What they're saying ...

Dec. 1 editorial, from The Washington Missourian on lobbyist Andrew Blunt:

Gov.-elect Matt Blunt has a brother, Andrew, who is a lobbyist. This is said to be a first in state government -- a sitting governor with a sibling as a lobbyist.

We take it for granted that the brothers are honest to the core. There has never been anything to suggest otherwise. Andrew headed up brother Matt's gubernatorial campaign and is in charge of the inauguration. Andrew says that after the inauguration he would change his lobbyist registration to reflect only that he plans to lobby the General Assembly and not the executive branch.

Andrew has represented in the past such special interests as the Missouri Hospital Association, Kraft Foods, SBC Missouri and Philip Morris. Even with his change in lobbying intentions, we would think that other businesses and organizations now would be interested in having him as a lobbyist. ...

Former Gov. Roger Wilson, a Democrat, sized up this situation accurately and we believe in a nonpartisan way. He said it will be difficult for the Blunt brothers to avoid the "perception" of a conflict of interest. He added that even if both Blunts do everything right they are not going to avoid speculation. And, boy, does speculation run rampant in politics! The best thing Andrew could do is to take a leave from his lobbying activities while his brother is governor. Why gamble with the "perception" of a conflict that is going to occur? Politics can be nasty. Why create a situation of "perception" when it can be avoided? People believe speculation, especially in politics.

The brothers obviously are very close. Andrew has served in key positions for Matt. They are the sons of Roy Blunt, a top leader in the U.S. House of Representatives.

With his connections, Andrew isn't going to be jobless if he drops his lobbying activities. This is a situation that calls for political common sense. But when you mix politics and family, too often out the window goes common sense!

Dec. 3, The Kansas City Star, on troop levels:

The Pentagon's decision to increase troop levels in Iraq is a necessary -- and belated -- move. With Iraqi elections scheduled for Jan. 30, a significant boost in troop strength is especially warranted.

Before the invasion of Iraq, the worst-case scenario called for protracted urban combat in Baghdad. The most pessimistic commentators predicted a grinding battle rivaling the siege of Stalingrad in World War II. Instead, the regime of Saddam Hussein fell in three weeks.

But since then, Baathist remnants, joined by foreign terrorists, have fought back as insurgents. Coalition forces have been drawn into the urban war many thought had been avoided. The last 18 months have been a grim reminder that few conflicts involving deadly force unfold as expected.

Most of the increase in strength will be accomplished by two-month extensions of the tours of 10,400 troops already there. In addition, about 1,500 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division, based at Fort Bragg, N.C., will be deployed for about four months.

These steps will increase U.S. troop levels from 138,000 to nearly 150,000, allowing commanders to increase pressure on insurgents before Iraqi elections.

That's essential to successful elections, which ought to proceed as scheduled despite reservations by many Iraqis and some in Washington. ...

... Our military commitment will no doubt continue for a long time. Insurgencies are not defeated in single battles; often, the effort takes years.

Iraqi units fought alongside coalition forces in Fallujah and performed competently -- as did some Iraqi units earlier in Najaf. But it will take longer than expected to build a competent Iraqi police force and army.

The primary military objective in Iraq is not so much to stamp out the insurgency but to ensure that the country's political development stays on track. In that regard, the Jan. 30 elections are critical.