Prove it. Show me where Roy's policies stand in opposition to limited government. He may not be a libertarian, but over the years he has more than proven him self to be conservative. Again, I know because he is my congressman and to be honest, I am sick of seeing his good name - and my district by proxy - drug through the mud.
You can legitimately complain about a number of votes Roy made in 2001 until about 2003 or so. They were not popular here at home and renounced them later - and has proven it in Congress over and over again when it counts (during votes).
I choose not to refute your comment about his tenure ad Whip because guess what, it is NOT RELEVENT. I know *gasp*. What is relevent is how the man voted and what policies he is pushing. I know *shock*.
If you have specific policy issues proving he is a RINO and especially in the past couple of years, lets hear it. If you can show me that he is not listening to his constituents here in the 7th Cong district - and those Missourians who he is talking to state wide now, show me. Other wise, stop spreading misinformation and helping Obama by electing Carnahan.
I would add that unless you are from Missouri (maybe even 7th Congressional district) - you have no right to comment on Roy being a success or failure simply because he did his job well and indeed "hears" from the constituency.
Wrong, Bob. He was in a leadership capacity, and he was grossly incompetent. That is the paramount concern here. His voting record doesn't play nearly as big a role as his LEADERSHIP does. And in case that's not enough, you take a look at the disastrous losses while on HIS watch in a leadership capacity. A party whip is a very important position. They're supposed to be high profile and constantly defending the party and its agenda in all media capacities. Roy was nowhere to be found in doing so. What was outrageous was that he was RETAINED in that position even after our disastrous losses in '06. Your other red herring arguments about his district don't interest me in the least. You remind me of the sycophants who kept defending the execrable ex-Governor from Massachusetts, willfully choosing to ignore how disastrous he was as a party leader, yet deserving of the Presidency. My argument against Blunt was a simple one. You don't reward failure with promotion.