Please look into my heart, and not at my votes

Last week, we noted the hypocrisy and uncomfortable position of Roy Blunt, Blaine Luetkemeyer and Todd Akin for their opposition to a war spending bill.  House Republicans voted against the bill because it included money for the IMF, and Senate Republicans supported the bill because it funded the war and protecting funding for local jobs.

The New York Times wrote about this dissonance on Tuesday, and the follow-up in The Beacon this morning gives a fascinating look at how Blunt and Akin still want credit for what's in the bill, even though they voted against it. It's an impressive bit of rhetorical gymnastics, based on the assumption that Republicans can act and vote however they'd like on military matters, and always get credit for Supporting The Troops.

Now, Blunt is just denying reality to explain away his vote against Boeing's C-17 funding. "Blunt campaign spokesman Rich Chrismer denies any split in Missouri GOP ranks," writes Jo Mannies.  This is an odd claim, since there is a split in the Missouri GOP ranks.  People like Blunt say the bill was terrible and would "bail out foreign governments."  Senate Republicans like Kit Bond say its a great bill that saves St. Louis jobs.  

Clearly, Blunt wants to have to all ways. He wants credit for voting against the bill, but still get credit for everything in it that he likes. He also wants to look good with the right-wing base for voting against "bailing out foreign countries" -- but only when an affirmative vote was cast by a Democrat. Never mind he's talking about the exact same vote cast by Kit Bond and the 34 other GOP Senators who supported the bill.

Same thing for Akin and Luetkemeyer.  Incredibly, Luetekemeyer said Bond's vote would "actually weaken our national security, further endanger the lives of our troops, and allow the majority to continue its reckless spending spree."  But will Luetekmeyer say that to Bond's face?  Does he even recognize how ridiculous he sounds?  Doubtful.

It would also be interesting to hear how Blunt's voting for the bill before he voted against it is any different from Sen. John Kerry's similar conundrum in 2004.

Sadly, the Republicans may be right in their assumption that they'll get credit in the press for supporting the troops, no matter how they vote.  Or how they actually support veterans' programs, equip troops or send them into ill-conceived wars. Just look into their hearts -- and not at their votes.