“Whatever it is, it ain’t.”
Former Comptroller Virvus Jones’ axiom about politics was never more true than with Governor Matt Blunt’s shocking announcement Tuesday that he would not seek reelection.
Blunt said he would not seek a second term because he had accomplished everything he had set out to do. No one accepts this statement at face value.
By any measure, Missouri remains a struggling state. In his own State of the State address, delivered the previous Tuesday, Blunt said, “Change is working” – not that change was completed.
Blunt also said, like retiring politicians and executives the world over, that he wants to spend more time with his family. But no one expects that Blunt is retiring at age 37.
Whatever the actual motives for his decision, it seems to have been an abrupt one that genuinely caught most observers, including prominent Missouri Republicans, off-guard.
At a press conference yesterday, Blunt said he had been “thinking and praying” about the decision for several days. This may, in fact, be true. Certainly it is difficult to explain why Blunt would not have announced his intentions the previous week during the State of the State address, had he reached the decision by that time.
The instant scrum for potential campaign position by prominent Missouri Republicans was genuine evidence that none of them expected this opportunity.
Journalists and operatives across Missouri also scrambled yesterday to explain what changed for Blunt – or the Missouri Republican Party – between January 15 and January 22.
Indeed, the decision may have been made between January 18 and 22, since Blunt hosted a fundraiser for himself last Friday, which is not expected behavior for an incumbent who has decided not to run.
Many operatives and lobbyists in the state capital think the real reasons behind Blunt’s decision may lie in a heated exchange between Blunt and a reporter at yesterday’s press conference.
The reporter had asked why Blunt’s finance reports show more than $100,000 in legal fees from the last quarter. Blunt said he assumed this was related to “the various lawsuits.”
The reporter then asked, “Are you currently under criminal investigation?”
Blunt responded, “I consider that an offensive question.”
That, of course, is not a denial. It was much discussed in Jefferson City yesterday that Blunt had been offended by the question, but had not denied that he was the subject of a criminal investigation.
Of the lawsuits that face Blunt, the one most likely to lead to criminal charges concerns former U.S. Atty. H.E. “Bud” Cummins III.
In January 2006, Cummins began investigating allegations that Blunt had rewarded Republican supporters with lucrative contracts to run the state’s driver’s license offices. Some of the contracts went to Blunt’s supporters, including the wife of Todd Graves, the U.S. attorney in Kansas City.
Cummins, a federal prosecutor in Arkansas, took the case after U.S. attorneys in Missouri had recused themselves, claiming potential conflicts of interest.
Cummins said a lawyer representing Blunt contacted him about the investigation, which was confidential. The case was closed without indictments, but Cummins was fired.
“Now I keep asking myself: ‘What about the Blunt deal?’” Cummins told the L.A. Times.
Though Blunt was not indicted in that federal investigation, it produced evidence that may or not incriminate him if Cummins seeks justice. A suit pending against Blunt also may or may not yield damaging evidence about his administration.
The suit was brought by Scott Eckersly, a former State deputy counsel, who was fired after recommending that Blunt and his then-Chief of Staff Ed Martin observe and enforce the Sunshine Law regarding the handling of documents.
Blunt and Martin had admitted to routinely deleting emails, many of which qualify as public records and must be preserved, by law. Eckersly claimed that Blunt and Martin knowingly deleted emails and backups of emails on computer hard drives, and then smeared his reputation with media to discourage him from going public.
Martin subsequently was fired as chief of staff, leading many to suspect that the Eckersly investigation will reveal damaging evidence concerning Martin. This same reasoning could explain Blunt’s decision not to seek reelection.
However, if there is imminent fear of damaging disclosures, presumably Blunt would resign. Also, Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder immediately said he would run for governor, which would make little sense if the Blunt Administration faces shameful media attention as a result of the Eckersly suit.
Other speculation regarding Blunt’s true motives are based on presumed ambitions for federal office, either as a vice president candidate paired with Mitt Romney or an heir apparent to the positions of his father, U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, or U.S. Sen. Kit Bond.
Blunt denied intentions to seek federal office. And none of these options do much to explain a sudden change of direction within the last week or the past few days.
Only one thing seems certain about Blunt’s decision: Whatever it is, it ain’t.