Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senator Dodd Thinks You're Stupid

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 10:29 AM
Original message
Senator Dodd Thinks You're Stupid
By David Swanson

In a report on a recent <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/senator-chris-dodd_b_59251.html">discussion</a> between Senator Chris Dodd, Democratic candidate for president, and a group of bloggers, we learn that:

1. Even though 54% of Americans favor impeaching Cheney, and 40% oppose, Dodd opposes impeachment because, he says, he bases his actions on what the average American thinks, and

2. Even though any useful bill Congress might pass will be vetoed, Dodd is going to continue to oppose impeachment on the grounds that Congress needs to focus on other things, not because Dodd believes this makes any sense, but because Dodd believes the average American buys this line.

And we can infer that:

3. Dodd believes that after another year and a half of every useful bill being vetoed, every useful subpoena being rejected, every useful witness suffering miraculous memory loss, every contempt citation being blocked, and every sentence being commuted, the public will still believe that Congress should avoid impeachment in order to accomplish other things.

The amount of time that Congress Members opposing impeachment claim an impeachment (or 2 or 3) would take never bears any relationship to past impeachments, but always equals the amount of time Bush and Cheney have left in office. Thus, we are now being told that an impeachment takes 18 months.

If that were true, and if it were true that Congress can only do one thing at a time, I'd favor impeachment just to stop them from doing things like what they did this past weekend, passing a law on spying that effectively eliminates the Fourth Amendment. (Dodd, to his credit, did not vote for this criminal piece of legislation.)

But, in fact, Nixon's impeachment took 3 months, and Clinton's 2 (plus 2 more for a trial in the Senate). No past impeachment has taken the 8 months this Congress has now wasted avoiding impeachment in order to fund the occupation of Iraq and legalize an illegal spying program.

Impeaching Nixon put a halt to criminal activities, put the President on the defensive, allowed a more significant correction to the minimum wage than this Congress passed at the cost of funding war, allowed the creation of the Endangered Species Act, and forced Nixon to back off on veto threats allowing Congress to end the war in Vietnam. Impeaching Nixon resulted in the biggest Democratic electoral victories in modern times. Impeaching Nixon resulted in a positive legislative direction post-Nixon, including the creation of the law that this Congress just shredded: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Putting the impeachment of Ronald Reagan for Iran-Contra off the table, for exactly the reasons Dodd regurgitates today, resulted in Democratic defeats and the birth of the Bush dynasty.

If you read back through 230 years of impeachment attempts, as you can easily do in John Nichol's genius of a book, "The Genius of Impeachment," you'll find that impeachment efforts when merited are always electorally beneficial, and failure to attempt impeachment when merited hurts the opposition party. Clinton's impeachment was unique in that the public opposed it, yet the Republicans who rammed it down our throats held onto both houses and the White House.

Why can Senator Dodd not read history? I would never accuse a Senator of being stupid, so I am bound to reach the following conclusion: Dodd is so convinced of average Americans' immense stupidity that he's willing to let Iraqis and Americans die, and willing to damage the Democratic party, all for the sake of getting himself reelected by the phenomenal dumbasses who inhabit his home state of Connecticut.

But what would happen if the people of Connecticut were to inform the good Senator that they know damn well what a veto is, that they don't want a year and a half of passing bills for show that will be vetoed, that they have other priorities than the elimination of the Fourth Amendment, that they want the Bill of Rights restored through the means given to us by the authors of the Constitution, that they want Bush and Cheney impeached and they want it now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. Well, I don't like him either. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. Unfortunately, political advisors are not elected and THEY have the attention of our Reps.
It is the political advisors and staff who are the ones who feed the reps information that is so well spun it seems like cotton-candy.

They are the intermediaries whose message blocks ours and it is they who must be exorcised from the process.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. If I were an advisor, the first piece of advice I'd give...
is to fire all the advisors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. K&R...Dodd/HAVA Act....Dodd/Lieberman/ 94 Deregulation of SEC...
Dodd has a few good things going for him...but his actions speak loudly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zensea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
5. you seem to think I am stupid also n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedupinBushcountry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
6. How have
Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson and Biden answered the question on impeachment ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. just as badly
as dodd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. the "impeachment" of nixon is not a valid arguement
in regards to the bush presidency. whether we like it or not there is not enough democrats and republicans in the house and senate to impeach and convict bush.

On Saturday, July 27, the House Judiciary Committee approved its first article of impeachment charging President Nixon with obstruction of justice. -->Six of the Committee's 17 Republicans joined all 21 Democrats in voting for the article.<--- The following Monday the Committee approved its second article charging Nixon with abuse of power. The next day, the third and final article, contempt of Congress, was approved.

On August 5, 1974, the long sought after audio tapes provided the "smoking gun" which revealed President Nixon had been deeply involved in the coverup and had ordered Haldeman to halt the FBI investigation just six days after the Watergate break-in. (Real Audio :06 "...call the FBI and say that we wish, for the country, don't go any further into this case, period..." -- Nixon to Haldeman, June 23, 1972.)


--->That revelation resulted in a complete collapse of support for Nixon in Congress.<--- On Friday, August 9, Nixon resigned the presidency and avoided the likely prospect of ---->losing the impeachment vote in the full House and a subsequent trial in the Senate.<---- He thus became the only U.S. President ever to resign. Vice President Gerald R. Ford succeeded him and a month later granted Nixon a full pardon for any crimes he might have committed while President.

do the democrats in the house and senate have these numbers? no...will enough republicans join the democrats? no
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NastyDiaper Donating Member (806 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
8. I like Dodd.
Edited on Mon Aug-06-07 12:38 PM by NastyDiaper
Among candidate senators, Dodd spoke out the strongest against the war funding.

this also helps unless it's a gimmick: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/11/16/22945/241

I can understand that impeachment needs to be on the table, and the politics of impeachment are gross.

But I don't think Dodd is stupid nor do I think that he thinks we are. In fact, I consider him right up there w/ Obama in the cerebral dept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
17.  I do too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
9. Ah Jeez
Is this about what he perceives public opinion to be or upholding our constitution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
10. Inflamatory and unfair!
Dodd is agood guy. You may not think that he is perfect (nobody is), you may not want him to be the nominee (he probably won't), you may not agree with some/many of his positions. But posts like this are infantile and do not serve ANY purpose. I am not even sure why I am replying... me bad. How many Senators have openly admitted that they are FOR impeachment? Yeah, I know... they are all bastards and traitors and we should vote them all out of office. And replace them with what exactly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. One
Her name is Barbara Boxer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NastyDiaper Donating Member (806 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I love Boxer.
I blame nobody for holding a litmus test on war and rights issues to any senator. But I find that the test can expand in criticism, I felt that was the case here so I posted.

Whenever I think of how much it means to have Dem's controlling the Senate I think of how Inhoffe was replaced by Boxer :loveya: .

Peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Great for her
I mean it. Do ALL the others deserve the gallows, figuratively speaking of course? I do not think so. My point was simply that the OP was undeservedly and unfairly vicious to Dodd who as I said is one of the good guys. In my book at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. the world does not have to consist
of "good guys" and "bad guys." we're not living in a cartoon. our government consists of policies that improve and save people's lives, and policies that endanger, kill, and impoverish. Here's a major policy decision that Dodd has got wrong. He's got it exactly as wrong whether you call him a "good guy" or a "bad guy". His excuse is as ludicrous and insluting whether you stick a white hat or a black hat on him. I'm really indifferent as to which fictional cartoonland bunch you lump him in. The point is that he's got it wrong and he's defending himself by admitting that he knows he has it wrong but arguing that he is obliged to because Americans are morons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. I 100% agree with your 1st sentence
and obviously "good guy" is an oversimplification. Nobody is pure black or pure white (remember Boxer campaigning for Lieberman? Dodd did not) in real life. I simply thought that your post was not simply disagreeing with Dodd's position, which I would have no problem with, but was unnecessarily insulting. That's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
15. "Why can Senator Dodd not read history?"
Because what you offer isn't history but a biased reading on what happened based on whether you feel impeachment was merited or not. Everything is carefully couched to support your opinion. Its not history.

"Clinton's impeachment was unique in that the public opposed it, yet the Republicans who rammed it down our throats held onto both houses and the White House."

Conveniently leaving out that the GOP lost 5 house seats and saw no gains in the Senate which is very rare in the 2nd term of an opposing party's President. They also lost a major leader in Newt. Clinton ended his Presidency with approvals in the high 60's. Clinton's impeachment wasn't what dissuaded Gore from using him but fear of the image of Clinton as a womanizer running against Bush playing the "clean" outsider.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. the public opposed that impeachment
and favors impeaching cheney right now.

Gore was not afraid of Clinton-the-womanizer until the impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Gore wasn't running for office in 1998.
But I guess that is what passes for logic for impeachment advocates who think Republican Senators hearts will grow two sizes on impeachment vote day and vote the right way.

"the public opposed that impeachment"

Agreed. Which is why it was even stranger for you to offer that up as an electoral success.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. No
the public does NOT support impeaching Bush right now. The very highest number I've seen is 45%. Another poll has it at 36%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-07-07 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #22
28. here are the polls
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
19. Let's face it, the whole goddamned lot of them think we're stupid.
The whole Party votes like we're imbaciles.

I have never been this angry with politics in this Party as I am now.

TC

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-07-07 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #19
29. Most of us are stupid. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
23. Dodd is a great guy
I don't see any quote in your OP where Dodd called Americans stupid or anything like that. Your conclusions are out of orbit. Your inferences are drawn to support your point of view, not from anything Dodd said. He has a different view of how the voters would see impeachment. That's all.

Why not bash a Republican sometime? Some of them are against impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
24. If impeachment was going to be on basis of the warrantless eavesdropping...
the issue has gone away with the passing of this new bill that broadens the warrantless tapping powers of the fed. govt.

Sure, it won't be retroactive, I guess. I don't think that matters, though. It's kinda hard to get a conviction on some "crime" that was illegal a year ago but is now legal. And yeah, the new bill doesn't cover ALL the kinds of warrantless tapping, but still, it muddies the waters and makes an impeachment on those grounds practically impossible, IMO.

But if there's some other basis for impeachment, maybe. I don't know of one, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moloch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
25. Dodd is irrelevant.
He's polling lower than Kucinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
26. LOL! A Dodd hit-piece on DU!
GDP gets funnier every day. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
farmboxer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-07-07 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
27. Most politicians think the voters are stupid.
The working person is his/her's own worst enemy. It's not about the voters, it's about the money. America is a plutocracy, nothing else.

I think Franken would try to help, Kucinich, Gravel, Ron Paul, Edwards, maybe, but not sure. Hillary is starting to make me sick and Obama is way too prefabricated. Politicians change after they take office, that is most of them. A few good ones left, but.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-07-07 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Lemme "bash" Franken quick
before he gets into office and gets declared an untouchable Democrat.

He's a spineless wimp without a good position on Iraq, impeachment, health care, ...

Look, Republicans are almost universally worthless. Can that not go without saying? Doesn't suggesting they are installing fascism count as criticism of them? What about obsessively trying to impeach them? Does that pass for letting them off the hook?

Democrats have to lead if anyone will. Dodd ain't doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-07-07 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
31. Dodd Favors Impeaching Gonzo
Here's another report on Senator Chris Dodd's meeting with bloggers in Chicago. Again, we learn that Dodd opposes impeaching Cheney or Bush. Again, the reasoning is that the public supposedly is opposed to it (even though the polls say otherwise and impeachment of Cheney is backed by 54% of Americans with 40% against). But, there is some good news in this new report: Dodd favors impeaching Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedz313 Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-07-07 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
32. .
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC