Blunt opts against re-election: Good riddance, or bad move?
Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt says he will not seek re-election for a second term. According to the story we’ve prepared for STLtoday:
Blunt released a TV address “announcing that having achieved virtually everything he set out to ahe set out to accomplish when he ran for governor he will not seek a second term.”
Will you be sorry to see Blunt go when his term expires? Or are you pleased to know he won’t be back? Is this the end for Blunt’s political career or is he destined for bigger things? And if that’s what you think, where do you think he’s headed?
NOTE: Should have updated this earlier. Here’s a link to Wednesday’s story after Blunt’s news conference.
Also, here’s Blunt’s announcement as seen on YouTube.


Kurt is the director of social media for the Post-Dispatch, where he has worked since August 2002. He's been a journalist since 1982, covering municipal government, courts, education and two hurricanes as a reporter before becoming an editor.
I am a conservative who was going to have a hard time voting for him because of the stem-cell sell-out. However, the big reason I won’t vote for him is I have had it up to here with American political royalty. Who do these people think they are? Was Matt Blunt the most qualified person in this state to be Governor at age 34? Give me a break. I for one will NEVER vote for anyone named Blunt, Carnahan, Clay, Kennedy, Bush or Clinton again. Tell these people to get a J-O-B. If he appoints his daddy to replace Kit and then appoints himself to fill daddy’s unexpired term in Congress I will contribute money to his opponent in the next election. We had a revolution about royalty 232 years ago. Its time we stop thinking people deserve political office because of their family connections. I do think Peter Kinder would make a great governor.