I think it's a mixed-bag, leaning towards a net positive. for Amtrak/HSR. An Illinois DOT engineer who posts on one of my highway forums commented that LaHood has supported HSR between Chicago and St. Louis, but was skeptical of a Chicago-to-Peoria Amtrak link. That said, according to your "observers were very surprised" link, he's broken with party ranks to vote in support of Amtrak funding and expansion.

Still, I'd never heard of him before today.

Last note: LaBlon is an Arab-American, which leads credence to some theories that this appointment was more political than policy/qualification.

by Froggie on Dec 18, 2008 9:12 am • link • report

Gotta luv it. Among my friends, I'm one of the few who vehemently opposed electing Obama to the presidency. To me it's been very clear from the start of his campaign that he just "tells people what they want to hear." And as I predicted, now the rubber is hitting the road, and he won't possibly be able to come through on everything he promised to everyone. The 'real' Obama, someone who doesn't know how to govern, is coming out. His choices and decisions will be capricious to start, dictitorial in the end. We're in for a scary ride.

by Lance on Dec 18, 2008 9:36 am • link • report

Lance, I'm not thrilled with this pick, but give me a freaking break.

Name me one politician that's met all of their campaign promises. Just one.

As far as the rest of your post goes, it's garbage. LaHood's one huge advantage is his experience on the appropriations committee. His biggest asset would be a knowledge of the legislative process and the ability to bring people across the aisle.

by Alex B. on Dec 18, 2008 9:48 am • link • report

While not a perfect pick, I think Mr. LaHood's support of inter-city high speed rail is the proof in the pudding that this is not all bad. We're going to need HSR because our airline industry is on life support and won't get any better. That era is over.

From an urbanist perspective, that's a good thing because more people will be visiting cities without cars. Therefore, the cities will get more urban and centralized as their economy changes to accomodate money coming in from train passengers in the center city rather than airline passengers coming in from the fringe.

Lance, grow up. It's ok to have not voted for Mr. Obama. That's an honest decision and it's part of our civic duty to choose a candidate for president. However, talking about a "real" Obama is just as intellectually bankrupt as talking about a "real America." As for your last sentence, I don't even know what to say.

by Cavan on Dec 18, 2008 10:09 am • link • report

The articles I've seen say LaHood was against Chicago-St. Louis HSR.

by alexandrian on Dec 18, 2008 10:16 am • link • report

Lance, if you are just making a general comment about Obama's presidency, that's a little unproductive, but if by commenting on this article you are actually referring to his transit policy, then I wonder how often you would be hearing about rail had McCain won.

Regardless, the election is over. I don't understand why some people feel the need to assume Obama will fail.

by Andrew on Dec 18, 2008 10:47 am • link • report

And regarding this article - while there are other candidates position which would have excited me more, this decision may actually turn out to be a fairly thoughtful one. Remember, Obama still has the final word on most things, and he's pretty pro-HSR. I don't think LaHood will derail those plains - he most likely will fully support them. I think Obama wanted to have someone with a different point of view serving with and advising him, which I see nothing wrong with.

by Andrew on Dec 18, 2008 10:50 am • link • report

I think it's pretty much all bad. Not surprising though. I didn't really expect good choices in transportation, agriculture, etc. Obama has been pretty clear about choosing certain priorities and not spending much political capital in other areas. Transportation doesn't seem to be high on the list.

by David desJardins on Dec 18, 2008 11:40 am • link • report

Yes Lance, because if we want to avoid 'capricious to start, dictitorial in the end'(sic), we must vote McBushCheneyPalinCain.

We must avoid Obama's running every three-letter government agency as a branch of the Democratic Party's fundraising and opposition research division. We must avoid him starting wars because he thinks "wartime presidents are the ones historians praise" or coercing his intelligence agencies to make shit up. We must prevent him from destroying the economy & the middle class through deregulation.

We must keep him from spying on us with his custom-made all-seeing intelligence apparatus. We must keep him from suspending portions of the constitution by fiat or defying the rule of law as he sees fit with signing statements. We can't let him start undeclared wars and then threaten to abandon our service members without food/gas/bullets in a warzone as revenge whenever Congress makes attempts to end the war.

We must make sure Obama doesn't allow his cronies to write each other and the rest of the economy overleveraged IOU notes until the entire thing is on the brink of collapse, and also that he doesn't keep the economy on the edge by borrowing from future generations. Obama must not be allowed to double our national debt during his term, or run significant parts of the budget on emergency appropriations. When he claims that the President is a 'unitary executive' able to run/control the entire government on his own and answerable to no man or law, we have to speak up. When he eschews international diplomacy while declaring that US military intervention in every non-democratic nation is the only hope for freedom in the world, we have to tell him it's slightly more complicated.

We can't let him establish his abhorrent religious doctrine as a foundation of our health care, military, or educational policy in the world. When he promises fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and compassion, we must understand his actual goals. We have to ensure that he lives in the 'reality-based community', you see.

There are many threats involved in Obama's campaign to continue the legacy of Democratic tyrants like Bill Clinton (we all remember the day that the nation stood up for justice and impeached him), and we have to somehow prevent this horrible man & his unified legislature from doing these things if we can't prevent him from being elected.

< /snark >

I understand being dishonest/wrong & pathologically unable to admit it, but this is either Youtube-comment-quality trolling or a worldview deeply disconnected from reality. It's that staggeringly obtuse. The Karl Rove doctrine: Take whatever is most outrageous/embarrassing/scary/criminal about your own side, construct a line of slander pinning it on your opponent in a thought-terminating cliché, and repeat it through intermediaries until it is the meaningless subject of every discussion about the race.

You're interested in the historical preservation movement. Presumably there are historians involved. Ask one what presidents the phrase 'Capricious and dictatorial' describes better than Bush. Ask anyone who's been following McCain how often or how far his positions have moved towards Bush since his last 'bipartisan' actions established him as a press darling in the late 90's.

He's the only torture victim in modern political life willing to endorse torture in order to appeal to Republican fanatics in the primaries, while repeating the phrase "straight talk" out of the other side of his mouth. He's also the only one willing to select a corrupt, mentally challenged evangelical beauty queen for a vice president while running to be the oldest president in American history & issuing "Country First" as his slogan. He's the only one willing to parrot his campaign finance reform accomplishments while taking advantage of the gridlock in Congress over establishing an FEC quorum to break the laws he wrote repeatedly, & at the same time demanding that Obama refuse the nation's small donations based on an obligation to follow public financing. He's the only one willing to declare his opposition to everything Bush stood for only months after declaring his agreement, while at the same time employing Karl Rove in his campaign.

'Capricious and dictitorial' doesn't adequately describe the Republican Party of the last eight years. You have to add 'insane, audacious, corrupt, and unchallenged'.

by Squalish on Dec 18, 2008 11:50 am • link • report

hmmm ... Squalish ... I'm not a Republican ...

by Lance on Dec 18, 2008 12:36 pm • link • report

I have no clue about this guy. But I hope, and it doesn't sound like, he's not an ideologue and he makes smart decisions given our fiscal situation in this country. With a person like that, I think the high priority rail lines will get built and the other ones who knows. And roads and bridges and other things that need to get built/expanded/repaired will get attention.

by Vik on Dec 18, 2008 1:57 pm • link • report

It's just hard to think of any American politician who could reasonably be described as 'Capricious and dictatorial' compared to what we've been through. Particularly Barack Obama, who has, true, been an excellent politicism... but who has shown no inclinations to micromanage, every indication of respecting human rights (& is himself a constitutional scholar), and less 'Capriciousness' than could be expected of anyone in recent memory who has been attacked so often with so many different smears. He took the high road and told everyone that politics didn't have to be this way... and he still won by the highest margins of any non-incumbent president in history.

How do you support your claims precisely, other than as inevitable consequences of a lack of experience?

by Squalish on Dec 18, 2008 2:31 pm • link • report

Squalish, Have not ever known someone who told everyone they knew exactly what they wanted to hear? How much could you count on them coming through for you? ... or for others for that matter? These kinds of people are in for themselves ... and they're willing to commit the ultimate lie ... to you what you want to hear ... to get what they want from you.

by Lance on Dec 18, 2008 4:12 pm • link • report

I did meet someone like that, a well-dressed man named Mr. Applegate.

by Pumpkin Meringue on Dec 18, 2008 5:01 pm • link • report

"Apparently retiring downstate Illinois Republican Congressman Ray LaHood will be Secretary of Transportation."

Pending Senate confirmation.

by Jazzy on Dec 20, 2008 10:55 am • link • report