are crossed for Shadegg... or even Boehner.... or heck, even a second ballot.

I haven't heard a lot from supporters of Blunt on here.  I'm interested in knowing why you support Blunt.  We know why the editors and many others here believe that Blunt is the wrong choice.  If you believe Blunt should win, I'd like to hear why.

This website sounds like a right wing version of Kos, eager to purge anyone deemed insufficiently "pure" from the sacred conservative movement.

Here are the lifetime scores as recorded by the American Conservative Union for the three men in question.

Boehner - 94.

Blunt - 94.

Shadegg - 100.

By way of comparsion, John Cornyn of Texas has a liftetime score of 93. By your lights I guess that makes him not a "real" Republican either.

The problem with this line of reasoning, or one problem at least, is that it means that there are only a dozen or so "real" Republicans in Congress.

If the goal is the make the GOP a minority party this is a great way to proceed.

ACU ratings are a good start, but ACU only factors in selected votes when establishing ratings.  Also, what have the candidates done in the last couple of years?  Better or worse than their lifetime?

I'd like to know what votes ACU considered.....AND what position they consider to be the "conservative" position.  May not be what we think (just like some polls we see).

It is simple.

We need experienced leadership to push the conservative, Bush agenda.  The 2006 congressional elections are critical.  No time to be putting inexperience at the helm.  

But regardless of the outcome, we've got to come out of today unified as a movement.  We must remain focused on what's really at stake here.  

Nov. 7, 2006.

According to Townhall there is write in candidate.

Over at NRO, Rich Lowry is saying more ballots were cast than there are members.  Oy.

by hitting "refresh" every five seconds.  

Let's go revote.

Let's go revote.

This is horrible.  Are we Democrats now?  Have they decided to hold the election in Chicago?  Geez.

Can anyone say "Hammer"-esque tactics?

Some would argue that these are two distinct, mutually exclusive agendas.

I am torn between Blunt who I feel can lead the GOP and keep the GOP together with a lot of 216-214 votes.

Shadegg who I feel will lead the GOP in a better direction but I am unsure he will be able to lead the caucus.

Anyone know if Bush has a favorite.  

Haha.  You said "conservative, Bush agenda."  That's quite an oxymoron if I ever heard one.  If you believe that Bush's agenda is conservative, and we need someone to hammer that down, then by all means support Blunt, a.k.a. The Hammer Jr.  If you want a conservative agenda, don't expect it from Blunt.

... vote often!

We're counting on these folks to (eventually? someday? in my kids' lifetimes?) balance the budget, right?

We. Are. Doomed.

For March Madness.

....about what is the "conservative" agenda.

I don't agree that out of control spending marked mostly by pork-hungry congressmen sticking earmarks in bills to be a particularly "conservative" agenda.

Nor do I consider President Bush's immigration policy to be particularly "conservative."

And "experience" is good - but when your experience has caused you to look bad to the public (which is how Blunt looks), exactly how does that help going into the 2006 election?  It would appear to just feed the "culture of corruption" meme that Pelosi and crew will use all year.

I'm not entirely sure that you need "experience" to push an agenda that almost all caucus members already support unless the experience is how to threaten and cajole members to get what the leadership wants.

And we have a Campaign Chair to oversee the efforts in 2006.  Blunt isn't proposing any "contract with America" kind of national platform, so I don't see how he will lead us to victory based on his experience.

I don't get the point.  Shadegg led the RSC, so I'm not sure why he lacks "experience" in leading colleagues.  And Blunt's "experience" seems to be exactly what makes him unpalatable to those supporting other candidates.  Doesn't seem like "experience" should be the only thing that's got you backing Blunt.

to go to the ACU website to get all your questions answered. But surely you looked into this before deciding for Shadegg?

I suggest that you yourself have offered "insufficient information". If the criteria being presented does not meet your definition of conservative, then maybe you can explain what your own definition is.

Because if Boehner and Blunt are not consrvatives then the actual American conservative movement could probably meet in a phone booth.

... when I decided to hit "Preview" and saw you've already taken care of business.

I'll just add this:

Alltogether everyone, once more - with feeling...

GWB /= conservative

Cheers.

How does this happen?

Although it certainly won't help matters if the Democrats are intent on this whole culture of corruption theme.  A rigged election fits entirely within Delay's public (even if inaccurate) persona.

"Nor do I consider President Bush's immigration policy to be particularly "conservative.""

I agree. That's why Tancredos endorsement of Blunt clinched things for me.

GWB != conservative

Some of the members were confused by ballot and voted twice.

Bill Thomas has come out in support of Boehner which will increase chance of second vote.

Well third if you count the double voting in round 1  

......said I like Shadegg because he's "more conservative."

I don't particularly care.  I'm not impressed with Blunt, and I think he has baggage (justified or not).  I think that the caucus could use to inject some new blood into things.

I also very much like the ideas coming from the RSC, which Shadegg has led and which has been his platform.

I pointed out a fault in what you threw up on the board as some sort of "slam dunk retort" to the discussion of the term conservative.  If you choose not to answer that issue, then I think that says volumes about how much you trust what the ACU has to say about this.  I think it's as relevant as the MSNBC online poll about whether to impeach Bush.

I'm just a FORTRAN kinda guy.

give Duke the title right now, if they're going to call games like they did last night.

[/hater imitation]

As a conservative. It's the Senate that waters down, steps on, and mushes up the conservative legislation that the House puts forward.

A generalization, to be sure.

I see Rep. Souder, R-IN, a solid conservative and patriot, gave a nominating speech for Blunt. So, it's not like we've got Bob Michels running things, even if Blunt wins.

I can understand you following Tancredo.  But the question is, why is Tancredo for Blunt?  Blunt's been in leadership and has exactly NOTHING to point to on this issue.  He's had a chance to move something forward and he hasn't.  So what good is a promise to bring it up?

I think Tancredo may be off the single-issue wagon here.

...my point is that we need experienced leadership to keep our party in the majority, to keep a Republican in the White House.  

I think that what you are failing to remember here, is that if we don't unite and come together as a Party, we could see someone like Mrs. Clinton making the calls, and I think we can all agree that she is far less conservative than Bush.

Blunt 110

Boehner 79

Shadegg 40

.....Souder nominated and spoke for Shadegg.  Blunt was nominated by Kay Granger.

Still think everything will be A-Ok with Blunt?

...didn't he go for the three?  He was open and he could have tied the game...

"..I think that says volumes about how much you trust what the ACU has to say about this.  I think it's as relevant as the MSNBC online poll about whether to impeach Bush."

You think that the American Conservative Union is some biased liberal group?

I think you are making my point for me about how many people have an obsession with idelogical purity.

You seem ready to read ninty percent of Republicans out of the the conservative movement.

According to report Shadegg withdraws and supports Boehner.

I think Blunt would probably be the best leader. I don't know to what degree, and if it's close enough, then I'd be perfectly happy with a symbolic Shadegg victory, who is marginally my favorite. But let's make no mistake that that's all it is - a symbol. I HATE the idea that we're bowing to (mis-)perception by promoting Shadegg, even though, as I said, he is my slight favorite. I'm not personally convinced ANY change was necessary (again, apart from perception), but to the extent that any change is necessary, I think any change serves that purpose, be that Blunt, Boehner, or Shadegg. I ean, I have no doubt the mediacrats will attack us for Blunt, but should we go with Shadegg, does anyone seriously doubt they won't say "aha! see how deeply corrupt the Republicans are that they had to make this move!"? Granted, that attack is at least somewhat weaker, and is probably reason enough to go with Shadegg, but still...

I mean, how complicated could it be?

.....of the Majority Leader appears inflated.  I don't really think the public considers the Majority Leader a reason to vote for or against a Presidential Candidate.  I don't think Tom DeLay was a particularly big factor in 2004, and I doubt whoever wins here will be much of an issue in 2008.  

What Blunt can and will do is be the lightning rod for every Democrat running this year against somebody who voted for Blunt for Leader.

the game's over.

What are the Democrats doing voting in this race?

Were the extra votes for Nancy Pelosi? Maybe she was the write-in on the extra ballots.

I can see it now:

Pelosi - 593 votes (all write-in, with seven votes signed "Sam Rayburn" and three signed "Tip O'Neill")

Shadegg - 122 votes

Blunt - 72 votes

Boehner - 36 votes

Pelosi wins!

immediately following.

Anybody but Blunt! Go Boehner!

According to Townhall, but they also said another person informed them they total was off by 1 vote and was recounted.

You seem to have me confused with others.

I only stated that the ACU is not the end all be all fo the definition of "conservative."

And I stated that I don't really concern myself with what the ACU says about ratings.  I look at issues important to me and see how members vote.  I have found that most rating agencies (including ACU) often include things I am not particularly concerned with and exclude votes I consider important.  So they are only so useful.

I will also note that with the exception of about 20 GOP Senators and Congressmen, almost all Republicans have 90+ ratings from ACU.  The distinctions are not between "conservative" and "liberal."  It is about gradations and specific issues.  I do not believe Blunt is "not conservative" - I think he is a good conservative, on his issues.  His positions, however, just don't jive with mine - and his perfoirmance has not impressed me.  Conservative or not, he's not my guy.

Aight.  I just know I'd be full of dripping condescension if it had happened to the Dems instead (though I guess that says more about me than anything else.)

.....this should give Boehner the boost.

How many Shadegg guys are going to go over to Blunt when their guy is for Boehner.

should be Boehner 119, Blunt 110.

Will all of Shadegg's voters go for Boehner.

Boehner is terrible on immigration, and he is the only real alternative to Blunt.

Lets give it a shot.

I guess he didn't want to take his chances on the second ballot.

From the Corner.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_01_29_corner-archive.asp#089150

I would not be surprised if Boehner and Shadegg had agreement if runoff occured then the one with lower vote count would throw support behind the other. I would be surprised if many went to Blunt. If they wanted Blunt then they would have voted for him in round 1  

I was able to beat most of the establishment blogs and will try to again...if you are interested.

www.elliswyattstorch.blogspot.com

I think I have the Cindy Sheehans coming on. Hand me an extra T-Shirt.

It seems as though most of the Shadegg votes went directly to Boehner, just as most suspected they would.

I'm pleased to see it. I was a Shadegg backer, but I am happy to see an opponent of pork get the position.

now the Dems, so recently splintered over Alito and filibusters, can shift the focus to the "divided" Republicans. great.

....based on the vote (122-109) it would appear all of Shadegg's votes went to Boehner, along with the 2 Ryun votes and a Blunt vote.

The good portion of the divide is winning! :-)

if Blunt wasn't change enough, I rather would have gone whole-hog and pick Shadegg. This just looks half-assed.

the initial voting snafu. that will probably get more media attention than the name of the actual winner.

They will call the 2nd vote not a runoff, but a revote, and then talk about how the Republicans and their Supreme Court denied a revote to Florida in 2000.