Republican Rep. Ray LaHood

[iamthebandfanman]

wasnt he over the clinton impeachments?
im sure he'll make a great transportation secretary

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 13% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
Rated D by VOTE-HEMP, indicating an anti-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated -20 by NORML, indicating a "hard-on-drugs" stance. (Dec 2006)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Rated 20% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)
Rated 11% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)
Rated 29% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation. (Dec 2006)
Rated 11% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted NO on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)
Supports $48 billion in new spending for anti-terrorism. (Jan 2002)
Strengthen sanctions on Syria & assist democratic transition. (Apr 2008)
Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. (Nov 1995)

[karynnj]

1. I have no idea about the Clinton impeachment - and don't care unless he led it

He was a good friend of Emmanuel who was in the Clinton WH.

What I do care about is that he was against high speed rail, because the rural areas don't like fast trains. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7993412

[T Wolf]

4. His "support" for mass transit is limited to providing it to his rural constituents. He does not

give a damn about transit where most of the people actually need it.

[Occam Bandage]

7. So he approves of transit for his constituents? Great.

Now his constituency is the entire United States.

[Kalyke]

37. News Flash: the rural area is exactly where people need mass transit.

Duh...

[Thrill]

2. What does one have to do with the other?

DU is becoming like FR

[iamthebandfanman]

3. well, im glad your okay it

the fact that he went after clinton for a blowjob but does nothing about the criminal in his own party.

yeah, that guys got great judgement.

[karynnj]

5. The point is that nearly the entire Republican party voted for impeachment

I don't think it made teh standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, but there IS something wrong with lying under oath. Impeachment was wrong - but Clinton brought it on himself. The problem I have is I thing he will not be supportive of high speed rail which is one way that a LOT of carbon usage could be eliminated - and it would be nice for travel.

[iamthebandfanman]

8. he presided over the impeachment hearings/proceedings. n/t

[Thrill]

28. What does this have to do with being transportation secretary

[Jennicut]

17. Oh, you finally just noticed

Its been that way for a long time
I actually have parents who are diehard Rethugs. I don't consider Rethugs all to be evil, just mostly misguided. If Obama wants a Rethug in his administration what is really wrong with that?
Lahood may have presided over Clinton's impeachment as acting speaker but he also said Palin's rallies did not "befit the office she's running for."
Not everything is black and white, evil or good. Sometimes its just gray.

[Occam Bandage]

6. Great. What does any of that have to do with transportation?

And what's with the bold? Is he going to require prayer while driving or something?

[iamthebandfanman]

11. so even tho his entire record would support a right-wing agenda

you dont think he wont run the cabinet position in that manner?

[Occam Bandage]

14. What does that mean? What positions of his regarding transportation do you find offensive?

Again, are you concerned that he will pass regulations requiring prayer while driving? Perhaps that he will not repair roads leading to abortion clinics? That he will attempt to build a bridge to Iran so we can invade it?

[iamthebandfanman]

19. why would i want someone with a conservative agenda

the head of any department ?


i think weve seen what the last 8 years of a conservative buddy of someone being in charge of departments, particularly this very department.

how are those roads after 8 years of republicans? ready for 4 more(unless hes fired or quits)?

[Occam Bandage]

22. Actually, Norman Mineta, Bush's secretary through July '06, was a Democrat.

So I think that's actually a very good example of how the party affiliation of a transportation secretary isn't really that important. If you don't know the first thing about the cabinet, why should anyone take your posts seriously?

[jgraz]

9. Well, I'm sure Obama is picking some radical left cabinet members to balance this out

Oh wait... :banghead:

[Occam Bandage]

10. I'm glad he's not appointing radicals of any flavor.

Radicals have a poor track record when it comes to managing bureaucracies.

[iamthebandfanman]

12. but he IS a far right nutcase, thats my point. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

13. You haven't really provided any evidence of that.

All those positions are mainstream in the Republican party.

[iamthebandfanman]

16. you mean the republican party

thats made up now of only mostly far right wingers?

just because they are all nutcases doesnt take back the fact he is as well.

[Occam Bandage]

20. There's a considerable difference between

having right-wing viewpoints and being a right-wing ideologue. Most politicians--especially in the House--vote with their party on the overwhelming majority of issues. You can't realistically derive anything about their temperament from that.

[Sebastian Doyle]

33. The Repuke party, by definition, is NOT mainstream.

With the possible exceptions of Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. (No that Bush protecting bastard Arlen Specter does not count)

[Jennicut]

18. Not at all, maybe to you but Lahood is a moderate Rethug

I dislike Rethug's views in general but he is not far right at all.

[iamthebandfanman]

24. yeah, wanting to put prayer back in school

and wanting to do it with the constituional amendment..

thats not radical right at all!?!

[Occam Bandage]

Has nothing to do with transportation whatsoever. nt

[iamthebandfanman]

27. argh, i didnt say that.. BUT YOU did say hes a moderate

and hes not!

[Occam Bandage]

29. No, I didn't. I said that you have no evidence that he's out of the mainstream in his party,

and that you have no evidence that he is an ideologue temperamentally unsuited to run a bureaucracy. You still don't.

[Occam Bandage]

26. Has nothing to do with transportation whatsoever. nt

[jgraz]

dup

[jgraz]

30. I think Occam's going for the world record on changing the subject in one thread

Post #10: LaHood is not a radical
Post #26: Ok, he's a radical, but he's not radical on transportation
Post #29: He's not out of the mainstream of his radical party, so he's not a radical
Post #25: OK, he's bad on the environment, which I suppose has to do with transportation, but Obama appointed other people who are less bad on the environment
Post #26 (again): Even if he IS a radical AND he's bad on transportation, you have no evidence that he's "an ideologue temperamentally unsuited to run a bureaucracy".


Just to help, we also have no evidence that he believes in kelpies. Maybe you could try that next.

[Occam Bandage]

31. This is silly, since those are all replies to different statements, and none were contradictory.

I understand that progressives like to bang on their drums and say the same simple thing over and over again, but it's dumb to expect everyone else to.

My position is simple: Since the OP doesn't say anything about transportation, in order to be solid his case must be that LaHood is a radical ideologue whose fanatical conservatism renders him incapable of managing a bureaucracy. A house member adopting the views of his party on many issues is not evidence of the type of radicalism or extremism that would make him ineffective. You're pulling out various bits and snippets and then making your own context.

[jgraz]

32. So if Obama appointed David Duke to transporation, you'd look at his resume before you objected?

Just wondering how far you're willing to take this ridiculous point.

And since you seem to be all about the evidence, please provide your evidence that "progressives like to bang on their drums and say the same simple thing over and over again".
Then provide evidence that banging on drums and saying the same simple thing over and over again renders someone unqualified to comment on another person's sophistry.
Then provide evidence that progressives believe in kelpies.

[Sebastian Doyle]

34. Hell, why not David DuKKKe?

I mean, it's not like burning crosses and lynching people has anything to do with transportation, right? :shrug:












































































:sarcasm: <-------- just in case anybody really thought I was serious.

[Occam Bandage]

35. Sure. And it's pretty clear that David Duke is the type of insane ideologue who

would not be able to manage well.

[jgraz]

36. Please present your evidence that David Duke would be a poor manager

After all as a member of the KKK, he was just following their platform positions.

[Occam Bandage]

38. Sure.

The KKK, unlike the Republican party, is abhorred by the overwhelming majority of Americans. It would be virtually impossible for a member of the KKK to gain the respect and trust--from both the public and Duke's potential DOT subordinates--necessary to run the Department of Transportation. A reasonable person might find his presence alone to constitute a hostile workplace environment. Plus, y'know, he's a felon and felons probably shouldn't be appointed to cabinet positions.

[jgraz]

39. So your argument is that Duke would not be effective because people might object

And your other argument is that we shouldn't object because LaHood might be effective.

Are you starting to see the problem here?

[Occam Bandage]

41. Nope.

Duke would not be effective because the overwhelming majority of people might object. Ideological objections to LaHood are few and come from a small, marginal group of perpetually-outraged liberals. Attempting to compare a politician to David Duke based on nothing more than your own objection to him is preposterously egocentric.

[jgraz]

42. Once again, provide your evidence

I have to say, I never had you pegged as a raging hypocrite but I'm starting to change my mind. You continually use your own egocentric bigotry to piss on progressives yet anytime someone disagrees with you, you come back with demands for evidence.

There are valid objections to LaHood's appointment and name-calling when you lose an argument just makes you look petty.

[Neecy]

15. wow

I read through the list and this guy is a real RW nutter. If he voted no on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, how is he supposed to improve the security of air transportation? Advocate for inspecting air cargo? Support the concept of federal employees at our security checkpoints?

[iamthebandfanman]

21. feel free to point that out

to the people above who think if obama picked the guy he must be a saint.

the guys a radical, and those at DU who say otherwise wont change that fact by denying it and saying the opposite.


if u all think these views are 'moderate' , im gonna hafta start debating whether or not ANYBODY understands the meanings of political words.

[mtnsnake]

23. Well he's got a bad environmental record so he'll get along fine with our new SOI, Ken Salazar

[Occam Bandage]

25. And our new EPA chief Jackson and Energy sec Chu...oh, wait, never mind. nt

[Bucky]

40. I sure hope Obama removes stem cell research & school prayer from the DoT's oversight.

The level of influence that the Department of Transportation has over... let's see... abortion, peace keeping in Kosov, the location of the US Embassy in Israel, payment of UN membership dues, and the separation of church and state is fairly small.

At the very worst, we will have to step off the interstate next time we want to burn Old Glory. Damn.