Showing posts with label Chris Dodd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chris Dodd. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

The Power Of No

[Crossposted from Docudharma]

Thank you Chris Dodd.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

This is Leadership, this IS how it works.

Until one person says no, evil cannot be stopped. Until one respected figure, one LEADER, finds the courage to step forward and OPPOSE, weaker people, not finding the courage within themselves, have nowhere to turn and no one to follow.

The sad, no....the horrifying part, is that it is not one of the leading candidates, the 'mainstream' candidates, the 'electable' candidates who stood up for our rights and for the Rule of Law. Now after being led by Dodd, they are (seemingly a bit reluctantly) falling in line. Because the power of no cannot be denied.

Is our politicians learning?

Let us hope to god they are, for as we all know, the stakes are incredibly high.
"When you give up basic Constitutional rights, you give terrorists a far greater victory in ways." Dodd said.
One man stood up and said no!

And...was rewarded by The People. Contributions totalling over $200,000 in just 36 hours, as well as with adulation in the blogosphere and beyond.

For saying what amounts to one

What we have been saying on the blogs for quite a while has now penetrated the MSM's bubble. Watch this Chris Mattews interview. The Democratic Party's "strategy" of cowering before Bush is being exposed already, more than a full year before the election. Cowards do NOT win elections. Right now, as Dodd has proven, standing up to Bush and saying no is leading. It is newsworthy. It is popular. It is a winning strategy. And it is what it will take to begin to reverse the damage.

One would think it would be obvious Saying no to the most unpopular President ever.....makes you popular.

Whoever says no to George Bush INSTANTLY gains support.

This is not politics as usual....because people are DYING because of Bush, this is not 'an issue,' It is literally a life and death struggle. Whoever says no to George Bush is an instant hero to the 75% of the country who disapprove of The Worst President ever. It seems like a no-brainer, but it took one man to do it, to stop the pathetic, pervasive capitulation that has swept the Democrats like a virus.

Let's hope it is contagious.

Let's hope it is a trend.

Let's hope that it leads to a rash of saying no.

Because once the first no appears and is successful, who knows where no can lead.

Chris Dodd is the first to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. Learn his lesson Democrats....if you want to be elected....Just say no.

But more importantly, if you want to take America back and restore Justice and the Rule of Law, the whole process starts with just one tiny word....


[Read all posts about Chris Dodd]

There's more: "The Power Of No" >>

Friday, October 19, 2007

Sen. Dodd Blocks FISA Bill, Skewers The Lies, Sets Example For Defunding & Ending Iraq Occupation

Let's hear a big round of applause for Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT).

President Dodd?

Speaker Pelosi? It is time to stop funding and put an end to George Bush's occupation of Iraq and get all the troops there home. Now. You have exhausted all your excuses, and all of them have just been shown up to be nothing more than the hot air they are. If you will not end it before November 2008, after Chris Dodd's clear example yesterday of real, honest legislative leadership, you deserve to be unseated and sent home in disgrace.

Dodd issued a press release yesterday stating

...that he would block the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "from being considered by the full Senate and from receiving a vote on the Senate floor." The statement came as the Senate Intelligence Committee met to consider the legislation -- and weeks before it is likely to reach the floor.

On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of Senators and the Bush administration reached a compromise on the politically charged bill, which governs the federal government's domestic surveillance program, including a highly controversial grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies. Civil libertarians oppose the compromise as going too far to protect telecoms that were revealed to have participated in a warrantless wiretapping program, and because the legislation wouldn't establish warrants for each individual wiretap.

Dodd said he would place a "hold" on the FISA bill, a device available to any senator to stop legislation from moving forward. "By granting immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the president's terrorist surveillance program, even though such participation may have been illegal, the FISA reform bill sets a dangerous precedent by giving the President sweeping authorization to neglect the right to privacy that Americans are entitled to under the Constitution," Dodd explained in a statement outlining his concerns.

The rhetoric got hotter with every paragraph. "It is unconscionable that such a basic right has been violated, and that the president is the perpetrator," Dodd said. "I will do everything in my power to stop Congress from shielding this President's agenda of secrecy, deception, and blatant unlawfulness."
Chris Dodd deserves to be elected President next year.

He has just blown out of the water all of the claims by Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership that they are unable to defund and end the occupation of Iraq with the claims that they 'don't have the votes', and set a clear, effective example of the "power of the purse" that Pelosi now has no excuse not to follow.

David Swanson explains in greater detail on the flip.

Dodd Ends Spying, No Senator Will Do Same for War
By David Swanson. After Downing Street, Thursday, October 18, 2007
Senator Chris Dodd on Thursday single-handedly blocked a bill to legalize unconstitutional spying and immunize criminals who have engaged in it. But by doing so, Dodd may have made the biggest blunder Washington has seen in many months. He advertised the fact that a single senator with nerve has the power to block a bill, including – of course – every bill to further fund the occupation of Iraq. Now, how will Dodd explain his past and future failure to use the same power to end the war that he has used to end warrantless spying? How will other senators, including Harry Reid, explain their own failure? How will Nancy Pelosi manage to keep asserting in every conversation that only 67 senators can end a war?

Dodd released the following statement:
It's been a busy day, but I wanted take a moment and let you know that I have decided to place a "hold" on legislation in the Senate that includes amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization.

I said that I would do everything I could to stop this bill from passing, and I have.

It's about delivering results -- and as I've said before, the FIRST thing I will do after being sworn into office is restore the Constitution.

But we shouldn't have to wait until then to prevent the further erosion of our country's most treasured document.

That's why I am stopping this bill today.
But blocking a bill, not passing one, is exactly what's needed to get our troops and mercenaries home from Iraq. It is a lie that Congress must pass a bill to end the occupation of Iraq. The occupation can be ended with an announcement by Congressional leaders that there will be no more funding. Any proposal to fund it can be blocked by 41 senators filibustering or by a single senator putting a hold on the bill. Bush has plenty of money for withdrawal and could be given more for that exclusive purpose. When your television tells you the Democrats need 60 or 67 senators to end the occupation, your television is lying to you.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could if they wanted announce today that the House and Senate will no longer bring to a vote any bills to fund anything other than withdrawal. They have many colleagues already on board with that position, not to mention two thirds of the country. It would take 218 signatures on a discharge petition to force a bill to the floor of the House without Pelosi's approval. It is unlikely enough Democrats would oppose their party to fund Bush's war in that way. In the Senate, Reid alone could refuse to bring a bill to the floor, or another senator could put an open or secret hold on a bill. And, while not all bills can be filibustered (appropriations bills can be, budget reconciliation bills cannot), you can hardly claim you need 60 votes to get past a filibuster without admitting that with only 41 you could launch your own filibuster and that with 51 you could defeat any bill. Once you understand the goal as blocking bills rather than passing them, the number of allies you need shrinks dramatically.

In fact, Senator Dodd has just very publicly advertised his ability to take action on Iraq in January, thereby earning the right to be president. This would be a major shift from his current proposal that we elect him president first, after which he'll see about ending the war.

Thank Dodd and urge others to join him in blocking the FISA bill here:

There's more: "Sen. Dodd Blocks FISA Bill, Skewers The Lies, Sets Example For Defunding & Ending Iraq Occupation" >>

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Senator Chris Dodd Blasts Clinton And Obama

In a video released yesterday Democratic Presidential hopeful Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) challenged fellow Senate Democrats to state whether they would vote for Iraq legislation that does not include a firm, enforceable deadline for withdrawal:

In a statement released today Dodd got even more specific and strongly criticized both Clinton and Obama for trying to have their cake and eat it too with Orwellian rhetoric and stepping backwards on Iraq:
"I was disappointed that Senator Obama's thoughts on Iraq today didn't include a firm, enforceable deadline for redeployment, and dismayed that neither he nor Senator Clinton will give an unequivocal answer on whether they would support a measure if it didn't have such an enforceable deadline.

"It is clear to me - especially after yesterday's testimony - that half-measures aren't going to stop this President or end our involvement in this civil war. I thought it was clear to Senators Obama and Clinton as well after they finally came around to supporting the Feingold-Reid measure and voting against a blank-check supplemental spending bill this spring. If 'enough was enough' then, why isn't it after the bloodiest summer of the war?

"Senator Obama has a gift for soaring rhetoric, but, on this critical issue, we need to know the substance of his position with specificity. Without tying a date certain to funding how does he plan to enforce his call for an immediate redeployment?

"The only specificity Senator Obama offered was a call for a new constitution, but that will do nothing other than provide the Iraqis and the Bush Administration another excuse to delay -- the ink is barely dry on the constitution they have.

"It is going to take bold leadership to change our course in Iraq. We need to do more than write letters to the President, we need to be clear with him.

"I urge Senators Obama and Clinton not to backtrack on the need for a firm, enforceable deadline and state clearly and directly whether they will support an Iraq measure if it does not include one."
I congratulate Chris Dodd for going this far and it's nice to hear, but in my opinion, even coming from Dodd who has been one of the most progressive, it's still not going quite far enough, and he and the rest of them need to be calling for complete and total withdrawal of all troops, not just combat troops, and an end to the occupation of Iraq before the 2008 elections, if not sooner.

Speaking for myself I believe that:
... if leading Democrats heard enough people say to them that they will not vote for ANY Democrats next year EXCEPT Democrats who have been vocally, and by their votes on supplementals, calling for total withdrawal from Iraq they would quickly notice.

They are politicians after all, and they are concerned with winning elections.

They would notice if enough people turned the tables on them and used fear to motivate them, instead of voting simply out of fear of republicans.

If Democrats were filled with fear that they would lose Congress and the presidency UNLESS the occupation was ended before the 2008 elections, they would end the occupation of Iraq.
Can The Iraq Occupation Be Ended Before The 2008 Elections?

There's more: "Senator Chris Dodd Blasts Clinton And Obama" >>

Thursday, May 24, 2007

When Does the Filibuster Start?

David Sirota asks Anyone Know When the Senate Filibuster Starts? WHERE'S THE BEEF? After all Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd are strongly denouncing the Harry Reid Surrender Bill (Er the War Funding Supplemental.) Surely the two of them could tag team an old Mr. Smith goes to Washington style filibuster to at least slow things down a bit. This morning Jerome Armstrong over at MyDD speculates that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will vote against the Harry Reid Surrender Bill. That makes 4 Senators to tag team a filibuster. I suspect that eventually all the Democratic Senators running for President will vote no on the Harry Reid Surrender Bill. That should be sufficient number of Senators to at least put up a fight. Jesus, if Senator Kyl could quietly stop the repeal of the Patriot Act provision at the center of the US Attorney firing scandal for months, then surly a bunch of big name senators wanting our votes and money to help them in their runs for President should be able to at least grab some headlines.

Any bets that they do it? With the exception of Russ Feingold, whose position is principled, the rest will moan and groan and vote a very polite and public "no" in hopes of keeping the support of the majority of folks who are fed up with the war, but in the end they won't do anything that might succeed or even call shame on their colleagues. Surrender monkeys are like that.

Oh you might want to follow that Sirota link. He has found and posted the old "Where's the Beef" commercial. A classic.

Cross posted from Watching Those We Chose

There's more: "When Does the Filibuster Start?" >>