FeedLaHood, once again, lies to WMBD listeners
November 28, 2005 in Statehouse & Capitol Tags: Darin LaHood, hastert, LaHood, US Attorney
U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood spoke to Dave Dahl about his son Darin’s bid to become the new U.S. attorney for Central Illinois“
Says Congressman/Dad La Hood: “I’m not really going to be involved in that process, for obvious reasons, but I think his background and his eight years of experience in prosecuting cases obviously means he’s qualified.”
Which is bull. The Journal Star already has him on record making phone calls to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert on his son’s behalf:
We contacted LaHood on Friday to find out why he hadn’t signed on to Winkel with the rest of his colleagues, assuming that he must have had a local candidate in mind. LaHood hedged at first when asked if he knew if someone else, someone from Peoria, was also being considered. After a thoughtful pause, LaHood confirmed that his son would like the job, and he will therefore be staying out of the interview process, though he did inform Hastert.
“I talked to the Speaker about it,” LaHood said. “I told him my son, I believe, is qualified for this job.”
If any Peoria media organization would ever have the balls to run one single article detailing every signle time the words coming out of LaHood’s mough have been proven to be untrue, the guy would be run out of Congress on a rail.
November 28th, 2005 at 4:27 pm
The column did not say phone call it said talked to him — as there are other ways of communication other than phone calls, email, verbal face to face, letter etc. When ever we have mis-interpreted comments on a blog the meaning will always be altered, mostly for the negative.
November 28th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
He said he is not going to be involved in the process, other than saying he believes his son is qualified, which seems to be the case. Is he supposed to pretend he doesn’t know his son is interested? Then you would call him a liar as well.
What you are doing is not ” searching for truth”, as much as it is trying to fan a flame that isn’t there. Anyway, who, including yourself, could be expected to held to a standard as high as “detailing every single time” something is said? Shall we review your words?
Smacks of conservatives that peel the skin back of dems for questionable comments, but refuse to hold their own to the same level of accountability.
November 29th, 2005 at 8:49 am
The problem within this situation is simple. Nepotism. No matter how “removed” Mr. LaHood feels he will be from the decision making process, just by being who he is and the position he has, his INFLUENCE will be major.
Don’t tell me that Darin is the best person for the job, because we know that isn’t possible. Don’t tell me that this is the only job in the country that Darin would take, because we already know that he is mobile. The connection is far too close… what is much closer than a Father-Son connection? The fact that Mr. LaHood is willing to let this situation come to fruition is a sad sign of his political morals.
It doesn’t matter if Darin is qualified for the job. He is qualified for thousands of other open attorney and law jobs across the country, including the private position he already has taken in Peoria. This has to do with doing the right thing… even if it’s only a perception of what the right thing is.
Mr. LaHood should tell his son, “Darin, I know you’re qualified for this position, but you’d be putting me in a bad light by pursuing it, so please withdraw your name.”
THEN, we would know that Mr. LaHood’s political morals are stronger than many already think.
April 22nd, 2006 at 11:20 am
PREGO MAN-
What credentials do you hold that gives you such insight into the situation? I wonder if you’ve actually seen a list of the other candidates and done the research necessary to make the statement “Don’t tell me that Darin is the best person for the job, because we know that isn’t possible”. There is no law saying that the son of a congressman cannot hold position of US Attorney in the same state. And if your argument is morally based then you ought to examine your own and decide how ethical it is to make a slanderous statement such as the one above when you have no fact to base it on. I can tell you that Mr. LaHood had absolutely no participation in the formal interview process and that is fact. It could be true that LaHood also thinks that his son truly is the best candidate and in that light it would be just as much a failing if he not express that view.