Dodd Will Filibuster Telecom Immunity Bill If Reid Brings It To Vote
Amping up his efforts to block the Senate FISA bill containing retroactive immunity for the telecom companies, Senator Chris Dodd's campaign says that he will filibuster the measure if the Dem Senate leadership tries to circumvent the hold he plans to put on the bill.
The Dodd campaign will reveal his plans to filibuster the measure in an email being sent out to supporters by the campaign's Web guru, Tim Tagaris. Election Central obtained an advance copy of the email.
The threatened filibuster, which comes a day after Dodd revealed to Election Central that he will place a hold on the bill, will place Dodd in direct confrontation with the Dem Senate leadership on a hugely contentious issue.
Dodd's filibuster threat comes in response to reports -- based on anonymous quotes from the leadership's office -- which said that Reid's aides think they can get the bill to the floor despite Dodd's hold.
Here's the email from the Dodd campaign:
Are you willing to go to the mat to restore the Constitution?Just last night, we heard there are plans to disregard Senator Dodd's intention to place a hold on a FISA bill that includes amnesty for telecommunications companies.
That would be a pretty extraordinary move, but Chris Dodd has pledged to stop this horrible bill any way he can.
So if the hold is not honored, he is prepared to go to the Senate floor and filibuster.
Rolling back the Bush Administration assault on the rule of law has been a major focus of Chris Dodd's work in the Senate -- and it's also a centerpiece in his campaign for President.
I'm also told that Dodd will send out a video to supporters later in the day in which he discusses the filibuster.
More in a bit.
Late Update: Here's the video of Dodd promising the filibuster.
Comments (66)
Anonymous wrote on October 19, 2007 12:07 PM:This is looking more and more like political theatre.
onceler wrote on October 19, 2007 12:10 PM:Reid might BLOCK him???
Reid is a f#cking IDIOT.
This is major, if Dodd goes the distance and does the filibuster, he has my support. Absolutely. Not just my "I agree with that" support, he will become the person I vote for in the primary. Excellent, I've finally chosen a candidate! The only one who has show any real leadership since the campaign began.
spinn wrote on October 19, 2007 12:10 PM:Hell no. This is looking more and more like Dodd's the only one who gives a damn. Where's Feingold on this?
It doesn't matter that it's political theater if he's doing it for the right reason.
KCinDC wrote on October 19, 2007 12:18 PM:Are there 40 other senators willing to join him in the filibuster? If not, how is the threat meaningful?
Glorfindel wrote on October 19, 2007 12:21 PM:Hardly theater. Dodd is deadly serious here. If Reid disregards his hold, while upholding every Republican hold, then Reid deserves wholeheartedly the filibuster, and deserves the challenge to his questionable leadership at a crucial moment.
Jamie wrote on October 19, 2007 12:22 PM:Everything these guys do, and have done for years, is pure show. None of them give a f**k.
But, I agree with onceler here. Good on him, whatever the reason. And I've planned on giving him my vote for a while now, though it'll be a wasted one because the the Media already have their darlings, and one of them will win (much as I hat them both).
I wonder, though, if he would even bother if he weren't running for pres.
EH wrote on October 19, 2007 12:24 PM:Ha ha, "theater." At least try to look like you know what you're talking about.
Anonymous wrote on October 19, 2007 12:25 PM:My point is that we have unconfirmed reports that Reid is going to go around the hold. Now we have Dodd claiming that he will mount a filibuster if that happens.
Now let's unpack this: what's the likelihood that Senator Reid is going to diss one of the senior members of the Democratic Caucus? Dodd is a 26 year veteran. I can think of a lot of retarded political moves, but this would be political suicide for Reid.
This bill is headed over to the Judiciary Committee where Leahy can, and probably will, kill it.
In light of all this, it seems that Dodd is making a shrewd political play. He "indicates" he will place a hold on a bill that hasn't come to the floor. He receives rave reviews for doing so. Now he's "indicating" that if his "indicated hold" is overriden (something that is RARELY, if EVER, done), he'll filibuster the bill. I'm glad he's talking brash, but the reality is, he's just TALKING at this point, since right now there is NOTHING to do.
I'll reserve my kudos until the final act of this kabuki theater. Until then, color me unimpressed.
spinn: Feingold voted no on this bill yesterday in committee.
Theater? Maybe. But Dodd is at least threatening to do the right thing here and let's give him credit for that. If Reid will not honor his hold, then it's more than theater, it's challenging the leadership - which needs to happen.
And seriously. This bill is worse than we thought. Immunity will not be decided by the judiciary, but by the executive. Why even bother with the fig-leaf at all? Why not just grant immunity and be done with it? But I guess, expecting honesty in my tyranny is like expecting a rapist to be gentle.
Dan D wrote on October 19, 2007 12:31 PM:"Where's Feingold on this?"
Sheesh, this just came out. There's no reason to doubt Feingold would vote for cloture:
October 18, 2007
“As a member of the SSCI, I will strongly oppose any FISA legislation that fails to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans, overseas and here at home. When the Committee considers this legislation today, I will also fight to reject immunity for anyone alleged to have cooperated with the Administration’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. The documents made available by the White House for the first time this week only further demonstrate that the program was illegal and that there is no basis for granting retroactive immunity to those who allegedly cooperated. The one silver lining of the flawed FISA bill passed in August was that it had a 6-month expiration date. It would be shameful to miss this opportunity to fix the law. It is time for Congress to stand up for the rights of Americans and to defend the Constitution and the rule of law.”
He and Wyden were the only 2 in Intelligence to vote against this bill.
Don't worry about Feingold, we need to get the members of the SJC on board: Kennedy and Whitehouse
Plus others like Kerry who would likely oppose this
If we can build enough opposition, perhaps we can ensure the House refuses to pass any FISA bill until immunity is off the table.
A public filibuster by Democrats against their own majority leader is big news, and many here are not giving it due credit. When was the last time something like that happened?
conniptionfit wrote on October 19, 2007 12:34 PM:Filibuster that bitch! Good for Dodd! I'm sick to death of the Dem leadership talking big and then caving on all these constutional issues, and the whining to us that they don't have enough votes, yada, yada. If they can't, or won't, stop the betrayal (and sale) of our constitutional rights they can and must, at the least, STOP aiding and abetting the destruction of our constitution. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that Iraq, S CHIP, etc, all pale in comparison to these constitutional issues and infringements. Because EVERYTHING flows from our constitution, and NOW may be the only chance we get to halt the chipping away at our very foundations. Dodd at least gets that. He's got my vote, and my contribution.
Jay B. wrote on October 19, 2007 12:35 PM:He "indicates" he will place a hold on a bill that hasn't come to the floor. He receives rave reviews for doing so. Now he's "indicating" that if his "indicated hold" is overriden (something that is RARELY, if EVER, done), he'll filibuster the bill. I'm glad he's talking brash, but the reality is, he's just TALKING at this point, since right now there is NOTHING to do.
Do you have any idea how politics work at all. Really, in the slightest?
By my count, Dodd's done several concrete things that go infinitely beyond bitching about 'kabuki' and sneering about a guy who is actually doing something you seem to support. Good God man, "color you unimpressed?"
Just give up then. It'll be better for those of us who give a damn.
occam's comic wrote on October 19, 2007 12:36 PM:Chris can start asking questions like this;
How many felonies are we going to retroactively pardon?
Hundreds?
Thousands?
Millions?
It has been said if the telecom’s had to face the penalties for their crimes it would bankrupt multibillion dollar companies, is this true?
Were they committing these felonies before 9-11? If so why forgive them for those felonies?
Would someone please be so kind as to explain exactly what a 'hold' is in the Senate? What is it's history? How often have they been upheld/overridden? TIA
ron wrote on October 19, 2007 12:39 PM:As a World War II veteran, I am devastated by the gutlessness and the current crop (or is it "crap" of Democratic leaders(?).
The fact that they would even CONSIDER confirming Mukasey after yesterday's "waterboarding sellout" makes my guts wrench. Add to that their willingness to abandon the Fourth Amendment and their fecklessness leaves me without hope for the future of the country I once loved....and now loathe! Anyone who would not clearly and unambiguously declare that waterboarding is TORTURE not only has no place in our government....he deserves no place ON THIS EARTH!!!
I have decided on one thing, however: Dodd is MY CANDIDATE!!!!
Anonymous wrote on October 19, 2007 12:40 PM:I fully understand how politics work. This is brilliant politics on Dodd's party since he's getting the kudos for looking and sounding tough without having to expend an iota of political capital.
Please tell me when a Senate majority leader has overruled a hold placed by a member of his caucus? Extra-credit points for overruling a SENIOR member of that caucus.
Anonymous wrote on October 19, 2007 12:43 PM:This Kos Diary explains them:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/18/151928/04
stpineda wrote on October 19, 2007 12:43 PM:Senator Dodd has a long history of acting on principle and stepping out in front of schemes pushed (or at least ignored) by his colleagues ... when Bob Ney (on behalf of Scanlon & Abramoff) tried to sneak a casino authorization measure into the Help America Vote Act, the move was largely ignored until Dodd objected--a move that helped expose the financial rape of the tribes that Scanlon & Abramoff were supposed to be representing and began to bring that whole house of cards down.
Regardless of potential motive, I'm glad someone's refusing to be a lap dog ... Harry Reid is joke.
"KCinDC wrote on October 19, 2007 12:18 PM:
Are there 40 other senators willing to join him in the filibuster? If not, how is the threat meaningful?"
Because it would be a *real* filibuster. We have come to calling a failed cloture vote a filibuster, but that isn't really correct. A real filibuster is when the Senator literally has to continue speaking, refusing to give up the floor.
Coonsey wrote on October 19, 2007 12:46 PM:HooRAY Chris Dodd. You BE the Man (a TRUE Democrat).
NOTE:
Coonsey's View is looking for one or two folks to volunteer articles/columns once in awhile to it's site.
If interested go to http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/ and SEND POST. Be sure to give a title and name (at this time - your real name or a fake handle) for the column.
You can also create your own Forum under already specified Topics.
We welcome you all.
i applaud dodd, called his office to tell him so, will give him some bucks when i get paid, and called rockefeller's and reid's offices to give em hell. i welcome the prospect of a filibuster and urge all dems to support it. but fwiw, the summary pdf rockefeller sent me says this:
companies should not be put in the situation of complying with a legitimate security request and then being unable to defend themselves due to the government’s assertion of state secrets.
of course, it depends on what you mean by "legitimate." shouldn't the courts figure that out?
• The bill requires a certification to the court by the Attorney General that the company’s participation was pursuant to a written request or directive of the Attorney General or intelligence agency head or deputy head and was part of program authorized by the President and determined to be lawful.
again, "determined" by whom?
• Nothing in the bill provides retrospective immunity for government officials for their actions, nor to companies outside the specified timeframe."
my question is this: if rockefeller, hillary, reid, et al want to protect their financiers in the telco industry, but essentially get them to flip on the government for receiving immunity, would that make this sell-out palatable? (that 'authorized by the president' language seems pregnant, but i am a starry-eyed optimist)
David A wrote on October 19, 2007 12:50 PM:Can someone tell me why one of the most convservative Democratic Senators was elected to the Majority leader position?
The dem senate causes needs to vote someone else into this role that can maintain his spine when any meaning legislation comes to a vote. The only thing Reid has been good at is bending over whenever Bush is in the mood for screwing the constitution/people.
destor23 wrote on October 19, 2007 12:51 PM:If he sees this through, I'll vote for him.
sherifffruitfly wrote on October 19, 2007 12:53 PM:I don't understand how any of this could possibly be a problem. TPM so faithfully stenographed Snarlin Arlen a few days ago, and HE SAID there would be no immunity for the telcos.
Man, stenography ain't what it used to be, eh?
johno wrote on October 19, 2007 12:59 PM:Dodd, at minimum, has raised the profile of this story. The American people, once they know about it, will not support immunity. There's a lot of people getting real nervous right about now...
Michael wrote on October 19, 2007 1:00 PM:YEAH, AWESOME, FINALLY. If he does as he says that he will do, a novelty in politics (See mrs. bill), he will immediately go up in the polls, big time. Finally, someone with some guts. I may vote for him.
johno wrote on October 19, 2007 1:01 PM:Dodd, at minimum, has raised the profile of this story. The American people, once they know about it, will not support immunity.
tomg06 wrote on October 19, 2007 1:13 PM:Agreed that Dodd has raised the story to the point where is may not be ignored. I wrote my senators here in Maryland to support Dodd. Hopefully there will be an outpouring of emails to the Senate to not let the telecoms get away with a crime. It is time to let the courts decide the legality of their actions. And hey if they are guilty and forced to pay then so be it. It's about time we return to a nation of laws not men.
redwoodtreehugger wrote on October 19, 2007 1:16 PM:Verizon is losing my business effective today. I don't know if I can find a cell phone company that is not monitoring us, and sending our records to Cheney and Addington.
Thank you Sen. Dodd.
"It doesn't matter that it's political theater if he's doing it for the right reason."
I don't think it even matters if he's doing it for the wrong reasons, so long as he does it. I'm way passed the point of having any faith in the personal integrity of professional politicians. I reward the ones who do what I want and I punish the ones who don't. Don't really care what their motivation is for doing it so long as they do it.
David A wrote on October 19, 2007 12:50 PM:
Can someone tell me why one of the most convservative Democratic Senators was elected to the Majority leader position?
*******Great post David.You will notice that not a one of any Dems will spell this out.And thus it's no co-incidence that the Repukes have the upper hand in every situation.
Reid is a conservative Dem like lieberman & thus situations that are worthy to repukes are worthy to Harry Reid not you and I.
He will go along with Repuke agenda everytime,ordinary folks be danmed.
ron: Thank you for your service. I don't know if you caught it, but there was a diary up on the Daily Kos that talked about the soldiers who were assigned the task of interrogating Nazi war criminals at the end of WWII. They took great pains to be human and not use torture. And we are talking about people who thrust the entire planet into war and killed millions of Jews, not to mention other Eastern European ethnics. You truly were The Greatest Generation.
redwoodtreehugger: FWIW, I heard t-mobile is a German company and they refuse to take part in this. And there is Qwest too. But your millage may very.
Gaddis wrote on October 19, 2007 1:30 PM:Dodd is trashing the place. And it's not his place!
Jeremy Trudell wrote on October 19, 2007 1:31 PM:Harry Reid is pushing a bill to give the AG power over the telecoms. These jerks are all evil.
Vote for the only guy with integrity-
ronpaul2008. com
PissedinCA wrote on October 19, 2007 1:36 PM:"Political Theater"? If this was someone gutless like Obama or calulating like Clinton, I'd agree but Dodd has been challenging the WH consistently.
Sure it might help his campaign but taking a principled stand deserves recognition.
If Reid caves on this, I'll have lost all respect for the Dem leadership – especially (impeachment is off the table) Pelosi.
Jack wrote on October 19, 2007 1:36 PM:Senator Dodd, if he follows through on his statement to stop any blanket immunity for illegal acts by the government and the telcon companies, has my vote! He is the only one who is doing somethibg, instead of talking about doing something.
How this Congress can continue to bow down to to Bush is beyond me. Why the f*ck were they elected - surely not for their good ideas!!! They were elected to stop the war and turn this country around. So it's not easy - but thery don't have to keep feeding the troll in the Whitehouse!!!
Uggghhh!
tomg06 wrote on October 19, 2007 1:45 PM:hey I too would be interested in giving my business to a telecom that will not comply with Administration request to assist in spying on it's citizens.. any way to find out who is not involved?
Ingrid wrote on October 19, 2007 1:50 PM:Thank you Senator Dodd!
After reading his book "Letters from Nuremberg" it became clear to me that Senator Dodd would make an excellent President.
PissedinCA:
You do realize that Dodd hasn't actually done anything yet, right?
People are giving him way too much credit for threatening to do something if this bill ever comes out of committee with the immunity provisions and other untenable features released today. And, in the highly unlikely event, Reid overrides Dodd's threatened hold, then Dodd threatens to filibuster the bill. We all know how successful this Democratic congress has been at thwarting cloture motions.
Again, I applaud the man for making these statements, but you guys are giving him way too much credit. Right now he's not even involved with the process--he's shouting from the sidelines about what he's going to do when and if he gets into the game.
Instead of egging him on, I suggest you put that energy into calling the members of the Judiciary Committee where this bill is currently being considered. Call your senators.
aasdf wrote on October 19, 2007 1:58 PM:Acting on behalf of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party does get one love from the base! I wonder how much money Dodd’s collected in the past 24 hours? I’ve made a promise to myself to send him $50 every time he acts decisively against the Bush administration and its enablers on the Hill. I firmly hope to reach the maximum contribution allowable.
Reid’s son is Hillary’s Nevada Chairperson. The last thing Reid wants to do is to make a competitor of Clinton’s look good, but that’s exactly what he has done. Hillary must be on the telecom’s side of this as well. Her silence on the issue is deafening. Eventually, she’ll have to spew some double speak, then vote against the bill and in favor of ending debate. Her supporters will use it as evidence of her opposition when they do their doublespeak thing for the base, but her real corporate puppeteers will know that she’s their girl.
The real elephant in the room is the extraordinary new powers this bill gives the AG. The blanket warrants are also disastrous. Dodd is my hero, but also I hope he demands changes to all the horrors in the bill. In for a pint and all that.
Acting on behalf of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party does get one love from the base! I wonder how much money Dodd’s collected in the past 24 hours? I’ve made a promise to myself to send him $50 every time he acts decisively against the Bush administration and its enablers on the Hill. I firmly hope to reach the maximum contribution allowable.
Reid’s son is Hillary’s Nevada Chairperson. The last thing Reid wants to do is to make a competitor of Clinton’s look good, but that’s exactly what he has done. Hillary must be on the telecom’s side of this as well. Her silence on the issue is deafening. Eventually, she’ll have to spew some double speak, then vote against the bill and in favor of ending debate. Her supporters will use it as evidence of her opposition when they do their doublespeak thing for the base, but her real corporate puppeteers will know that she’s their girl.
The real elephant in the room is the extraordinary new powers this bill gives the AG. The blanket warrants are also disastrous. Dodd is my hero, but also I hope he demands changes to all the horrors in the bill. In for a pint and all that.
Dodd is the only candidate who is, so far at least, taking real political risk to fight for Constitutional principles long allowed to waste away by Congress. Edwards and Obama may be sympathetic, but they have not been putting issues like this at the forefront.
I sent him $20, the first campaign money I've been willing to part with -- if he sticks with his word and keeps fighting, he'll get more, and possibly even my vote in 2008.
Redstar wrote on October 19, 2007 2:14 PM:I gotta say it, Dodd's name is on some other great legis. action out there - the Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act (S. 166. Tell him you support not only his FISA boldness, but his effort to bring promised fed'l housing resources to the GC NOW!!!
Here's some more info from the National Organizatio for Women's website:
http://capwiz.com/now/issues/ ale...lertid=10235371
(I've also written extensively on housing struggles in the GC, so check me out if you want detailed, bloggy context.)
McE wrote on October 19, 2007 2:22 PM:Iowa still a couple of months off and I've just become a Dodd supporter. He has a chance if we give him one.
Where's Hillary on this? Where's Obama? Suddenly, in an election year, they've gone passive on a very unpopular issue. If they can't lead now, what's to say they'll lead later?
Dodd has just shown the Dems what real leadership is. If the current crop of Dems won't lead, we should elect ones who will. At this point, both Reid and Pelosi deserve to lose their next primaries.
Contact Dodd and thank him: http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130
Contact Reid and voice your disapproval:
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/offices.cfm
Thank you McE, the links you included came in very useful. I let Reid know if he can't lead, we'll find someone who can. I let Dodd know how grateful I am that someone is finally standing up for America, that he now has my vote, gratitude, and donation. We need a real leader, and Dodd is the only one stepping up to the plate.
iam wrote on October 19, 2007 2:35 PM:For cell phone service go to Working Assets. It's a progressive company that supports all the causes we care about.
Keith wrote on October 19, 2007 2:47 PM:MCE:
Obama has spoken out against granting the telecom's immunity. When and if this bill comes out of committee with that provision, we'll have to see what he and Dodd actually do at that point. Until then, it's all just speculation.
Has a reporter asked HRC about this bill yet (in its present form)?
Cinderella Ferret wrote on October 19, 2007 2:51 PM:I didn't have read all the comments so if someone has already pointed this out; forgive me.
The President has the authority to pardon.
Q: Why do the corporate criminals need this legislation?
A: Because it will keep them from answering any questions in a court of law. In other words, it saves them legal expenses.
Q: But didn't Ford pardon Nixon before he ever went to court?
A: Yes he did. But in this case Bush wants POLITICAL cover so he does not need to provide amnesty for the Corporate criminals.
Can you hear the former Cheerleader now? "Heh heh, you know, well, the CONGRESS said it was OK. So, heh heh, I may be the Decider, but I'm not going to argue with Congress on this one. I mean, you knew, heh heh, they made Me America stronger in the War on Terrorism."
Abrogation of our 4th Amendment rights surely must make us stronger, eh? Besides, with the exception of the 2nd Amendment, everything else in the Bill of Rights are guidelines. No?
Hail to the Abrogationist in Chief! (And His Supplicants in the Congress)
Thanks Keith, for the Obama clarification. I'm glad he's on the right side of this.
Though after all this, I'm still switching my support to Dodd :-)
Dalkenshield wrote on October 19, 2007 2:58 PM:Sick to death of these "leaders." Those who sit by passively and allow the Constitution to be broken are as guilty as those who do it, especially if they're TALKING BIG (like the tough-talking rifle-toters of the 1990's and 80's--where are THEY now?) and DEMANDING RESPECT. All of this bunk involves the "revolving door" of Government Largesse hand-in-hand with BIG BUSINESS. It's very very profitable to talk big and do nothing... Uptherepublic!
NCSteve wrote on October 19, 2007 3:01 PM:Obama's out against it as of yesterday afternoon, albeit with a statement apparently written by someone who'd had insufficient sleep and/or coffee.
Hillary? Well, polling is till ongoing and this story only made page A2 of the WaPo, but I'm sure we'll hear from her any time now.
ShorelineCT wrote on October 19, 2007 3:38 PM:Dodd's statement on his Senate page...
...“The President has no right to secretly eavesdrop on the conversations and activities of law abiding American citizens and anyone who has aided and abetted him in these illegal activities should be held accountable,” said Dodd. “It is unconscionable that such a basic right has been violated, and that the President is the perpetrator. I will do everything in my power to stop Congress from shielding this President’s agenda of secrecy, deception, and blatant unlawfulness.”
I just wrote a wholehearted endorsement for his stance on this issue.
Tom in Dallas wrote on October 19, 2007 3:40 PM:Hats off to Sen. Dodd!
The Congressional College of Capons suddenly has a rooster
tgr wrote on October 19, 2007 3:56 PM:When he went up against O'Reilly, he had my support.
If he goes up against this bill, he has my vote.
Brownell wrote on October 19, 2007 4:37 PM:Yes, I'm thrilled to see a presidential candidate demonstrating LEADERSHIP before the election. Keep it up, and he has my vote. But I think Dodd, along with Feingold and the other good-guy Democrats, is missing an important nuance of this issue by calling it immunity.
Immunity? That's some dead legal term. The fight should be against AMNESTY for telecom criminals. It should be in everyone's face that the Republicans want to confer priveleged legal status on lawbreakers.
The Republicans win if the issue is about big corporate donors who, um, deserve "immunity" because they may have committed a slight infraction of the rules, but in a good cause. Crying about "immunity" is a losing fight. We should oppose AMNESTY with everything we've got.
poggy wrote on October 19, 2007 4:38 PM:What's this? A senator standing up for the Constitution?! Wait, and I think Dodd is a Democrat?! Even more strange.
Reid should be taken down.
I never considered Dodd a serious contender.
He is now.
Anonymous wrote on October 19, 2007 5:10 PM:Kudos for Dodd. I would vote for him. Finally someone who is finally standing up for something. Where's Obama and his supposed idealism!??
Orwell's Intuition wrote on October 19, 2007 5:16 PM:After all this time, I've finally donated to a presidential candidate. Putting my money where my mouth is.
By the way, my mouth says, "Chris Dodd for President!"
Anonymous wrote on October 19, 2007 5:26 PM:Kudos to Dodd!
This is important and I would vote for him just for this issue alone. I believe it is important that this go through the court system. It's the last recourse we have to hold Bush's lawlessness up to the light of day. Surely the Dem leadership isn't going to do anything.
Where's Obama and his supposed idealism?
Liberal Larry wrote on October 19, 2007 6:47 PM:Dirty Harry, Bush-Lite, and their DLC allies have NO GUTS!
della Rovere wrote on October 19, 2007 10:36 PM:"Anonymous wrote on October 19, 2007 5:10 PM:
Kudos for Dodd. I would vote for him. Finally someone who is finally standing up for something. Where's Obama and his supposed idealism!??||"
I think Obama is busy taking off his gloves and this is a full time occupation for him.
sharon wrote on October 20, 2007 7:38 AM:"Where's Obama and his supposed idealism!??"
Right there with Dodd and Feingold. Do you read or do any research before you start slamming people?|
CaptainVideo wrote on October 20, 2007 3:01 PM:It will be interesting to see whether Hillary and/or Obama will oppose a bill giving the lawbreaking firms retroactive immunity and filibuster against it if need be. If they don't and Dodd does, he will have my support for the Presidency and I will send his campaign a contribution.
dante wrote on October 20, 2007 6:21 PM:i have no respect for any democratic senator any more much less for the idiotic and weak leadership so here: pelosi and reid are two of the biggest idiots ive ever known. dodd; well we'll see if it's just blah blah blah as usual or he really means it and filibusters this antiamerican anticonstitutional bill. fucking bush is still getting his way and no one seems to be able to stop him.
