Washington Will Miss Ray LaHood
Because they sense that voters have finally had it up to here with the petty, polarizing partisanship of the kind that prizes making political points instead of making tough decisions, candidates in 2008 are busy touting their commitment to bipartisanship.
The sad fact is that one public servant, unknown to most, who has lived and practiced genuine bipartisanship is retiring this year. After 14 admirable years of representing Peoria and central Illinois in the U.S. House, Republican Ray LaHood has made the House a more civil, more decent and more personal place.
Don't take my word for it. Listen to the testimony of U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago Democrat who is so tough he's widely rumored to eat nails and spit rust: "I'll miss him dearly. ... I'm a Jewish-American Democrat, and Ray is a Lebanese-American Catholic Republican. If we could work together, anything is possible."
And work together they have. As LaHood recalls, "The day after Rahm got elected (in 2002), he called me and said, 'Ray, I want to work with you.'"
Together, the two have co-hosted a series of bipartisan dinners where House members from both parties have been able to spend an evening talking policy and politics and getting to know each other personally. One major Republican leader gravely warned LaHood against any collaboration with Emanuel: "Don't do it. He's the devil!"
Last year, when 43 governors of both parties endorsed the Democratic congressional leadership's plan to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to include an additional 4 million uninsured children of working poor families who made too much to qualify for Medicaid, Ray LaHood broke with his party leadership — including President Bush — and helped persuade nearly four dozen House Republicans to buck the White House and back SCHIP.
Dick Durbin, the senior U.S. senator from Illinois, is the assistant Senate majority leader and a formidable party strategist. But Durbin, when asked, praises LaHood to the sky: "He's one of my three best friends in the Illinois delegation (in which there are today 13 Democrats and eight Republicans). I trust Ray. I have worked closely with him. His word is always good. Ray is a real human being who always tries to find that common ground."
Working for five years with Massachusetts Democrat Bill Delahunt, LaHood successfully cosponsored the Innocence Protection Act, which ensures that death-row defendants are competently represented and have access to DNA evidence.
Ray LaHood has been a loyal Republican but with a strong streak of independence. That may explain why Barack Obama, three days after his own 2004 election to the Senate, called LaHood and spent an hour and a half exploring ways they could work together. What does LaHood, an early endorser of John McCain, think of the 2008 Democratic standard-bearer? "I think he's very smart. He's a very good guy with a good heart." Reservations? "I'm mystified," notes LaHood, an alumnus of the Illinois legislature, "how a guy in the state Senate can vote not 'yes' or 'no,' but vote 'present' 130 times."
LaHood is no plaster saint. His cooperation, while natural to him, is rooted in pragmatism: "The only way to get anything done is by being bipartisan," he says. "That's what people who live in the real world do. They work together on school boards, hospital boards and library boards."
What is he most proud of? The four bipartisan House retreats he organized working with Democratic colleagues. "We had 200 members and 150 spouses on one weekend," he said. "If you get to know somebody, it's a lot tougher then to be ugly to them."
Anything else? As somebody who clashed often with his own hyper-partisan GOP leadership in the House, he admits: "I survived Gingrich, Armey and DeLay. I'm still here. They're all gone."
He didn't just outlast them, he also outclassed them. Ray LaHood never had a political enemies list because he did not have political enemies. He had political adversaries who were also his colleagues and often became his friends. Capitol Hill and the House will both be poorer for his absence.
To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
COPYRIGHT 2008 MARK SHIELDS
|
 |
Comments
|
10 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Sir; I don't know where you have been; but it is good to have you back. And I like the idea of government leading us into civility and friendship. I don't like all the cant; The honorable Senator from who needs it. I recognize better than most that government is broken, and the economy is broken, and without rootbound government being able to free itself from the pot of tradition when it does not work any more; we are soon going to be a third class, third world, first class people. And I don't think there is anything wrong with the people that democracy could not cure. If people all wanted to vote themselves candy for three meals a day they would soon have to deal with the consequences. But the consequences of no change, of inability to change, of government at loggerheads, of inertia added at every level of government from the bottom to the top is worse than a mouthful of rotten teeth. Those who gave us the constitution owned the society. Naturally, they wanted government, as their form of relationship to be resistent to change. It is what we all seek from our friendships, and our marriages, and from our churches and clubs; -to hold onto the beginning till the end. We all want the honeymoon to last our entire marriage, but the resistence of forms to change is disaster for all when change is desparately needed. Does government have the ability to govern; to make hard decisions for the rich as well as for the poor? I don't think so. I don't think government can give a cripple a dime unless they give a rich man a dollar. And I don't think government can wait until the force against inertia overcomes the resistence of local, state, federal, and judicial government, bureaucracies,and the parties too. We hold the opinion that we are as a people our own worst enemy. The finger of blame swings like a weather vane, but never points up. So long as we are preoccupied with correcting our neighbor instead of seeing how systemic are our problems the longer we will be mired while history marches beyond our grasp. I know that some people at creators dotcom think I am extreme. You know that I write, and express my opinion. But what offends most is that I call a spade a spade. I see in the roads and in my neighborhoods the failures of government first hand, and I take little consolation in knowing it could be worse. Think of it. No one would run a factory or a construction project like our government runs. The government runs in place. But behind all that lack of movement is a lot of fallable people who have their bread buttered and their tickets punched. I'd like to tell them all the Irish Brigade's Civil War cry: " Fag an bealach"; Clear the Way! Thanks. Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:46 AM
|
|
|
|
Nice article Mark. Ray LaHood should have been held up throughout his career as a standard bearer, as you are pretty much saying, instead of just getting a nice farewell because he knew how to get along in the sandbox. Perhaps there is more than a subtle reminder there that, while the words of Barack Obama in Europe and the Middle East this week may have carried a simple message, that message stills stands out as one that humanity has ignored for so long that the continuing survival of the planet is becoming nothing short of a miracle. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"We must work together." These are words that belong on that kindergarten poster displaying all the lessons we should have learned (and mostly didn't) early in life. Clearly they were not sexy enough for your frustrated colleague David Brooks on The News Hour With Jim Lehrer last night, but his own whining tone was perhaps the best rebuttal of all to his complaint that Obama was not offering more complicated formulas for pundits to get lost in. ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
It is truly a sad commentary on the state of our civilization that so many people just don't get the importance of those simple words, and things seem even more desperate when media mouthpieces who should know better think they can't sink their teeth into that message. ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
It's back to the lessons of kindergarten for us, and about time. Once we have shown enough maturity to get those under our belts, maybe we'll be ready for more of the complicated stuff that Mr. Brooks hungers for. ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
And meanwhile, maybe Mr. Brooks can think about explaining how he came to the public position that going to war in Iraq was a “noble cause” back then when anyone with half a gut could just taste the fraud as the media-enabled White House kept manufacturing all that hooey about why it was time to start spilling blood. ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Comment: #2
Posted by: Masako
Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:29 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Masako; Two thing I would not have much patience for in my Magic Kingdom is media enableing of government, or church enabling of government; because I would allow freedom to neither press nor religion. If you are going to have an organization out side of Government, and I don't care if it is the Brownies, a church, or a labor union; you had better show a public benefit. This country has one union if we do not count the other fifty minis. If the government is not supporting justice for labor, the solution is not a labor union, but a government that will do its job. If a corporation, as a union for capitalists acts in its own interest, then it should be presumed that they are acting against the common interest, and they should be denied the right of privacy that all citizens need. The rights of individuals do not belong to groups, to institutions, or even to government. I am sick of government hiding behind the very rights they should be protecting for us, and do not. If people are going to be free they must be free of institutions, but also free of the need to organize to injure society, or for protection from society. Where is the average citizen's protection from wild government? It is not the church, and is not the press; and in fact we could use some protection from both. The only protection we have is their division since if they cannot do good when divided, they can also not do much harm. God forbid they should all get on the same page, because they may only unite in contempt of us. Thanks, and best wishes. Sweeney
Comment: #3
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:21 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: James A, Sweeney Yup, we badly need to cultivate the wise instinct that brought the framers of our government to embrace separation of powers. Our current president is quite happy to piss all over it as are too many educated people right of center who know better, and our media have shrunken from their immense responsibility, as keepers of the fourth estate, to defend it. I don't even think our kids are hearing much about it in their history classes these days. Very scary indeed.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Masako
Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Mr Shields,
You write: "What does LaHood, an early endorser of John McCain, think of the 2008 Democratic standard-bearer? "I think he's very smart. He's a very good guy with a good heart." Reservations? "I'm mystified," notes LaHood, an alumnus of the Illinois legislature, "how a guy in the state Senate can vote not 'yes' or 'no,' but vote 'present' 130 times."
LaHood is no plaster saint. His cooperation, while natural to him, is rooted in pragmatism: "The only way to get anything done is by being bipartisan," he says. "That's what people who live in the real world do. They work together on school boards, hospital boards and library boards."
Perhaps Mr. LaHood's mystification would evaporate if he recognizes Obama's pragmatism, not unlike his own, is responsible for the large number of present votes. Clearly, if Obama would have voted yes, some people would have been antagonized, while others would have been antagonized by a no vote. Also clearly, Obama's voting present antagonized neither camp. I would call that pragmatism in the extreme. No doubt that strategy helped get him to the position he now holds, a first term senator already a presidential candidate. I think Obama has learned LaHood's lesson of how people live in the in the real world. "The only way to get anything done is by being bipartisan," he says. "That's what people who live in the real world do. They work together on school boards, hospital boards and library boards."
Comment: #5
Posted by: Yehuda Howard Berger
Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:18 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Yehuda Howard Berger: It is an interesting phenomenon, the "present" vote without a yeah or ney. It would be even more interesting to know how Mr. Obama's record compares with the record of others in this department. ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
I don't know much about the Illinois Legislature, but if it's anything like the dysfunctional and currently budget-free legislature sported by California, that kind of vote might not be a bad thing to see more of, without requirements like a two-thirds majority, that is. ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Come to think of it, it makes you wonder what kind of election results we would see in general if voters could check a "none-of-the-above" box. One could argue that it would be just like the Nader vote in 1999 that brought us the Bush administration, with the help of some hanging chads and a shameless U.S. Supreme Court, but then again one could argue that more significant consequences would ensue.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Masako
Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:17 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Yehuda Howard Berger; Sir, Pragmatism is one thing and fense sitting is another. We need pragmatists if this less than perfect system is going to keep on groaning and not drop dead. When the whole of society has been polarized, and it is not considered a bad thing, but is considered the best path to power -with the minimum of obligation, then it is thought bad to be straddling a rail, or be non commital, or wishywashy. An officer of the people is supposed to do what he is told to do, but what does anyone do when their districts are divided, as many are, and deliberately so? When districts are divided officials do as they please because either way, they have cover. They can also do as they wish and call it character, or conviction. But what has this to do with pragmatism? The thing about hard choices, which is the condition that proves pragmatists, is that some one has to lose. But the thing about societies, and nations, is that all are in it together, and all are supposed to win together or lose together. It is not pragmatism, or patriotism, idealism, libralism, or conservatism that is dividing us into winners and losers. It is a very practical sort of quantity that has turned government against the people. It is money. We have the only government money will buy. Why should the politicians be poor while the rich get rich? The simple answer to this question makes the world go round. And this fact means that whether the candidate is Mr. Obama, or another, the hard choices will be defered until another time. It is not pragmatism that guides us, but escapism. And you know, one example from the cold war clearly illustrates my point. In case of Nuclear War, they, the government has a place ready made to hide in with all the necessities of life. A monumental failure of humanity which they will have the responsibility of averting they are already prepared to escape. What about us? What about we the people. How about some sympathy, and some sharing. I guess when you're impotent, you wants to look impotent.
Comment: #7
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:48 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Masako
There are some exceptions. Mark Shields for example. But so many of these press agents for the government support any war and every injustice. They are all too fair and balanced. We take it for granted, but what if one side of the story is pure, and unadulerated bunk? They still give them equal time. And they do worse with Israel, because we all owe them for tossing them in the ovens like so many potatoes. I didn't do it; and one crime does not justify another. And the massacre of the truth in regard to Israel is obscene.... There is overwhelming support for the fact of global warming, and you will still find the press too short of courage to face the fact that they have been used to justify no progress against a terrible problem. I give them nothing. If they are going to have the right they better be prepared to show a public, and not just a private benefit. I don't have to do anything but wait. The print press is marginalizing itself. They are not addressing our needs or concerns. The broadcast media is doing the same. They are not offering solutions nor looking for them. They serve their owners, and not their masters, which would be us. PBS is the last free dog, but they are running scared too. It is the internet which needs to be free now. If there is going to be solutions, it is all the people who have got to be talking. We cannot rely on others to address our concerns. We need to learn to talk on the same wave length, so to speak, without it all dissolving into cussing and keying of mikes. Best to ya.... Sweeney
Comment: #8
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Shields,
I have missed your column lately, but was grateful to find you here. As I recalled, your columns put an emphasis on truth, honesty, and kindness over rhetoric and philosophy. I am so grateful to find your work again and to not have a faulty memory.
In the late nineties you ran a wonderful column on the brilliance of Dick Armey and Phil Gramm in predicting the most wretched depression EVER all because President Clinton raised taxes. I was just wondering where I can find that again. I remember i cut it out of the Washington Post but I moved, and there it went.
Thanks again for the great work.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Ross
Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:19 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Ross; Sir, and isn't that amazing, that what is good for General Motors is not good for America? The more the country gives to business the less we have until we can't afford to buy enough of our own produce to keep in business. Look at the government prime the pump every time we hit one of these economic settling ponds, and they forget than when business is good, they are supposed to put some pump priming money aside. Which might mean taxes. I don't think they will ever get it, but if we ever get it, they will be out of business, and we will have to find some other clowns to run our lives. Republican control of the government means they can steal directly from the public without so much as product or advertizing. Maybe they should be retired. Maybe that is what the whole class should do. If they are no good at business, and cannot keep their businesses from going belly up or needing life support; maybe we should give them all a fat government pension for services rendered, just like the wonders of government when they get too lazy to move. We might have to find some house wives who can balance a budget without robbing a bank to do their jobs; but we would all be better off. What do you think... Sweeney
Comment: #10
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
