NH Progressive Blogs
Betsy Devine
Citizen Keene
Democracy for NH
Equality Press
The Political Climate
Granite State Progress
Chaz Proulx
Susan the Bruce
NH Political Links
Graniteprof
Granite Status
Kevin Landrigan
NH Political Capital
Political Chowder (TV)
Political Chowder (AM)
PolitickerNH
Pollster (NH-Sen)
Portside with Burt Cohen
Bill Siroty
Swing State 2008
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Carol Shea-Porter
Paul Hodes
Jeanne Shaheen
Barack Obama (NH)
ActBlue Hampshire
Stop Sununu
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Bob Geiger
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
I took this picture inside our phone banking room in the Des Moines HQ. Amidst copies of the Des Moines Register, call logs, talking points, fact sheets of Chris Dodd's record of results and lots of empty coffee cups, I saw a print out of Blue Hampshire co-founder Mike Caulfield's endorsement post.
People often ask what the value of blogger endorsements is and I think this is evidence of it. Mike's argument in support of Chris Dodd, like that made by many other bloggers, is a thoughtful presentation of why Democrats should support Dodd's candidacy. It's exactly the sort of thing that volunteers and field staff find useful when talking to voters here in Iowa. Beyond that, it's great to have the encouragement of someone writing outside the campaign to pick you up in the midst of a long phone banking session.
Today, I'm heading on the road to cover Senator Dodd's events in Waterloo at one of my favorite restaurants in all of Iowa, Steamboat Gardens. From there, I'll head with the Senator to Dubuque for our campaign's New Year's Eve event.
I'll be staying on the road on New Year's Day to cover events in Cedar Rapids and a few other stops. I'll be posting videos and pictures from the road, as well as writing about the events as the Dodd campaign heads into the new year and towards the Iowa caucus on January 3rd.
Stay tuned for more updates from Iowa on the Dodd Blog.
The Boston Globe has an article by Charlie Savage - the journalist whose investigation first brought President Bush's use of signing statements to light - about the various positions by Democratic and Republican candidates on executive powers. Here are a few of the most direct answers to critically important questions that the tenure of the Bush administration has raised to date.
4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
Never. If I thought it was unconstitutional, I would turn to the Courts, which is what our founding fathers expected and provided for in cases of Executive-Congressional differences.
5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
No.
6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?
No.
What's remarkable, I think, is that Senator Dodd's dedication to upholding the Constitution and the balance of powers requires this sort of answer to these sorts of questions, though you won't see the GOP candidates or top Republican talking heads giving the same consideration to these issues. Standing up for the rule of law makes us more safe at home. We need a President who will stand up for these issues, even if it means rolling back some of the powers and practices used by the Bush administration in contravention to the Constitution and at the expense of the balance of powers between the executive, legislative, and judiciary branch.
You can read Senator Dodd's full response to the Globe's questionnaire here.
This Wednesday at 8PM Eastern, the Republican Presidential candidates will be holding their own YouTube debate. Similar to the Democratic version in South Carolina in July, the candidates will be asked questions via YouTube videos. YouTube accepted thousands of videos and those submissions will be winnowed down to a handful that are presented as questions for the GOP. Senator Dodd jumped on the opportunity to ask the Republican field a question about the issue that matters most to him: protecting our Constitution.
Here's a transcript of Dodd's question:
Hi I'm Chris Dodd. I'm from East Haddam, Connecticut and my family and I are spending a little time in Iowa these days.
I have a question about the Constitution.
Many Americans are concerned that the administration seems to be making a false choice, that is, to be safer we have to give up rights. I don't believe that, I wonder if you do.
And if you believe that we ought not give up our rights, then what would you do in order to protect our Constitution?
It's up to CNN to pick which questions are asked, but what would help them see it is if you take the time to give it a good recommendation, leave a positive comment, share it with your friends, or add it to your favorite videos. If you have a blog, post it. The time to ask your own questions of the Republican field has expired, now it's time to push the best videos to the top and get the Republican candidates on record about what they will do to protect our Constitution.
Jamison Foser of Media Matters recently documented the lack of discussion of the Constitution and rule of law issues during both parties' presidential debates. With over 1,500 questions asked, there's been almost no focus on the most fundamental issue that the next President will have to deal with. Senator Dodd is hoping to change that by asking the Republican field what they will do to protect the Constitution. I hope they get a chance to answer Dodd's important question.
There were a number of points in last night's debate where the candidates were presented with either/or questions on fairly complex issues. In one notable instance, a question was posed in an either/or format on something entirely not important: diamonds or pearls. But let's be honest, there are a lot of other trivial either/or questions that didn't get asked last night, so I thought I'd ask them now.
I tried to get answers to the following questions from Senator Dodd and he laughed me off with the silliness of what I was proposing. Since he won't answer them, I'll answer them for myself.
Boxers or briefs? Boxer briefs. Puppies or kittens?
Puppies.
Angelina Jolie or Jennifer Aniston?
Angelina.
PC or Mac?
Mac.
Mustang or Camaro?
Mustang.
Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert?
Dang, that's tough. Stewart. No, Colbert. Yeah.
The Beatles or the Stones?
The Beatles.
Great taste or less filling?
Miller Lite has both.
Seersucker or linen?
Seersucker.
Red Sox or Yankees?
Yankees (take THAT Senator Dodd!).
Dunkin Donuts or Krispy Kreme?
Dunkin Donuts, the donut of my youth.
New School or Old School?
Old school.
And lastly, diamonds or pearls?
I have no idea and I will leave that for someone else to decide.
Now that we've got that out of the way, you can learn about Senator Dodd's positions on important issues at http://chrisdodd.com/issues.
If anyone wants to weigh in with your responses, leave your answers in the comment thread here or on the Dodd Blog.
Update from Mike C.: I'm calling on EVERYBODY to make calls today, no matter whether you are from the state the Senator is or not. I just called Leahy, and got a very polite response. They typed up my comments and said they'd pass it on.
Here's the thing, folks. They picked up on the first ring. Schumer's phone seems to be busy, but's it's vitally important we hit the others too -- they'll be monitoring how busy the phones get to see what the backlash will be.
Let me tell you too -- this tool that the Dodd folks have built is awesome. THEIR SYSTEM PLACES THE CALL. It's not your number showing up on caller ID at the Washington office (I don't think it is at least), and you don't bear the expense of the call.
You type in your number, hit call, and it calls you back and then dials the Senator's office for you. It's really a stunning tool, best of the season I'd say.
Call just three from the list. Just three. Make that commitment. Thanks.
Matt's message follows...
==============
The Senate Judiciary Committee is going to mark up the FISA reform legislation tomorrow. They had originally scheduled to do it last Thursday, but we expect it to happen this time, though it's not clear that the SJC will complete mark up tomorrow.
The bottom line is that now is the time to call the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask them to oppose retroactive immunity for telecom companies that helped the Bush administration spy on Americans without warrant.
We want the Senate to hear your voice on this issue -- we think it's so important that we're paying for you to do the calls. Call today - and the Dodd campaign will do the dialing for you, making it free for anyone calling for a hardline to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Four Senators on the Judiciary Committee have already said they oppose retroactive immunity. We need just six more Senators to oppose retroactive immunity to kill it in committee.
Visit http://chrisdodd.com/immunity to take action now!
Christy Hardin Smith also brings up basket warrants and Emptywheel brings up minimization as other key issues that the FISA legislation needs improvement on.
Senator Dodd's speech Saturday night at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner was truly electric. What really blew me away was his opening remarks on restoring the Constitution and standing up for the rule of law. He dedicated six minutes - a third of his speech - to the issue. While I've heard him talk about why he cares about the Constitution literally hundreds of times, his speech struck a chord in me on Saturday night. Maybe you felt the same energy hearing him rattle off the wrongs he will right as President.
Maybe it's because our country deserves a President who will do the things he pledges to do when he takes the oath of office. Or maybe it's because Chris Dodd is the only person who's stepping up now to do something about the problems he's talking about...but I thought Senator Dodd defined himself on Saturday night as the person that our country needs to be our next President.
Restoring the Constitution isn't just something Yale Law professors and liberal bloggers care about - Americans around the country of all political stripes are longing for leadership committed to returning our government to the rule of law. We saw that clearly Saturday night, as nearly 10,000 Iowans responded to Chris Dodd's commitment to act according to his oath as President. A desire to stand up for and preserve the Constitution is intrinsic in patriotic Americans, and we saw that patriotism come out at the Iowa JJ Dinner.
The bottom line is that when Senator Dodd campaigns on the Constitution, he's not making an argument about himself. The Constitution isn't about him and he's not so foolish as to think so. It's about who we are as a country and how our government is supposed to work. Saturday night, that humble understanding was rewarded with eruptions of applause.
Here's a transcript of what Senator Dodd commits to on the very first hour of his very first day in office:
"This much I commit to you here in Iowa this evening. On the very first hour, of the very first day on January 20, 2009, as I have fought for over the last number of years in this administration -- I will restore to the American people, the Constitution of the United States."
"You're gonna get your Constitution back! You're gonna get your Constitution back."
"No more Abu Ghraibs!"
"No more Guantanamos!"
"No more torture!"
"No more rendering!"
"No more providing retroactive immunity for companies that turned over their records to the Bush Administration without a court order!"
"No more waterboarding!"
"No more denying people habeas corpus in this country, a right that has existed for 900 years!"
"And there will be no more Attorney Generals of the United States who believe an American President is above the law."
"That's gonna change."
If you missed it, you can watch the whole speech here.
As Thanksgiving approaches, Senator Chris Dodd today announced that his campaign will kick off a statewide initiative called the "Season of Service." Dodd is asking the people of New Hampshire to donate items in an effort to give back to the community and to help those in need. The Dodd campaign will collect non-perishable food items such as canned goods, as well as clothing, books, and other items at their office in Manchester through December 12. The campaign will then donate the goods to a local nonprofit organization for distribution.
"The people of New Hampshire have a strong tradition of looking out for their neighbors and coming together as a community. Jackie and I want to do everything we can to help in that effort. Whether it's a warm winter coat or a truckload of groceries, every can counts toward making a difference in the lives of others. I hope that people across the state will join us in thinking of those in need this holiday season."
A former Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic, Dodd has introduced a comprehensive national service plan called the American Service Initiative. More information about the plan is available at http://chrisdodd.com/issues/national_service.
Donations can be dropped off at:
New Hampshire for Chris Dodd
379 Elm Street
Manchester, NH 03101
The San Francisco Chronicle has reported that California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein will support retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. This puts the official tally at two votes in favor and four votes opposed to telecom amnesty. We still need to convince six more Senators on the Judiciary Committee to oppose retroactive immunity to ensure that it is killed in Committee and doesn't reach the floor of the Senate.
This means one of the "nay" votes has to come from a Republican member of Committee, which does not seem incredibly likely. The Republican who we'd previously targeted as most likely to vote the right was was Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Since Specter has also introduced a proposal that would indemnify the telecom companies by making the federal government sole defendant in all of the pending cases against the industry. This proposal - retroactive immunity by another name - makes it look unlikely that Specter will oppose other forms of immunity.
There are two paths from here:
First, we must continue to call all members of the Senate Judiciary who aren't currently opposed and ask them to oppose retroactive immunity. Everyone is not opposed needs to hear from the public on this issue - even conservative Republicans - because the Constitution and rule of law are not partisan issues, nor should they be.
Second, if you're feeling discouraged by the increased chances of amnesty for telecoms making it out of the Judiciary Committee, remember that Senator Dodd has vowed to stop any such legislation from becoming law, either through a hold or by filibuster if necessary. Dodd will stand up for the rule of law. He will defend the Constitution.
Now is the time to take action, though. Chris Dodd won't wait until 2009 to lead and we shouldn't wait until 2009 to stand up for what we believe in.
Call the Senate Judiciary Committee today (HT: Hannah for reminding me that Senate is closed today) - we'll do the dialing for you through our Citizen Generated Whip Count calling tool: http://chrisdodd.com/immunity
Today's Wall Street Journal has a long piece on Blue Hampshire! And no one's written about it yet! What gives?
Seriously - I think it's a good article that succeeds in showing how hard Mike, Dean, and Laura work to make this site what it is. Blue Hampshire is one of the most important local blogs in the country for presidential politics. You guys should be proud of your work.
I hope one of the front pagers takes a moment to post on the WSJ piece and take a bow for the work you've done over the last year.
Update: I was wrong - elwood's artful wordsmithmanship actually did hit this in the Open Thread below.
eRiposte at The Left Coaster has a very comprehensive analysis of where the various current and former Senator-candidates stood on various pieces of bankruptcy reform legislation. The post covers the 2000, 2002, and 2005 Bankruptcy Bills and compares Senators Dodd, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Biden -- with Senators Lieberman and Feingold included as well for comparison. The focus of eRiposte's analysis is on the 2001 and 2005 Bankruptcy Bills, which had the majority of this group of senators around to vote on it.
On the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill, eRiposte says this:
Sen. Dodd (and Sen. Feingold) had the best voting record on this version of the Bill. They voted the progressive position on almost every amendment, but more importantly, also voted against cloture (which has the effect of supporting a filibuster) and voted against the Bill at the end.
On the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill, eRiposte finds a similarly strong performance for Dodd ahead of the field:
Senator Dodd again had the best, and an essentially perfect, voting record on this Bill. He voted in favor of numerous progressive amendments, voted against invoking cloture and voted against the final Bill.
In conclusion, eRiposte finds Dodd to be the measuring stick for all other Democratic candidates when it comes to bankruptcy reform:
In this post, I compared the voting records of key Democratic Presidential candidates on the topic of the Bankruptcy Bill. I reviewed the final vote on the Bankruptcy Bill of 2000, and the final vote and amendments/motions associated with the 2001 and 2005 Bankruptcy bills. The main findings are as follows:
1. Senator Chris Dodd has the best, and a near-perfect, voting record on Bankruptcy legislation. He has been consistently and strongly progressive on the topic of Bankruptcy "reform" at least since 2000. [Emphasis in the original in all quoted passages]
Dodd's record is clear and it's also worth noting that earlier this month he committed to reversing the worst parts of the bankruptcy bill. He will be introducing a more comprehensive plan in the coming weeks.
In Tuesday's FISA live chat at Fire Dog Lake, Senator Dodd talked about how caring about the Constitution is in his DNA:
I feel so strongly about this. It's part of my DNA, in a sense. Some of you may know, that I grew up in a household where my father was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, here. And, Robert Jackson, the great prosecutor, the great Supreme Court Justice, made the case as others did. That we were going to stand up for the rule of law, even with some of the greatest violators of human rights in recorded history. That we were going to provide a trial for them, that which they never gave to their victims. So I heard all about the rule of law growing up, and how important it is. I didn't discover this a week ago, or year a go or two years ago. It's something I believed in very strongly when I served on the House Judiciary Committee...So my history on these matters go back a long way, here. They didn't come up recently, and I'm urging people to stand up.
If caring about the rule of law is in Senator Dodd's DNA, it's critically important to remember as citizens that the Constitution is our nation's DNA. And this administration's actions against our founding document risks fundamentally altering who we are as a nation.
We have seen strikes made against the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment; the Fourth Amendment, which mandates searches be conducted with warrant; and the Fifth Amendment, which demands due process for all persons.
Habeas corpus. Warrantless wiretaps. Torture. Extraordinary rendition. Secret Prisons. The Military Commissions Act.
Now we see the pernicious idea of retroactive immunity or amnesty for telecom companies who helped the Bush administration spy illegally on innocent Americans without warrant. If this dangerous move becomes law, the courts will never be able to discover what the Bush administration asked these companies and on what grounds. We will never learn what was perpetrated against the American people by its own government, in contravention to the laws of our land.
The efforts we have seen to change the DNA of America do not stop with the Bill of Rights, but tragically have extended into dangerous revisionism when it comes to the purview of the legislature and the executive. Article I and Article II of the Constitution.
The system of checks and balances between the three branches of government is being cast out of balance. The Vice President has gone so far as to suggest he's a previously undiscovered fourth branch of government.
Our Constitution -- and our nation -- may represent a great experiment in the power for representative democracy to make the world a better place. But the erosions and invasions of our Constitution and Bill of Rights -- the DNA of our country -- under President Bush threaten to turn America into a modern island of Doctor Moreau. What we get will not be what our Founders intended.
And so while Senator Dodd ties the roots of his passion for the Constitution and rule of law to the household he was raised in and the hard work of his father, we can all find our passion in a need to defend the document that most fundamentally defines who we are as a nation. And with our passion, we can move to act -- today -- by calling the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask them to oppose retroactive immunity for telecom companies in the latest FISA legislation.
Today Senator Chris Dodd and Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter came together for a Day of Action to End the War in Iraq. Dodd and Shea-Porter spoke to the crowd and then people started sending e-petitions, writing letters, and making phone calls to end the war in Iraq. We're also doing a full canvass in Manchester on Iraq. We live streamed Dodd and Shea-Porter's speeches, as well as the activities in the Dodd Action Center.
Before the event starts, you can take action online by signing our petition and sending a letter to President Bush. The text of the message reads:
We, the undersigned concerned citizens, on this 20th day of October, 2007, stand with United States Senator Chris Dodd and call on President Bush to immediately set a date certain for the withdrawal of all American combat troops from Iraq.
We're also encouraging people to contact New Hampshire Senators John Sununu and Judd Gregg.
This is cool. Maine's Kennebec County Democratic Committee passed a resolution last night in support of Senator Dodd's hold on FISA legislation that includes amnesty for telecommunications companies who enable the Bush administration to violate Americans' civil liberties. Eddie in ME reports on the vote in a DailyKos diary.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
Be it resolved that the Kennebec County Democratic Committee endorses the effort by Senator Christopher Dodd to defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States. On October 18th, Senator Dodd placed a hold on the bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This bill would grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications industry for participating in President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. We applaud the senator's determination to protect our civil liberties.
This resolution passed unanimously. The KCDC thanks Senator Dodd for standing up for the Constitution, and the rule of law.
Eddie closes his post with this note:
It is my personal hope that Senator Dodd will continue to take similar actions to defend the rights of Americans, and will put his effort into reversing the trampling of the Constitution performed by the Bush Administration. Whether it is as President or Senator, I hope Chris Dodd will lead the way.
Thank you for your voice of support Eddie in ME and thanks to the Kennebec County Democratic Committee for resolutely passing their support Dodd's leadership.
DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas is interviewed by Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo on his thoughts on the presidential race. Markos said this of Dodd's principled leadership:
Obama's played it safe. Everyone else is playing it safe. Hillary Clinton has definitely played it safe. So finally, you know, people like me are looking for somebody to be inspired who gives us the kind of rhetoric and policy proposals that actually seem to move the Democratic Party forward. And Chris Dodd on bankruptcy reform, on the war in Iraq, on civil liberties and I mean this is a guy who is essentially running on a platform of restoring the Bill of Rights. How much more inspiring can you get than that? Especially in this climate, with this administration, that has made absolutely clear that their number one mission in life is to eviscerate the Bill of Rights. So you have a candidate that has latched onto a very timely issue, one that is very relevant and actually is of great importance right now -- and that's Chris Dodd.
I wish he was a really viable candidate, I wish he was in the top tier, then I could get really excited about him. As it is, I wish the top tier candidates would speak in the way that Chris Dodd does.
We can make Chris Dodd into a top-tier candidate by getting involved and rewarding his leadership. Tell your friends. Make a donation. Volunteer for the campaign. Start a personal fundraising drive. Write to your local paper.
You can make the Dodd campaign a success by getting on board in support of a candidate who is leading on the most pressing issues facing our country today. Your voice in support of Senator Dodd's campaign is what is needed to propel Dodd into the "top tier." Wishing he polled higher than he does is well and good, but it's action that will carry Dodd to the nomination. If Democratic activists, online and off, sit on their hands while unsatisfied with what the "top tier" provides them, then we won't realize the promise of Dodd's inspiring campaign. We need your help and now is the time for you to join the Dodd Squad.
Last night's debate brought the issue of residual forces in Iraq to the front and center Democratic presidential campaign. The candidates presented their differing views on whether or not they would have all us troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term in office -- 2013 -- six years from now.
Sadly, there was little difference between the "top tier" candidates, as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards all said they will not have ended our involvement in Iraq by 2013.
Six years from now.
Blogger Jeffrey Feldman writes:
The top-tier candidates all agreed last night that the Iraq war is only half over--that if elected President, each will continue the U.S. occupation and U.S. combat operations inside Iraq until at 2013. This means that the official Democratic position is now that the Iraq war will be a ten-year war.
Now, I strongly disagree with Feldman that waiting until 2013 is the "official Democratic position." It is only the consensus position held by the three front-running candidates.
It is not Chris Dodd's official position. Nor is it the position of millions of Democrats and anti-war activists who are fighting to end the war today.
Dodd made his stance crystal clear in this exchange with moderator Tim Russert:
Tim Russert: I want to put you on the record. Will you pledge as Commander in Chief that you have all troops out of Iraq by January of 2013?
Chris Dodd: I will get that done.
Tim Russert: You'll get it done?
Chris Dodd: Yes, I will, sir.
That's where Dodd is. And yet, the consensus among the Clinton-Obama-Edwards trio, the three largest recipients of time in last night's Democratic debate, was that they would not end the war in Iraq by 2013.
Last night's debate made it abundantly clear that while there exists a consensus among the "top tier" of Democratic presidential that they won't be committed to end the war by 2013, there is an alternative: Chris Dodd. Dodd is the only candidate who's fighting to pass legislation to cut off funding for the war now while committing to get our troops out of Iraq in his first term in office if he can't succeed legislatively before then.
If you want to end the war in Iraq and if you have been a supporter of Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton, I'd like to take this opportunity to invite you to join the Dodd Squad. You'll have a candidate who stands with you in your desire about ending the war and you will never, ever have to apologize for him pledging to keep US troops in Iraq for six more years.
Tonight's debate starts 9PM Eastern on MSNBC. As always, we'll be clockin' how much time each candidate - and the moderator Tim Russert - is given to talk.
You can get the code for this widget at ChrisDodd.com.
(I think this is an important explanation to have, and since I'm undecided in the presidential race I guess I can promote it without accusations of favoritism. Right? - promoted by Laura Clawson)
There seems to be a little bit of confusion about what, exactly, Levin Reed actually would have accomplished. The short answer is ... nothing.
That's why Senator Dodd voted against the legislation earlier this morning.
Despite pledges about only casting votes to end the war, Chris Dodd was the only Presidential candidate to stick to his guns in the Senate this morning. Here's his statement:
"This bill (Levin-Reed) will not stop this President from continuing to wage this war. While a firm deadline is necessary, it is not sufficient without it also being enforceable through the power of the purse. Given this President's loyalty to his own failed policy, it is clear to me that anything short of firm, enforceable deadline that forces his hand will only serve to perpetuate our involvement in this civil war. I will only vote to fully fund the complete redeployment of our troops out of Iraq." -- Chris Dodd
As Atrios put it:
Levin-Reed bill was, of course, a toothless "compromise" bill, and even that couldn't get support.
Ben Smith viewed it this way:
Dodd raises the stakes ... The only surprise: Chris Dodd, moving the anti-war target, voted against it on the grounds that it's too weak.
A friend of mine sent this message about the bill this morning:
Levin-Reed: The Secretary of Defense shall...
Bush: No, the Secretary of Defense shall not.
Congress: Oh. Well, what now?
The bottom line is that Levin-Reed would not have ended the war, and that is why Chris Dodd voted against it. The net result would have been, again, another blank-check appropriation for George Bush.
This afternoon Senator Pat Leahy and Senator Chris Dodd introduced the Leahy-Specter-Dodd Amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. The amendment will restore habeas corpus and help us regain our moral standing in the world.
Sign up to be a citizen co-sponsor at http://restore-habeas.org.
Also, follow Senator Dodd's call to action above and call up your Senators and ask them to co-sponsor the Leahy-Specter-Dodd Amendment.
The fight will be hard and the vote, which will come later this week, is likely to be very close. But upholding the rule of law demands action and that's what Senators Dodd and Leahy are calling for.
Later tonight President Bush will address the nation on the subject of Iraq. It will be the eighth time he's done so since the Iraq war started in 2003.
Senator Dodd issued the following statement on Bush's anticipated announcement that the 30,000+ troops deployed to Iraq during the "surge" will be brought home early next summer (as has always been the plan).
"Moving us in 10 months to where we were 10 months ago is not progress. It is the very definition of status quo.
"Not only is the President not offering us anything new; he's insulting our intelligence.
"Despite the fact that his top General is unable to say that the war is making us safer, all the President offers today is quite literally more of the same. More loss of life, more strain on our military readiness, and more degradation of our national security and our standing in the world. It is time for Congress to say 'no more.'
"What was clear to me before, and what should be abundantly clear to my colleagues after today, is that this President is not going to change course unless we force him to. There is only one way to do that - we must set a clear, hard and fast deadline for redeployment and, in order to enforce it, that deadline must be tied to funding."
Blue Hampshire RSS
