Politico: Blumenauer, Oberstar on short-list for Transportation Secretary

Either way, we get a “bike guy” at the helm of the USDOT and that is a game changer for bikes.

I don’t want to be superstitious, but this feels a little like picking a prom dress before you have a date. Everyone needs to knock on wood just for reading this article. Quick.

I knocked on wood (good call, Eileen). I agree that Blumenauer would make a GREAT transportation secretary. That said, if we can still have a “bike guy” or “transit guy” in the post other than Blumenauer, I’d rater Oregon not lose him for the long run. At best he’s transportation secretary for 8 years. At best. He could be in the House of Reps for 20 more years.

P.S. My ballot is in!

Will, that was exactly my thought. Especially when you consider how much of Novick’s primary vote came from Multnomah county anyway.

Blumenauer would be great on rail issues, complete streets, bicycling infrastructure. We’re going to need someone like him to ensure that the infrastructure improvements that Brooks, the Chamber of Commerce, T4A, and others have been pushing are done correctly (fixing highway infrastructure rather than expanding it, building new transit & bike infrastructure).

Obama McCain there both the same, CFR globalists, corporate puppets, they offer no change.

The difference between Bush and Obama: Obama is half black, more Communist, can speak in complete sentences.

Jim Oberstar (D-MN) is currently chair of the House committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Blumenauer quit that committee in 2007. I’d say that Oberstar, having put in years on that committee is perhaps the most knowledgeable chap in Congress on transportation. As for infrastructure, that major bridge collapse was in Minneapolis. Oberstar is a heavyweight in both T&I and should get the nod.
He also takes his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution seriously. Blumenauer is woefully deficient in all 3 areas, and in cycling, Oberstar even outranks him.

I wouldn’t trust Earl with any serous decisions or responsibilities. The reason is the spin-around that he delivers in dealing with serious issues.

He said he was against the war in Iraq (yet he continued to fund it) (?)
Earl says “He did all he could to stop Bush.” (yet he didn’t even want them to be investigated, nor even have a hearing into the crimes he allowed on his watch)(?)

So Earl’s words are hallow to me!
My cousin who committed suicide in Baghdad was crying out for help. The congress was our hope for that help. We also wanted accountability about why this war was continuing … what do we get…? from Earl …”we got a circus”

Well howdy do ! Yippee a bow tie riding bike enthusiast circus. What about my cousin? What about the liars and crooks Bush and company? WMD’s… That all must mean nothing when its not discussed here, or in Earls office… (?)

Ride on …who cares right!?

Just my opinion, but I don’t trust him!
Boy I sure hope he makes some cool bike paths!!

I forgot why my cousin even shot himself for by now….

Blumenauer’s deceit is part of a more general DP attempt to support Republican hegemoney while maintaining “anti-war” credibility.

Earl and most of Pelosico are security risks for America because of their their open-ended support for U.S.-Israel crimes, which inflames the Arab/Muslim world, and which therefore makes future attacks on us far more likely. Their enthusiasm for neoliberal economics, including trade deals that are opposed by most liberal activists, further endanger our country as well as the rest of the world.

Blumenauer has failed to support Kucinich in his attempt to convince Pelosi to prevent “emergency” spending bills from coming out of committee. He has further failed to call for his buddy Wyden and the rest of the DP senators to filibuster those spending bills. And, possibly most egregious of all, he has actively blocked the third way to effectively end the occupations: impeachment of the war criminals who rule our country. Insread, he is an apologist for those who commit crimes against humanity.

There’s more.

Earl supported the Israeli destruction in Lebanon not only in his votes of support for Israeli crimes, but in his failure to support a cease-fire after a vicious attack that Seymour Hersh and others reported had been in the planning for more than a year prior (I’ve got references for this). PIPA has found that “No country favors taking Israel’s side, including the United States, where 71 percent favor taking neither side.”

Earl has never apologized for his vote in favor of H.J. Res. 64, “Authorization for Use of Military Force”, which gave Bush authority to single-handedly conduct war against unspecified nations, organizations, or persons for an unspecified duration in ’01. He claims that he voted only for an attack on Afghanistan – bad enough, since the Afghan people were not responsible for any attack on us – but Barbara Lee spoke for me when she clearly announced that H.J. Res. 64 was a prescription for cencentrated dictatorial power. So Earl’s “opposition” to the authorization in ’03 was too late to prevent Bush from doing what he already was authorized to do by Earl.

Earl refused to support the McGovern Amendment, part of the Declaration of Peace, which would have cut off Iraq funding. (He issued the equivalent of a Bush “signing statement”, claiming to be for peace, but only if no effective way of enforcing it were enacted.)

He weaseled out of supporting progressive legislation on the occupation last year (H.R. 508, which required the withdrawal from Iraq of “all U.S. Armed Forces and contractor security forces within six months”), instead presenting his own H.R. 663 (“New Direction for Iraq Act”), a masterfully constructed bit of fluff.

In a debate I had online with a Blumenauer operative, “Bobby” claimed, “‘The only times [Blumenauer] supported any funding was for fully funded withdrawls, that is, when there were hard and fast end dates attached.'” I answered, “There were no “hard and fast end dates attached.” Go back and read the wording of the non-binding resolutions and weasel-worded supplementals that Earl supported, e.g.:

Earl voted YES on 3/23/07 on Vote 186: H R 1591:Prohibited the use of funds to deploy any troops to Iraq unless the military had “certified” to congressional appropriators in advance that the military unit is fully mission-capable. The measure authorized the president to waive the prohibition and deployment limits on a unit-by-unit basis for reasons of national security.

Earl voted YES on 4/25/07 on Vote 265: H R 1591: $124.2 billion. Bush had to “certify” that the Iraqi government was meeting certain diplomatic and security benchmarks. If that certification were made, deployment would begin no later than Oct. 1, 2007, with a goal of completing the redeployment by within 180 days. Some U.S. forces could remain in Iraq for special counterterrorism efforts along with protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops. In other words, all “benchmarks” approved by Earl gave Bush the choice to say whether or not they’ve been met, and then to say that “special” troops could remain.

Earl voted YES on 11/14/07 on Vote 1108: H R 4156: Set a goal for Bush to begin “redeploying” (another weasel word) U.S. troops.” When did Earl ever vote for significant cuts in our obscenely bloated Pentagon budget? (Or any cuts at all?) Earl is not a member of the Progressive Caucus, so even he doesn’t believe that he is a progressive.

Vote for Meo.

You guys are way too harsh on blumenauer. I don’t think it is affair to assume his motivations in voting for the funding while opposing the war. Soldiers were being sent over there, but not being provided adequate supplies. It’s a tough spot. In my view, Earl is one of the few politicians who seems to make his own decisions and I honestly think he tries to do what’s right. In fact, if anything, his idealism might make him less effective. I don’t know him personally so it could be my own wishful thinking and that I have an affinity for bowties.

Eileen, you stated he makes his own decisions. Not true. Earl is a lap dog of Nancy and lobbyists and will only reflect on decisions that are easy or popular. When it comes to tough issues he is vague or silent and will not justify his inaction nor dialog with protesters. Examples: Failure to support a cease fire and peace in Lebanon 2006, Impeachment protesters, Free trade in Peru. He is hired to be a security guard of checks and balances. He refused to use the one tool that would work to stop the illegal war and war profiteering. Impeachment may have saved 1/2 million lives in the Middle East, and even if impeachment failed, it is his duty to try and use the tool. It is sick that he’s promoted for being so inactive. He talks so tough about Bush but took no worthwhile action.

I quote:
“has refused to comment publicly on how he will vote”
http://pcasc.net/Blumenauer-SitIn/