U.S. Representative and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO 7th) came in to have a chat with the Post-Dispatch editorial board today, discussing a wide range of election-year issues ranging from energy to health care to his take on the presidential race.

Energy

Most of the meeting was devoted to the energy issue. Blunt hammered home the GOP position on energy, emphasizing the need for expanded domestic production of all forms of energy, including offshore drilling and oil shale. He repeated three times the point that the United States is the only country in the world that views its natural resources as “an environmental hazard rather than an economic asset.” The rest of the world, Blunt said, is enthusiastically developing their domestic energy sources — from Scandinavia to Nigeria to Brazil — while the United States is alone in refusing to do the same.

He said that in mid-2006 it seemed that most Americans had “turned the switch off” in terms of listening to what Republicans had to say, but now the energy issue had caused them to “turn the switch back on.”

While acknowledging that the pro-drilling, pro-domestic production stance was a very good one politically for the Republicans, Blunt contended that it wasn’t just a case of poll-watching or political opportunism — he noted that in the past, most of the GOP had consistently advocated expanded drilling, even when it wasn’t as popular a position as it is today.

Blunt went on to emphasize that conservation was an important part of federal energy policy — not just an issue of “personal virtue” (as Vice President Cheney infamously stated during the 2004 debates). He mentioned tax credits and financial incentives for individuals and businesses to improve fuel efficiency and encourage Americans to “use less.”

The congressman also made a prediction: the “gas crisis” would turn into a full-blown “energy crisis” within the next six months, due to the fact that consumers are going to be hit harder than ever before by skyrocketing utility bills this winter. Blunt also argued that the presidential candidate with the better energy policy will have a huge advantage in November.

When asked about the criticism that oil from proposed drilling could take at least 10 years to reach the market, Blunt countered that such a number was misleading — yes, some oil is 10 years away, but other oil sources could be developed much quicker and reach the market in as little as two or three years. His main point was that since the fact remains that we will still be using oil in 10 years — no matter how much progress is made with alternative energy — it makes sense to start ramping up domestic production now.

Blunt lauded the benefits of oil shale, which he said experts have told him could provide the U.S. with 815 billion barrels of recoverable oil — twice Saudi Arabia’s proven reserves. He maintained that new technology would lessen the impact on the environment from recovery of this resource, and reminded the board that the Canadians have been successfully producing oil from shale (which the United States imports) for many years.

Healthcare

Rep. Blunt acknowledged that healthcare was one of the biggest challenges facing America today, and said that reform of the system should be a top priority. He argued that in his view, “the government should organize a new national healthcare system — not operate it.” He said that a single-payer insurance system was unworkable, and that a new system should ensure that everyone has access; that health insurance can be portable between jobs; that the system should be voluntary and allow anyone to opt out if they found a better plan.

When the editorial board pointed out that this was — oddly — very similar to the plan that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) had laid out when he met with the editorial board earlier this week, Blunt seemed surprised (”We must just get lost in the fine print,” he offered jokingly), but said that he’d be willing to work with Durbin or anyone else from either side of the aisle on this issue.

Election-year politics

When asked about his thoughts on McCain’s potential VP pick, Blunt said that the top priority should be to a candidate with lots of experience, so as not to negate the major campaign message that Obama isn’t ready to lead the country. In Blunt’s view, the make-or-break standard for the McCain campaign in selecting a VP should be: “Is this nominee unquestionably more ready to be president than Sen. Obama?”

He said he wouldn’t necessarily mention anyone by name that didn’t meet that standard (the young Govs. Pawlenty or Jindal, for example), but said that in his mind, top choices would be former congressman and White House budget director Rob Portman or Mitt Romney, who have plenty of executive experience and are strong on economic issues.

He said that while all the indicators this year point to what should be a huge lead for Obama, the close polling shows that just hasn’t happened. Blunt believed Obama will have a hard time “closing the deal” with voters in November, citing his problems wrapping up the Democratic nomination, allowing the primary battle with Hillary Clinton to drag out “much, much longer than it should have been.”

When offered that Obama’s race might play a significant part in the Democrat’s problems “sealing the deal” in cruising to an easy victory, Blunt disagreed. “If [Obama] was a 46-year old, four-year Senator from anywhere else, he would still be facing the same problems” with voters due to questions about inexperience, values, and doubt that he was ready to lead the country.

Blunt concluded: “You know, after November, either way the outcome will seem very obvious. Either we’ll look back and say, ‘well, obviously the young, energetic candidate was going to beat the old grouchy guy’ or we’ll be saying ‘well, obviously in uncertain times like these, voters were going to choose the seasoned, experienced candidate over the risky newcomer.’”

Photo cr: Eddie Roth