“To make a statement that you’re going to arm one country with nuclear weapons to attack China I think shows a fairly high level of not doing your homework, and … immaturity and not using good political sense.”
— Ray LaHood, as quoted on the Peoria Journal Star’s website, 12/13/2007, about State Representative and congressional candidate Aaron Schock.
To those railroad enthusiasts, bear in mind that the quote about Aaron’s flub-a-dub comes from the same guy who stated that Central Illinois would never need nor use passenger rail service, whether along the Kellar Branch or not.
Another view of this brilliant mind that we will be so sorely missing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmUlqkysKwc
And, still more of the brilliance we shall be missing so badly come January of 2009.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FqGcGYNJrI&feature=related
Prego — I don’t agree with everything Ray LaHood says. I disagree with him on his views regarding earmarks and passenger train service to Peoria. But that first link you had where he’s speaking to the House of Representatives, I don’t find objectionable. However you feel about the reasons we got into Iraq and all that, the fact is, we’re there now, and leaving would make matters worse. So I have no problem with his speech.
C.J., my putting his stuff out there is simply to show he has not been the sterling, diamond wonderful representative that he has led people to believe he has been. He is human… he is fallible, and that’s understandable. My reason for directing those to his speeches is to show, truthfully, he is one of the last people who should be lambasting Schock and Morris the way that he did.
This has been part of Ray’s problems. He is quite full of himself, and thinks he does virtually no wrong. Yet he is extremely judgmental on other folks. I’ll be glad to see him gone. I don’t back any of the Republicans… but, I find his “tearing into” of Schock and Morris to be totally classless… not what one would expect from a “senior legislator”… and it is symbolic of what sort of man he is.
Prego — Agreed. He’s definitely full of himself. Did you listen to the interview with him on WCBU when he announced he wasn’t seeking reelection? He puffed his chest out so much, I was afraid one of his vest buttons was going to pop off and hit Jonathan Ahl in the eye.
It wasn’t very statesmanlike to publicly dress down Schock, but I still thought the quote was funny. Especially the line “a fairly high level of not doing your homework.” I don’t know why, but that line makes me laugh every time I read it.
Schock was not advocating an attack on China. Either LaHood didn’t read Shock’s statement (relying instead on incompetent/biased staffers), or he is deliberately misrepresenting what Schock said. Anyone with a brain knows that China is an aggressor nation and any arms Taiwan has are purely defensive. LaHood’s performance of late is a good advertisement for term limits.
Did someone say Schock wanted to attack China? I don’t remember that. I thought Schock a/k/a Aaron Strangelove came up with the brght idea (after much study and reflection!) to sell nuclear weapons to Taiwan. Read his speech here:
http://www.sjr.com/extras/pdfs/110507schockcongressannouncement.pdfd. I think its at page 13 or 14. In fact, read the whole thing if you want a good chuckle. This kid is in way over his head.
http://www.sj-r.com/extras/pdfs/110507schockcongressannouncement.pdf
Cat–this is the correct link to Doogie’s speech.
The Schock speech says “for their defense”; the LaHood quote above claims Schock wants to “arm one country with nuclear weapons to attack China”. Now, regardless of what you think of Schock, or his now-withdrawn proposal, is this a fair representation of what he said? In my opinion it is not.
Mouse and others:
Listen…whether to attack or not, is irrelevant. Taiwan (The Free non-communist Chinese) has been considered a rouge state since the 1949 revolution in the eyes of the People’s Republic of China. Selling them NUCLEAR arms, even if for defense, would be viewed as an aggressive act by the USA towards China…a country may I add and whether we like it or not, has huge markets being opened more and more to US business ever day.
So I quote Aaron:
“If China continues to be irresponsible about nuclear proliferation in Iran, we should tell them that if they do not care about proliferation — and since they are enablers of it in Iran — that if they don’t change their position, we will sell Pershing nuclear missiles to Taiwan for their defense.”
“Non-proliferation will either be enforced universally or not at all — it is their choice,” Schock continued. “The Chinese will come around, I have no doubt.” **Sounds aggressive to me**
I remember reading about another situation where a Russian leader named Khrushchev placed Medium-ranged nuclear ballistic missiles in Cuba for their “defense” and yet simple instigated by the fact the US had Jupiter nukes in Turkey pointed at the USSR. That almost ended in WWIII. I know the October Crisis of 1963 is different but how could Aaron or others not learn that lesson from history? Even if they are for Taiwan’s defense, the Chinese are not stupid and will understand there are underlying causes like Iran. And the Chinese won’t have their rouge country off the coast, where some hardliners in China still want to occupy and “unify” it with the People’s Republic, become a nuclear power just like we wouldn’t let Castro have his in 1963. Comments?
China has every intention of attacking Taiwan. If they bowl over them, there will be more. They intend world domination, and anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world.
I agree…however, provoking them in this way (nukes in Taiwan) is unwise while our military is spread so sparsely throughout the world and is still concentrated in Iraq. Why start a quarel when we aren’t prepared too?
JB
Jazzbass,
Slight correction…the “October Crisis” occurred in 1962, not 1963.
All,
Something overlooked is Shock’s suggestion that we sell Taiwan PERSHING nuclear missiles. He was referring to a medium range ballistic missile that was retired after 30 years of service in 1991 (long before Shock was born :), and except for a museum piece or two, all have been scrapped.
China waits to move until our next Jimmy Carter (Mike Huckabee or Barack Obama) takes office. But meanwhile, the way to keep China from ceasing control of Taiwan by force is to remind them that such an act will immediately place them in a state of war with the United States. This, and China’s inability to mount a large-scale amphibious invasion of the island, has kept Taiwan free since 1949.
David is correct, except that China has been working diligently on their ampbibious capability (keep buying those Chinese products, their military needs the money).
And China really doesn’t fear a war with the U.S. over Taiwan. They know the U.S. will not go to war over Taiwan. They fear a Russo-American alliance, and a rearmed Japan. That’s about all.
Considering Vladimir Putin’s recent statements and veiled threats to target ABM sites planned for Eastern Europe, China need not worry about a Russo-American alliance.
Yes, China is working on improving their naval capability, including a fleet of amphibious landing craft. Still, they are not positive we won’t defend Taiwan. We’ve involved ourselves in the Taiwan Strait Crises in 1954-1955 (ended after U. S. nuclear threat), 1958 and 1995-1996.
As long as they’re unsure, they won’t do it. But once Jimmy Carter II enters the White House and reveals a spine softer than one I could carve out of a banana, Taiwan can expect an invasion.
For sure, China won’t invade Taiwan until after the 2008 Olympics and the U. S. presidential election. 2009 and beyond, however, is anybody’s guess.
Don’t forget that China now has the capability of shooting communication satellites out of the sky.
For the millionth time, the strategy discussed in the speech was not to sell missles to anyone. It was to bring China to the realization that arming Iran is a threat to the U.S. as much as it would be for us to arm Tawain against them. LaHood should have realized this and in making the comment to the Springfield paper who has been in attack mode in an election outside of its boundaries is very interesting, but not surprising. Looking at the relationships among one camp the council and the Congressman, I wonder what the ties are to this paper from this camp. Whisper campaigns have been ineffective in the current and past campaigns as has a previous attack outright in the last state election on the Peoria turf against Aaron. I suspect this is an attack strategy which will back fire soundly if not in this election for this seat, for other offices in the community, current and future. This is my personal opinion. Whether you like him or not, he will be the only candidate who will bring what we need to this area across the constituency. One only needs to look at past and present council votes to get a representative sample of where the interest lies elsewhere, much of which has and is being complained about on this very blogsite. If that makes no sense, start connecting dots and do some research.
PDW:
Schock’s speech:
Yes, the strategy was to sell missiles. Click on the link to read the speech.
PDW:
Wikipedia:
Click on the Wikipedia link for a map. And it’s not an “attack.” It’s called “journalism.”
PDW:
Or he’ll help pass bills like SB2477 that bypass most of his constituency altogether. And while we can look at past city council votes to evaluate Morris, there are no votes by Mr. McConoughey because he’s never been on the council.
PDW:
Back atcha.
CJ…
W]e should tell them [China] that if they do not care about proliferation —
you keep ignoring the introductory clause, but then that wouldn’t serve your purpose.
If you don’t think McConoughey doesn’t have a vote(s) on the council then you haven’t been paying attention for a while.
Okay, here’s the whole darn paragraph, if that makes you feel better:
And your point is? He’s still advocating selling missiles to Taiwan, introductory clause or no introductory clause. Unless there’s some other introductory clause that I don’t know about, like, “Hey, wouldn’t it be goofy if I said something like this.” That introductory clause would indeed change the meaning of the statement.
Look, you like Schock, and that’s fine. Say he made a mistake and showed maturity by owning up to it or something like that. But don’t try to make us believe that he didn’t say what he most assuredly did say. Every candidate has his flaws; just acknowledge it and tell us why we should, in your opinion, support him anyway.
Ah CJ, would that mean that Aaron would admit two mistakes one for the missiles and one for SB2477?
David has a point about the next spineless Jimmy Carter type in the White House. Remember, Carter gave away the Panama Canal, now run by – China. Many Americans will die someday to retake Teddy Roosevelt’s Canal. As for David’s military technology point, I strongly suspect that very few sitting Congressmen/women have any idea of the true state of the U.S. Military or of current military technology. They think we spend billions and ipso facto have the mostest and bestest. Fact is, the British have the best tanks; the Germans have the quietest submarines (although this is a close call with the Russians); and U.S. B-52 Bombers are lumbering relics that are now older than the PARENTS of some of their pilots, and the size of our Navy continues to decline. The USS Cole would not have had to be refueled in a dangerous middle-eastern port if our fleet oilers hadn’t been taken out of service. I could go on, but you get the drift. My biggest problem with George W was that after 9-11 he had the chance to repair some of the 10+ years of neglect of our military and he blew it.
I have made point after point, but you’re not interested in hearing them. The strategy was to tell them that we would sell missles, not that we would actually sell missles. It’s a chess play. I don’t need to read the speech, I heard the speech. In looking at the perspective, with some negotiations a soft voice and hand is warranted, with others, straight power is needed–generally reserved for sociopaths.
You advocate for new urbanism. Do you believe that either of the other two candidates will work to obtain necessary funding to help achieve these goals? If so, how? What evidence do have?I do not believe that this will be a focus. I believe that funding will focus primarily on more urban sprawl aka economic development in a rather narrowed defination. I know that Aaron has been in older neighborhoods personally helping those people who do not obtain help from other sources. I don’t expect you get that because you are in a highly favored area of town. Many ignored the city budget process but it was in that budget process that many campaign promises were broken or bypassed? If the support for change is not given by voting with the local pocket book, some of us are going to have to look for other resources. I want someone that will be amenable to helping locate them. Aaron has done this on a state level and would continue on a federal level. I also want that person to be accessible.
You reported that your source(s) said that that council did not support 2477 and that your source(s) wished to remain anonymous. I would assume that you polled all 11 members of the council to be certain no one expressed any favor, of that legislation? I don’t know who you spoke to, but can make an educated guess.
I would also submit that if our school board were trustworthy that this bill would not have had the negative reaction from you and some of our mutual friends in that it would have been seen as a funding resource that other communities have benefitted from. We are on the same side of the bill, but not for the same reasons. I understand your reasons and respect those, but I seldom get the luxury of being a one issue guy. Am involved in too many groups and sometimes they are across purposes. It has given me a little more respect for having to find a way to best represent opposing and conflictual sides. Politics is not a sport for the armchair quarterback. Simply reading a paper, watching the news or even speaking with one official is not necessarily sufficient to gain enough information. We generally do not have the same information that our leaders have available.
I have heard no reasons to vote for anyone else. The arguments given here and one other site are simply to vote for someone other than Aaron, but without any substance, everything from hair to clothes to age to other nonsense. What are all these jobs being created as reported by other candidates? Getting federal dollars to expand Pioneer Parkway for more big box stores does not create wages people can live on. What have they done specifically in our community to make it better for regular folks. Will someone other than wealthy people truly benefit from tax cuts on reported tax plans. Don’t know about you, but my taxes don’t go down. What about the national debt? How does this get paid off with more tax breaks for wealthy individuals. Remember, we have a very minimal number of Middle income class in the city. So who benefits? These are questions that haven’t been answered here.
Why vote for Aaron?, I believe that he will advocate strongly for our community’s needs. Again, I have seen him work with people who have not supported him, because he is their representative. I have found him to be accessible. I don’t believe that would happen with the other two. Most importantly that whatever is promised is contingent upon being able to convice 50% plus one of both the house and the senate and to convice the president to sign the legislation. None of the other candidates have had experience with that process. and no I don’t believe that council experience is quite the same, but will admit is some type of experience.
Ooooooh, I get it now! Tricky! It’s a good thing you’re not on China’s side or they might have found out that Schock was only bluffing and that would have ruined his whole “strategy.”
But wait a minute…. If that’s the case, then when Schock said at the beginning of his speech, “I am here today to announce that I am running for Congress,” did that mean he’s really running for Congress, or was the strategy just to announce that he’s running for Congress, but not actually run?
I don’t think any of the three of them will. Why? Because (a) I don’t think any of them are advocates of New Urbanism, (b) New Urbanism is by and large affected at the local (and, to some extent, state) level, not the federal level.
Didn’t have to. Schock said, “This is a piece of legislation that is not only supported by our school board, but also our entire city council.” See? He said “entire.” That means if I find just one council member who didn’t support it, that means Schock lied to the legislature. I can assure you that there was more than one who didn’t support it. I know, I know, I shouldn’t be shocked by lying politicians (is there another kind?). And insisting on trustworthiness would make one a dreamy-eyed idealist and, worse, a single-issue voter.
If our school board were trustworthy, they’d be able to get a referendum passed and wouldn’t need this voter-circumvention legislation.
As for the rest of your post, I’m too tired to comment now. Perhaps later.
pdw and CJ:
Yes, that is true. I did talk with several council members of whom not one expressed their support of SB2477. When I specifically asked Aaron he stated that it was a topic at the Legislative Breakfasts. So, I contacted the Mayor’s office and received the 2005 and 2006 agendas and it was not on either agenda. And Aaron’s office is great about getting source documentation for constituents, not this time, fallow ground.
Granted we all make mistakes, even politicians, all part of being human. What I object to is that Aaron’s statement on the House floor, was not supportable with any type of written documentation. I asked Mary Haynes, our city clerk, and there was no resolution on this issue from the city council. And there was verbal disclaimers from city council members unless you are suggesting that they were not telling the truth?
I talked at Aaron on several occassions about this issue and the proposed end run on the D150 taxpayers and he still supported the passage of SB2477.
And, CJ, you are correct …
“If our school board were trustworthy, they’d be able to get a referendum passed and wouldn’t need this voter-circumvention legislation.”
And now the moneys are being spent on projects that were not initially in the D150 document that was supposed to be the roadmap and priority list, the Master Facility Plan.
The more it changes, the more it remains the same.
Schock is too slick for his own good. First, he was so proud of his bright idea to sell nukes to Taiwan. Now, it was taken out of context and was never a serious proposal:
http://www.whig.com/353969786804480.php
Beware, he will say and do anything to get elected. There is a pattern here.
It is laughable for LaHood to lecture anyone on “immature” comments.
Remember the House Page scandal? LaHood didn’t say hey we need to have Congressmen keep their hands off the Pages, he wanted to shut down the program, effectively blaming and penalizing the Pages.
Amtrak to a city he represents-Peoria-No, take a bus to Bloomington.
King LaHood admitted he filed for an investigation of a Democratic House Intelligence Committee aide to politically get back at Democrats and said “I can play politics too.” PLAYIN POLITICS ON THE FREAKIN INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE!
Bush has a meeting in the residence of the White House with Congressmen to allow them to express their direct concerns to the President. Anyone with class kept their mouth shut about a clearly private meeting. But big mouth LaHoo ran to the press and blabbed, all to inflate his own importance. Good thing it was after Bush came to Peoria because he never would have anything to do with such a classless buffoon after being betrayed like that.
No wonder LaHood’s “good friend” Speaker Hastert passed over big mouth LaHoo when LaHood had the seniority for the Chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. Hastert knew LaHood couldn’t be counted to keep his mouth from uttering every idiotic thought that popped in his head.
And then remember when he was still publicly considering becoming Bradley University President AFTER the Bradley Committee had already settled on the final nine contenders?
Anyone who has followed his notorious comments knows that I could go on and on and on and on.
Morris doesn’t support amnesty for illegal aliens. LaHood did. So for Morris having the gall to disagree with King LaHood, Morris was called “silly.”
Nobody, not Morris, not Schock or anyone else needs lectures from such a diarhea mouth.
And don’t forget when Uncle Ray said that it was important that his campaign chest remain deep in moolah, to keep people from running against him in an election.
Democracy works, so long as it only works for Ray.