Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri may be a GOP freshman, but he’s one of Washington’s most-connected players. That’s part of the reason Mitt Romney tapped him to count noses, serving as his Capitol Hill coordinator. A former top-ranking House member, Blunt should be an able messenger for the former Bay State governor.
Senate aides expect him to reinforce Romney’s ties to the Republican establishment and win over a few new members, especially more moderate GOP legislators from the class of 2010. Blunt will also give Romney a useful ear inside the conference, serving as the campaign’s liaison and chief Beltway recruiter.
So far, Romney has won the endorsements of a handful of influential GOP lawmakers, including Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah), Sen. Scott Brown ( Mass.), and Rep. Buck McKeon (Calif.), the House Armed Services Committee chairman. More are expected to come in coming weeks, aides say, but Perry could pick up a slew of nods, too.
Still, speaking with Senate Republicans and staffers this afternoon, I was struck by how many senators remain undecided. There is buzz for Perry, but many Republicans are surprised that he is not doing more to build his campaign. Some likely supporters suspect that Perry may be running more of an outsider operation, but worry that he has not done enough, so far, to compete with the Romney machine.
Blunt’s role, some GOP aides suspect, may be to spark a move toward Romney as Perry works to build a national campaign. It’s all about timing, they say, with some senators happy to wait for months, and others angling to align themselves with a potential nominee. Early-autumn politicking, they tell me, matters as lawmakers evaluate the field.
Senate GOP aides add that Perry has many friends in the House , especially among southern freshmen. Rep. Mick Mulvaney (S.C.), a first-termer and tea-party favorite, recently signed on to be Perry’s economic adviser. Other South Carolinians are reportedly being courted by Team Perry. In the Senate, there is room for an “anti-Romney” to pick up votes, aides say — if only they are contacted and cajoled.
Blunt, in a conversation outside the chamber, tells me that initially, he will stick to pitching Romney’s platform, and not worry about much else. “I’m not against anybody,” he says. “I’m for [Romney].”
Indeed, Blunt, a low-key but talkative fellow, should be able to make the soft sell with ease. He served in a similar role for George W. Bush in the 2000 cycle. “I helped House members organize for Governor Bush,” he recalls. With Romney, he will, as he did then, talk about the governor’s record, to be sure, but also his electability.
“I think [Romney] is a candidate who can be competitive in lots of states in November, in places where we might not otherwise be,” he says. “I just announced this assignment today,” he says. “I’ve had a few of my colleagues come up and talk to me about it. I think there’s a lot of interest in his candidacy, and there is incredible interest in doing whatever is necessary to have a Republican president who is focused on getting this economy moving again.”
It's annoying to keep hearing about how "competitive" and "electable" Romney is compared to the other candidates. Let's just call it like it is: Romney is a moderate at best and Republicans are still afraid to stand on principle and pick a conservative candidate.
If Republicans pick Romney, I will come to the conclusion that we have learned nothing from the Bush years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt may be annoying to you, but that's what the polls are showing. Romney beats Obama, Perry doesn't. It takes Independents to win, and there are also more establishment Republicans than Tea Party Republicans. Romney's heading for the nomination.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnyone with any working knowledge of politics and polling will tell you that horse race numbers mean nothing this far ahead of an election. Otherwise Carter would have won a second term in 1980. Most of the head-to-head polls pitting various Republicans against Obama are within the margin of error; plus, you have one out now showing Palin within five points. None of them mean a thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only numbers that count now are economic figures and Obama's internals; the latter showing his economic job approval in the basement and his independent support barely over 30-percent, where it has been for two years. If those numbers fail to improve, or improve only marginally, Obama is toast no matter who the GOP nominates.
If Jim DeMint couldn't deliver 2008 to Romney, I can assure you that Roy Blunt will not be the one who delivers 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy husband and I have laughed through the years at our local small time paper when the editorials would come out at election time. Just because they say so and think their opinion is soooooo...important, then we should vote for their pick. We don't know what their ties are to that person. At least in a small town you get an idea. So, why would I trust someones opinion on a national level to tell me who to vote for. I am so sick of you people who think you are so smart and know better than us stupid people out here who we should vote for. I listen to the debates and then shut off the TV when the commentary comes on to tell us how to think. I don't care if it's Sean Hannity or Keith Olberman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy husband and I have laughed through the years at our local small time paper when the editorials would come out at election time. Just because they say so and think their opinion is soooooo...important, then we should vote for their pick. We don't know what their ties are to that person. At least in a small town you get an idea. So, why would I trust someones opinion on a national level to tell me who to vote for. I am so sick of you people who think you are so smart and know better than us stupid people out here who we should vote for. I listen to the debates and then shut off the TV when the commentary comes on to tell us how to think. I don't care if it's Sean Hannity or Keith Olberman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo far, Romney has won the endorsements of a handful of influential GOP lawmakers, including Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah), Sen. Scott Brown ( Mass.), and Rep. Buck McKeon (Calif.), the House Armed Services Committee chairman
----------------------------------------
I hate to break this to you, but EVERY Mormon will support Romney over Perry, and will not hesitate to do so early. That explains Hatch and McKeon. As for Brown, the Mass. connection is rather obvious there.
As an aside, this is not a knock on Romney or Mormonism per se, just pointing out the obvious amidst the 'excitement' of these early supporters.
captcha = "no brainer"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I hate to break this to you, but EVERY Mormon will support Romney over Perry, and will not hesitate to do so early."
Which is, I suppose, why Mormons like Jon Huntsman, Glenn Beck, and South Carolina state legislator Alan Clemmons endorsed Romney right off the bat?
No. Wait. You're kidding. They DIDN'T?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "electability"
If my hex works (External Link
), Blunt better stock up on Depends Undergarments.
Here I am...some armchair jack*** making political pontifications. How sad is it that I was so correct - that Blunt and, also, Romney's campaign were so predictable?
RE: "I think [Romney] is a candidate who can be competitive in lots of states in November, in places where we might not otherwise be"
I don't expect 1984-esque electorate results only because, this time, Minnesota is in play.
Okay, fine, it won't be that decisive (2016 will, though), but it doesn't need to be. We're going to win this this while giving conservatism a chance.
Put Romney in a box labeled, "Squish - Break Glass in Case of Emergency". Maybe, if BHO pulls an LBJ and a Democrat candidate that (with the MSM's help, of course) seizes the middle arises, well, we might have a need for you. As things are, though, there is absolutely no need for the GOP to compromise itself in that way.
Senator Blunt, you are completely out of touch. Enjoy the consequences of betting on the wrong horse because, from what I understand about you, the quicker you and your kind are marginalized, the better it will be for actual conservatism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRoy Blunt: Establishment hack par excellence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Romney manages to get the nomination, he'll decimate Obama. The idea of him debating Obama on economics makes me salivate a little. Perry debating Obama makes me nervous.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Perry is more genuinely conservative than Romney - and the closer you look at Perry, the less certain this is.
Weigh this choice: Perry sneaking past Obama while the Democrats keep the Senate, or a Romney landslide that turns the Hill red.
Romney needs to float a Cabinet, and that Cabinet should have some prominent conservative names. How does "Trent Lott, Chief of Staff" sound?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTrent Lott as chief of staff is supposed to be a selling point to conservatives? How clueless can you get, really. Trent Lott is another Beltway establishment hack. You have got be kidding.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou really DO want someone with Beltway experience at Chief of Staff, Rook.
I say Cain is his VP, but of course, it's too early to float that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDelete "Romney" replace with "McCain" get same level of conservative principles (near zero) and electoral results (Obama II) when conservatives close their wallets and stay at home.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHeck, dig up Chuck Percy. He's only freshly in the grave and if we want a lifeless compromiser at least he won't come up with any new ideas (read "RomneyCare") to screw us.
Help on the hill does little for the voters, no he won't help, try as he may.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse