No, I wont. There is a reason why Roy repudiated some of his votes during the 2001-2003 time frame and made it right. His constituency (thats me) didnt stand for it. To me, that is far more measure of a man and real leadership than some untagible and yet to define set of criteria that I have yet to see.
To be perfectly honest, I would settle for a nonflashy work horse who voted and represented me and kept my freedoms and liberties than someone who is on the front of the newspaper all the time.
Jim Talent was more of a moderate - but still had a principled conservative back bone. He was a work horse who busted his tail for Missourians. Some Missourians disagreed with that philosophy and voted for Claire McCaskill in 2006. Look where that landed the nation, let alone the state.
Perhaps that, in addition to the fact Roy is my Congressman, is why I am probably overly sensative to the matter.
I hold Jim Talent and John Ashcroft in a much higher regard, both got shafted (Kit Bond I’m just rather mild about). Roy just doesn’t get any sympathy from me, and frankly, his son’s cowardice in cutting and running from the Gubernatorial reelection fight in 2008 (which led to that senseless internecine battle between two good people, Steelman and Hulshof), just solidified my negative opinion of the family. Had Matt stayed put, fought the good fight and lost however narrowly (like Bond did running for reelection to the same office in ‘76 against Teasdale), a lot of folks would’ve unapologetically supported him to run for the Senate (instead of his father). I’m only glad the rumor that Roy would install his son in his House seat didn’t pan out.
I agree with your point about preferring a workhorse, but once they seek out leadership, that’s what they must be judged on. I’d rather someone who only votes right 75-85% of the time who is an aggressive leader who gets the job done than someone who is 95%+ who couldn’t lead himself out a paper bag.