Reality check on Roy Blunt's claims of bipartisanship

Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Washington) made a lot of claims today about how pleasant things were when he, Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert ran the show. Here's a good example :

I've been able to be a significant part of the legislative movement of the country -- always bipartisan [emphasis his]. You know, we couldn't pass anything, except a budget, with just Republican votes any time we were in the majority. [5:29 in the PD video]

For anyone who was actually paying attention during the recent Republican reign, Blunt's revisionist history is a little hard to swallow. The Delay-Blunt-Hastert years were extreme and anything but bipartisan. Consider this excerpt from a 10/14/2003 Washington Post article detailing the governing philosophy of Blunt and his fellow Republicans:

Bringing legislation to the floor with only the narrowest prospect for victory has become a hallmark of the leadership of Speaker J. Dennis Hastert,  [Majority Leader Tom Delay and Majority Whip Roy Blunt]....More often than not, that direction is to the political right, and generally in line with President Bush's priorities.

The goal, insiders say, is to start negotiations with the narrowly divided Senate -- which is considerably more moderate than the House -- with a House position that yields as little ground as possible. That makes it more likely that the eventual compromise language will be more to House leaders' liking.

In exchange, these leaders often must cajole or bully GOP moderates, endure Democrats' bitter complaints and wait out nail-biting roll calls. But it is worth it, House leaders say, to fight for legislation that is as conservative and pro-Republican as possible.

Party unity is vital because the Hastert team [with Blunt and Tom Delay] virtually always ignores the 205 House Democrats and one independent. It concentrates instead on the pool of 229 Republicans, from which it can lose no more than 11 moderates in order to have a bare majority.

Once they are within striking distance of that goal, the House leaders often turn to one-on-one jawboning and negotiating with a potential vote-switcher...

...House leaders are willing to push their advantage as far as possible rather than accept "the status quo," said Blunt, the House's third-ranking Republican. "That's why it's a one-vote victory rather than an overwhelming victory."

In fact, fellow Republican Rep. Michael Castle (R-DE) later said the only reason Hastert, Delay and Blunt had to consider his moderate voice was because the GOP leaders were "determined to advance their priorities even without a single Democratic vote."

Blunt's claims about bipartisanship don't jive with the facts, and neither do his facts. Consider this other odd claim:

We [Republicans] never had a margin that would allow seven Republicans to vote no and still pass a bill. [4:13 in the PD video]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do the math here -- Blunt's claim is just bogus. Delay, Blunt and House Republicans enjoyed a 24-30 seat majority for considerable period of time, and accepted moderate GOP defections with regularity to ram through their legislation.

Let's get real.