This is a personal endorsement and in no way reflects the overall views of CTLP. Front Page posters can choose to personally endorse candidates but we aren’t doing site-wide endorsements this cycle.
In the beginning I wasn’t that excited about Chris Dodd’s run for the Presidency. I’ve always had a high opinion of Dodd as a public official, but President? Really? Initially the idea of him running didn’t really inspire or interest me at all.
But Chris Dodd has won me over. He’s a fighter, a man who realizes it isn’t enough to be right on the issues you have to fight the good fight. Chris Dodd isn’t paying lip service to fighting telecom immunity, restoring Habeas Corpus, and ending the war in Iraq. Chris Dodd isn’t paying lip service to domestic issues like the mortgage crisis. Chris Dodd is fighting the good fight and engaging citizens in the process every step of the way.
Restoring the Constitution
Chris Dodd is the only candidate who has made restoring Habeas Corpus the centerpiece of his campaign. Dodd has utilized his dual roles as candidate and Senator to advocate for and build a coalition in support of The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act.
Chris Dodd’s passion for the rule of law is apparent in his op-ed written for the Huffington Post on June 7, 2007.
At issue in these cases is not simply whether Omar Khadr and Salim Ahmed Hamdan are “lawful” or “unlawful” enemy combatants as the judges have determined. Rather, what is at stake is whether America stands for what is right or what is wrong — whether we stand for justice that secures America or vengeance that weakens us. What is at stake is the rule of law, America’s moral authority and their vital connection to America’s security.
Indeed, one of the saddest days in my 26-year career in the Senate occurred last fall when the Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA), allowing evidence obtained through torture to be admitted into evidence, denying individuals the right to counsel, the right to invoke the Geneva Conventions. Indeed, with passage of the MCA, Congress removed the single most important and effective safeguard of liberty man has known:
The right of habeas corpus, permitting prisoners to be brought before court to determine whether their detainment is lawful.
It’s not just the battle, but how Dodd waged it. In another thread on CTLP we’re having a conversation about how to fight voter apathy and get citizens more involved in the political process. Chris Dodd’s campaign has turned fighting for this bill into an interactive civics lesson about the legislative branch. Every step of the process was presented on the web, and people were encouraged to participate via the citizen generated whip count. Dodd has done what many people wouldn’t have thought possible: made government exciting.
Fighting Telecom Immunity
Senator Dodd has led the fight against offering amnesty to Telecoms that knowingly violated the law (and the public trust) in the FISA bill. Dodd is willing to filibuster any version of the FISA bill that offers telecom immunity.
Dodd on FISA:
Yesterday Dodd had a victory. From a campaign email sent out by Dodd’s Internet Guy Tim Tagaris:
- 1. Within the last hour, the Senate Judiciary Committee just reported out a FISA bill that DOES NOT include retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that helped the Bush Administration spy on Americans.
- 2. This means the Judiciary bill moves to the full Senate WITHOUT the dangerous language included.
- 3. Retroactive immunity will, however, surely be introduced as an amendment to the FISA bill.
- 4. If needed Senator Dodd will filibuster any amendment seeking to add retroactive immunity to the underlying bill. By filibustering, he will force the opposition to find 60 votes to pass the provision.
It will be a lot more difficult for those who would enable the erosion of our Constitution to find the 60 votes necessary to stop immunity on its own than it would be for us to find the 40 needed to sustain a filibuster of the bill as a whole if it included immunity.
The fight against telecom amnesty isn’t over, but Dodd will be there (urging citizen action every step of the way) until the end.
Working Families
Chris Dodd authored the Family Medical Leave Act which Senator Chris Dodd is authored the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which has allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave if they are ill or if they need to care for a sick family member or new child.
But his committment to the issues of working families doesn’t end there. Dodd also authored the Child Care and Development Block Grant a product of the welfare reform in 1996 which provides money for child care assistance for low-income families, families receiving public assistance, and parents enrolled in training or education or who are working and transitioning from welfare or other public assistance. States can use these funds to help families who need child care in order to work and to help families move out of and stay off welfare. Access to childcare is crucial for any parent wishing to reenter the workforce or seek additional education and training. Year after year President Bush has proposed a freeze in discretionary spending for this grant. I am confident that a Dodd presidency will makes access to childcare a priority.
Dodd has also been a leader in the fight against predatory lending. His Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act would reform mortgage lending practices that have created the foreclosure crisis we’re seeing now.
Chris Dodd on predatory lending (Senate Press Release 9/5/07):
Let me be clear: affordable home loans are a good thing; predatory lending is not. Predatory lending needs to be stopped, which is why I intend to introduce legislation that will put an end to the practices that have forced thousands of Americans into foreclosure and put thousands more in danger of losing their homes.
My bill will end prepayment penalties – which only exist in the subprime market, and which penalize homeowners for trying to do the right thing by refinancing their mortgage. It will prohibit brokers and lenders from “steering” homebuyers to a more costly loan. And it will make brokers responsible to the people who pay them – and ban them from acting as free agents who play lenders and borrowers off against each other. Most importantly, my bill will help keep Americans in their homes while also helping to restore public confidence in our mortgage and capital markets.
Chris Dodd has been a strong leader in the Senate on these and other kitchen table issues. He will be a President for Working Families.
Dodd Gets Bloggy
No other candidate has engaged online quite like Chris Dodd. Rather than using the Internet to disseminate information Dodd has focused on civic engagement and coalition building. The Dodd campaign isn’t talking at us but with us.
Why does that matter? I respect politicians who want to raise the level of debate and encourage people to get involved with issues that matter to them. Our current president isn’t doing that. Our current congress isn’t doing it either. When it’s done right, politics online is supposed to empower people to work towards something. No other presidential campaign has come close to this ideal. Only Chris Dodd has realized the potential of the Internet as a way to help citizens become effective advocates.
And Dodd has stood by online activists when so many other politicians were happy to jump on the bandwagon attacking us. Chris Dodd was the ONLY member of Connecticut’s Congressional Delegation to vote against the pointless resolution condemning Moveon. On the even of Yearly Kos Chris Dodd stood up for the netroots on national television taking on none other than Bill O’Reilly. Not only does Dodd understand the power of online activism, but he has shown that he will be our advocate.
The Elephant in the Room: Iraq
Chris Dodd will end the war in Iraq. He will set a firm deadline tied to funding, and bring our troops home.
From Dodd’s campaign website:
By ending our military’s participation in Iraq’s civil war, we can begin focusing our attention on fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere – boldly engaging friends and foes alike in a robust diplomacy, dedicating more resources and manpower to homeland security and leading the world on energy independence.
Hope alone will not wipe away the damage to America’s moral authority these last 6 years. Hope alone will not bring our allies back to our side. And hope alone will not restore America’s leadership.
But with conviction and clarity, Chris Dodd believes we can bring an end to the war in Iraq and make America more secure. With the right leadership, America can lead again.
Dodd is the candidate to end this war and get our troops out of harm’s way. It’s that simple.
I am proud to endorse Chris Dodd for President.
Sources.
Dodd, Chris. “Restoring America’s Standing in the World and Security Begins with Restoring Constitution, Habeas Corpus“. Huffington Post. 6/7/07
“Compliance Assistance —Family and Medical Leave Act“. US Department of Labor website.
“Safe and Affordable Child Care: The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG)“. The Power to End Hunger Results website.
“Dodd Announces Legislation To Protect American Homeownership“. 9/05/07. Senate Press Release
Memmott, Mike. “Clinton, Dodd vote no on condemning MoveOn ad“. USA Today. 9/20/07
Additional links and information gathered from Dodd’s campaign blog, Spazeboy, and Blue Hampshire
50 responses so far ↓
1 JohnMac // Nov 16, 2007 at 7:41 am ·
+0
While it’s customary for local Democratic organizations to endorse their own home town boys, I had a feeling about Dodd from the beginning. I agree, he’s hard to get excited about at 1st blush, he hasn’t the flair, pizzaz, flambuoyancy of, say, a Hillary or an Obama - but he does have substance. And I have to ask myself: Do I want a flashy President, or one with a quiet passion, years of experience in areas that count, and a quiet resolve to get things done backed up by taking action which might not be too ‘popular’ even while campaigning?
I went to a Dodd Fundraiser a couple of months ago, and while I could say that his speechifying is not fiery, it had substance and it was passionate at some level. He believes the words out of his mouth - and therefore, so do I.
He said there will be surprises in Iowa, and I am anxious to be surprised!
2 CtRoadrunner // Nov 16, 2007 at 7:53 am ·
+0
I expect Dodd’s numbers to really move up in a positive manner with this endorsement.
Looking at this objectively Biden is actually the best candidate, if he had John Edwards’ hair he would be a leading candidate. But people are too shallow to support someone with hairplugs.
3 CtRoadrunner // Nov 16, 2007 at 8:27 am ·
+0
Please can one of the Front Pagers get rid of the underline feature!
4 ACR // Nov 16, 2007 at 8:29 am ·
+0
What is it?
Is today April Fools Day or has CTLP gone full parody Harvard Lampoon now?
5 CT_Bob // Nov 16, 2007 at 8:44 am ·
+0
Chris Dodd certainly has my support. He may not be perfect, but what candidate who has served in the Senate for 28 years is? Governors and ex-mayors have an easier time defending their records because they almost never had to compromise to get something done. They are hard-wired to expect near dictatorial powers when they become Chief Executive (see George W. Bush, for example). Dodd knows how to WORK with a legislative group, and in the coming years we’ll need someone like that leading our nation.
In the entire slate of both Democratic and Republican, there isn’t a person better suited for the White House. And this ain’t no April Fools joke.
6 ACR // Nov 16, 2007 at 9:03 am ·
+0
>>In the entire slate of both Democratic and Republican, there isn’t a person better suited for the White House.
On your side of the aisle - Richardson; the Democrat all the Democrats want to ignore.
Remember 1984?
The Dems could’ve saved themselves from a blowout by running a John Glenn, Ernest Hollings ticket. Might not of won, but would’ve carried more than one state (by only 2500 votes at that). But what the Dems do? Ignored both of them and ran the man who wound up being the only person in history to lose in all 50 states (losing a senate election later in Minn.)
I was impressed however, with how fast Dodd kicked into apparently flawless Spanish given the opportunity.
What’s with this unlining anyway?
7 UnionThug // Nov 16, 2007 at 9:04 am ·
+0
CGG, as a strong advocate for the Constitution, does Dodd fully support the Second Amendment, with no restrictions?
8 ACR // Nov 16, 2007 at 9:06 am ·
+0
>>CGG, as a strong advocate for the Constitution, does Dodd fully support the Second Amendment, with no restrictions?
ROF,L!
You *do* know his family history on that issue I suspect?
9 toucan // Nov 16, 2007 at 9:16 am ·
+0
Yes, all Constitutionally granted rights should come with no restrictions or responsibilities. I plan to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater this weekend at an undisclosed location since I have a right to free speech.
10 Tim White // Nov 16, 2007 at 9:21 am ·
+0
So he should win Iowa in a runaway!
Seriously… for him to spend all his time there is bad enough… but I really was kinda ticked when I heard he had enrolled his daughter in school there.
11 CtRoadrunner // Nov 16, 2007 at 9:32 am ·
+0
It is hard to endorse a candidate who as a US Senator from CT moves half way across the country. How is CT benefiting? Step Down from the Senate. Let Jodi appoint an Interm Senator that could represent CT.
CT already lost a congressman 6 years away so we have less sway in Congress, lets try to boost our cache in Washington.
12 adamcs95 // Nov 16, 2007 at 9:37 am ·
+0
I’m sure Dodd would have no problem with you bearing arms if you were part of a well regulated militia.
13 toucan // Nov 16, 2007 at 9:56 am ·
+0
Much of the debate had a confrontational edge and freewheeling tone, with the leading candidates trying to draw sharp contrasts with pointed language. Mrs. Clinton even said she was wearing an “asbestos” pantsuit, while Senator Christopher J. Dodd worried about “a shrillness to the debate.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/us/politics/16debate.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 — Reflecting the deep divisions within Congress over granting legal immunity to telephone companies for cooperating with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a new domestic surveillance law on Thursday that sidestepped the issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/washington/16nsa.html
14 toucan // Nov 16, 2007 at 9:58 am ·
+0
…..And the leading Republican candidates, with the exception of Mr. McCain, are refusing to rule out certain techniques that others would deem as torture.
“I want to tell you. Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney all think it is O.K.,” Mr. McCain told the diners in Boone. “They have one thing in common. They don’t understand the military and the culture of this nation. If they did, they could never condone such behavior.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/us/politics/16mccain.html
15 Jonathan Kantrowitz // Nov 16, 2007 at 10:18 am ·
+0
Chris Dodd has been absolutely great this year and in this campaign. But why did it take a run for the presidency to wake him up? His record before this year has been decidedly mediocre, with strong support for banking and financial interests, and little activism on other fronts.
But the past is the past, and I, too, am leaning Doddward.
16 toucan // Nov 16, 2007 at 10:31 am ·
+0
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Friday blocked a Democratic proposal to pay for the Iraq war but require that troops start coming home.
The 53-45 vote was 15 votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war without strings attached.
The Republican measure failed by an identical vote.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ?SITE=TNJAC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
17 ACR // Nov 16, 2007 at 10:58 am ·
+0
>>I’m sure Dodd would have no problem with you bearing arms if you were part of a well regulated militia.
Might look up the legal def of “Militia” - then for extra credit before you embarrass yourself further; check out what “well regulated” meant in the context of the 2nd.
Even anti-gunner Charlie Rangle has the intellectual integrity to not argue with the intent of the 2nd and realizes the only way for people that agree with his side to “correct” the situation is to change the Constitution itself.
18 GWB // Nov 16, 2007 at 11:06 am ·
+0
CtRoadrunner said:
In a way I don’t really understand criticisms like this. Dodd’s doing his job in Washington to represent CT, and the rest of the time he’s a Presidential candidate, which means if he wants to have any chance at all of gaining whatever support he can he has to spend as much time as possible in New Hampshire and Iowa right now. Stepping down from the Senate would be insane, both because he’s actually representing us well lately (IMO) and because the way he’s representing CT allows him to make a better case to primary voters as to how he’d govern the nation.
(A similar principle goes for Lieberman in 2000, incidentally, regardless of what you think of his record–you campaign in the places where it’ll be most effective. Unless some extraordinary circumstances arise somehow, Connecticut isn’t one of those places.)
19 adamcs95 // Nov 16, 2007 at 11:50 am ·
+0
The language of the second amendment at no point existed outside of the context of the standing militia. During the constitutional convention it was originally inserted into the section regarding the Federal Government’s powers over militia’s (clauses 15 and 16 of Article 1 section 8 the constitution). Once the article’s of the Bill of Rights were held out of the original version and let to be passed by congress as amendments, the House originally passed a version that made further reference to militia qualifications. That language, which had to do with people being able to refuse service on religious grounds, was removed by the Senate. Furthermore, the main Federalist v. anti-Federalist argument regarding this language had more to do with whether the Federal Government would employ a standing army, rather than over “gun rights.”
Looking at militias, as clearly referenced in the constitution under clauses 15 and 16, a militia was hardly a check against an overzealous state, but rather an assurance of protection against invading armies or rebellion to be utilized by the State in absence of standing army. With the current lack of militias, and the existence of a standing army, the Second Amendment finds itself obsolete unless one tries to remove arms from standing army members.
20 withoutapurpose // Nov 16, 2007 at 12:00 pm ·
+0
Dodd does support the 2nd Amendment. He has a very sensible position on gun issues. From Project VoteSmart:
21 wtfdnucsailor // Nov 16, 2007 at 12:31 pm ·
+0
Dodd is my second choice. If he had some executive experience, he would be my first choice. However, Bill Richardson is my first choice because he has shown his abilities in legislative, executive, and foreign policy areas. No matter, any of the DEMS are better than the lot competing for the Republican nomination. When you look at the campaigns, the Rs are in a completely different world than the Dems and the rest of the country.
22 Chris // Nov 16, 2007 at 3:15 pm ·
+0
Not to be a party pooper here, but is this post really necessary? Dodd is not winning, nor is he even viably contending. Is it surprising or even newsworthy, that CGG, a very active liberal in CT politics, supports Dodd? I just don’t see how it is really worthwhile to engage in a debate over the platform over a candidate who has zero chance of being the nominee. I understand he’s a CT Senator, but come on folks.
23 CtRoadrunner // Nov 16, 2007 at 3:19 pm ·
+0
Chris your right, shouldn’t be that big a surprise!
Ditchdiggers endorse Dodd posts should have clued people in.
Speaking of we have not had a Blank endores Dodd post in a few weeks now.
24 RobertCTracy // Nov 16, 2007 at 3:49 pm ·
+0
This idea that a full year away from the Presidential Election that thedeal is sealed makes me sad. You may be right. I don’t know. Personally I would love to see a McCain-Dodd Presidential Race next fall. I think having two men who have been in Washington so long, with so much experience, such differing philospohies and such excellent reputations would be good for our nation. I think it could be the start of a lot of national conversations that this country has been avoiding for along time.
I would have a very hard time trying to figure out who to vote for with those two against each other.
Unfortunately, most of our country can’t resist the impulse to rubberneck at a traffic accident so we will probably end up with the Clinton-Guliani Circus.
They say we should vote our conscience though so good for CGG for endorsing who she thinks is best. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. Frankly if I were a registered Democrat I’d endorse him. too. I think he’s the best of a thin field (at least so far but I’m still looking).
25 Ichabod Crane // Nov 16, 2007 at 3:58 pm ·
+0
withoutapurpose said:
Chris Dodd has earned an F from the NRA on 2nd Amendment issues.
26 CT_Bob // Nov 16, 2007 at 4:32 pm ·
+0
Nobody knew who Bill Clinton was in Nov. 1991, either. Dodd absolutely has a chance. One or two “Hil-ama” miscues between now and January, and it’s a wide open field.
27 ACR // Nov 16, 2007 at 4:39 pm ·
+0
>>The language of the second amendment at no point existed outside of the context of the standing militia.
wrong
If you recall history, we were losing the war, the Continental Army was pretty much getting it’s head handed to them left & right by the Redcoats until the Brits made the error of inciting the citizenry at large via a handful of what would now be considered terrorist acts. THEN the population at large (the “militia!”) was motivated, took up arms and in concert with Washington (the man not the place) handed England their only defeat in about 1000 years.
The militia *is* the citizens - NOT the Army and since it pre-dates the Nat’l Guard by around a century certainly not that either.
That’s not opinion on my part that’s the law:
US Code Title 10 section 311
militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
A “well-regulated” Militia
From: http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Thus any perspective that the 2nd was intended to do anything less than protect the individual’s right to keep and bear arms is intellectually dishonest.
28 cranemeister // Nov 16, 2007 at 6:25 pm ·
+0
At least we now know that there is an individual in the world who wants Chris Dodd to be president … prior to CGG’s post, I didn’t think that there really was such a person …
29 steadyjohn // Nov 16, 2007 at 7:04 pm ·
+0
So glad I waded through all the dodderish to find the above gem and the analysis which produced it. ACR is “well regulated” indeed!
30 ACR // Nov 16, 2007 at 8:49 pm ·
+0
steadyjohn -
Thank you!
31 adamcs95 // Nov 16, 2007 at 10:54 pm ·
+0
ACR,
Congratulations on creating a post that said a lot but addressed nothing which I wrote earlier. If you think your post in anyway trumped what I had you have truly reached a level of delusion I thought to be barely possible.
First of all, I never once in my post addressed the term “well regulated,” so I am confused on why you dwelled upon that point. Secondly, the definition that I used for Militia came from the United States Constitution, making all other definitions in this context irrelevant.
Third, you seem to forget a key event that took place between the end of the Revolutionary War and the writing of the Constitution, Shay’s Rebellion. After the Revolutionary War the US was governed by the Articles of Confederation which were inherently weak by design. Then in 1786 Daniel Shays lead a raid on the Springfield Armory and began an open insurrection against the State of Massachusetts and the United States Government. This scared the crap out of the founding fathers, (except Jefferson), to the point of bringing George Washington out of retirement to support a stronger federal government. One of the things that scared them the most is that they seemed powerless to stop this insurrection, due to their utter inability to raise any army to fight it. The second amendment therefore was designed as a compromise. It ensured an armed populace ready to be called up to defend the state without the cost of a standing army. To say that it was designed to ensure people’s right to rebel against the government if shear lunacy if you know the context in which the document was written in. Why would the founders put in a clause to encourage rebellion, when they were so scared by the last one that they set out to create a document to help prevent it? These were men that were most afraid for their property rights who were threatened by peasants running around with guns. It is only in the context of the militias, which the militia clauses clearly put largely under the control of a central government, that the amendment was written.
32 ACR // Nov 16, 2007 at 11:33 pm ·
+0
Congratulations!
You’re intellectually dishonest.
33 adamcs95 // Nov 17, 2007 at 3:03 am ·
+0
Why, cause I beat you with facts?
34 ACR // Nov 17, 2007 at 8:49 am ·
+0
>>Why would the founders put in a clause to encourage rebellion, when they were so scared by the last one that they set out to create a document to help prevent it?
Because that’s conjecture on your part - and clearly not what the Founders thought at all.
2nd Amendment quotes from the Founders:
Thomas Jefferson in reference to the 2nd Amendment:
““And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787.)”
At least Charlie Rangle has the integrity to admit the 2nd says what the 2nd says - those that which to twist it all around while trying to not only stick their heads in the sand, but the rest of ours too; are not, IMO worthy of discourse with upright decent individuals anywhere.
35 McGinn // Nov 17, 2007 at 10:57 am ·
+0
I am out here in Council Bluffs, Iowa and I decided to support Chris Dodd last August when I had a face to face meeting with him. My father was on board before that and was urging me to consider Dodd. I was familiar with Dodd because of his good work on the “Combating Autism Act”. My father has been showing alot of urgency in this campaign, the most I can ever remember.
Dad has perspective. His father was a supporter of William Jennings Bryan and ran for Congress twice during the 30’s, fighting the good fight with FDR. Dad fought in Korea and he practices law here in the Bluffs. My father and mother have been extremely upset with the current administration in the White House and the direction the country is going.
I have never seen my father so enthusiastic about a cadidate as he is about Chris Dodd. I know dad is concerned about the future of his children and grandchildren, and Chris Dodd has been a champion for children in this country with his good work in Congress. Supporting Dodd is the best thing we can do for our children.
Experience is neccessary for our next president. Dodd has it. He is comprehensive and has the perspective and wisdom to appreciate all of the problems that our next president will have to deal with in the White House.
Dodd has been running an campaign that is truly unique. Our country’s moral authority has been wiped out by the Bush administration. Our constitution, rule of law, our nation of laws, needs to be restored. Dodd is constantly reminding voters of this problem. Dodd recognizes the problem, spots the issues, as lawyer’s often say, and is not only talking about it on the campaign trail, he has been working in Washington to restore out constitution by enacting the Restoration of Habeas Corpus act and fighting the efforts to grant immunity for telecommunication companies who violated the rights of private citizens and the constitution in Congress. The other presidential candidates have interestingly been following his lead on this issue, as they have in the past in Washington when he fought for family issues such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Combating Autism Act, the formation of the children’s caucus.
This is a special , action packed campaign. Dodd is getting his message out through the internet, blogs and leading by example with his work in Congress.
I am trying to convince the many undecided folks out here in Iowa to support Dodd on January 3rd. I think immigration is a very important issue that is on the minds of independent voters, Republicans and Democrats. Dodd has the stuff to tackle this issue as he has shown in recent debates.
I want to thank you folks for sending us Chris Dodd. He is a very comprehensive candidate, experienced, wise, a leader by example.He can make America what it once was, a leader in the world by example. In the end, that will make us safer, which the President swears to when he take oath, protecting our national security.
36 adamcs95 // Nov 17, 2007 at 1:22 pm ·
+0
ACR,
Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution, he was in Paris at the time.
37 adamcs95 // Nov 17, 2007 at 1:32 pm ·
+0
Also you seem to be of the opinion that anyone that disagrees with you based on well reasoned historical facts is somehow intellectually dishonest, while you have brought nothing to this conversation that in anyway relates to the writing of constitution of the United States. Perhaps you should go back and study your Constitutional History(as I had done), since that is afterall what we are talking about, instead of quoting Jefferson and Rangall who had nothing to do with the writing of this amendment.
38 ACR // Nov 17, 2007 at 2:04 pm ·
+0
>>States. Perhaps you should go back and study your Constitutional History ..as I had done
You’d get an “F”
Even to most ardent gun control advocates with integrity admit what the 2nd says - only the most accomplished prevaricators attempt to dissuade the illiterate and ignorant via thinly veiled lies using sophistry as the weapon of choice.
Madison’s own words:
“The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (The Federalist, No. 46)
And from Washington himself:
“A free people ought…to be armed….” ( speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790)
You should stop lying about the intent of the Founders.
39 adamcs95 // Nov 17, 2007 at 5:04 pm ·
+0
Three cheers for selective quoting. Lets finish off the Madison quote in context, shall we:
“But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.” (The Federalist, No. 46)”
This is hardly a call to unregulated armamant. Once again, possesion of arms fail to appear in any context outside of the existance of Militia controlled by any government local, state or federal. The las thing the founders wanted were the unorganized slovenly hordes of Shay’s rebellion. It was a States rights issue, putting the armament in firm context of a governing body ie “local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force”
Furthermore, Federalist No. 46 is hardly a treatis on idividual rights but rather it refers to varying powers of the Local, State, and Federal Governments as its title clearly states, “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared.”
Furthermore, Hamilton’s Federalist 29 examines the role of the Militias as it appears in the Constitution, its need to be ready and trained, its relation to State and Federal Government, its need for the defense of the State “in times of insurrection and invasion.” In order to ensure this force was ready, it would be natural to ensure that an overzealous Federal Government did not try to disarm the membership of a functioning militia. As I have said before, It is in that context, under control of a central government, be it State or otherwise, that the Second Amendment was meant.
40 ACR // Nov 17, 2007 at 5:29 pm ·
+0
Yawn.
Hamilton has no business on our currency - Burr won; with a handgun.
You clearly have -0- concept as to just who settled, and whose descendent’s Founded this nation; much-less what it means and the responsibilities of being an American.
41 adamcs95 // Nov 17, 2007 at 5:49 pm ·
+0
I’m a little dissapointed ACR, I was hoping with your quotation of Madison we were finally raising the commentary of this blog to the intellectual level I’ve always desired, but rarely have time to engage in. You’ve dashed my hopes be implying that one of the greatest proponents of our constitution ought not be listened to because he was gunned down by a would be tyrant, while disparaging me personally for having a different outlook than your own. What do you even mean when you say “You clearly have -0- concept as to just who settled, and whose descendent’s Founded this nation; much-less what it means and the responsibilities of being an American”? If you’re referring to the British lineage of many of the founding fathers, we could discuss armament of the British citizenry for organized civil defense, I feel that may apply to our discussion. However, attacking my civic work, which you know nothing about, as well as my concept of Americanism, is just intellectually lazy. What responsibilities of being an American do you feel I’m not fulfilling?
42 Connecticut Man1 // Nov 18, 2007 at 4:07 pm ·
+0
UnionThug said:
Well let’s see exactly what you are talking about.
“A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
As it guarantees your right to bear arms for the purpose of being in a “well-regulate militia” you could join the National Guard or the Reserves (they are the only “well-regulated militias” I know of) and bear arms as “necessary to the security of a free state”. Count on several trips to to foreign countries OR, at the minimum, pulling guard duty in the US in full battle rattle wherever and whenever the government deems it necessary to gain access to this privileged “right”.
Those of you that like to go canned-hunting and shoot people in the face prove the serious need for regulation of any other uses for arms. And nev3er mind that “terrorists” unfettered access to recreational arms is counter productive to the real intentions of the 2nd amendment of providing the “security of a free state”.
Of course, I can’t be sure of Dodd’s official position on the matter since I have not researched it, but I think it is safe to say he supports the 2nd Amendment as it is written and intended.
Do you support it Union Thug? I doubt it, since you seem to infer that it states that there are “no restrictions” when, clearly, there are.
43 Gabe // Nov 18, 2007 at 4:18 pm ·
+0
Agreeing with him.
44 Connecticut Man1 // Nov 18, 2007 at 4:22 pm ·
+0
The Madison quote that ACR ignores:
“It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.”
Clearly stating that the right to bear arms is well purposed and under government control to “direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia”
IOW, join the National Guard or the Reserves to enjoy the rights of the 2nd amendment. Otherwise, there is no constitutional right to bear arms for recreational putposes or for personal protections.
Your selective ramblings are just simply just that, ACR.
45 Connecticut Man1 // Nov 18, 2007 at 4:27 pm ·
+0
adamcs95 said:
I see you beat me to the punch on the obvious and most glaring error in ACR’s ramblings.
46 Connecticut Man1 // Nov 18, 2007 at 4:43 pm ·
+0
“The militia *is* the citizens - NOT the Army and since it pre-dates the Nat’l Guard by around a century certainly not that either.”
That has no bearing on the argument. There are rules, regulations and obligations to fulfill to qualify for the right and the protections. Recreational hunting and personal protection are never referenced anywhere as deserving the 2nd amendment protections by the founding fathers. Only for the security of the state and under the direction of the government.
ACR, are you always this sloppy and lazy in your spreading of false information?
47 gerardw // Nov 18, 2007 at 5:21 pm ·
+0
Boring!
Boy, I’ve never heard these arguments before. Here’s a bunch of second amendment quotes anyone can cherry pick to support their pro-gun or anti-gun positions.
The text is awkwardly phrased and sufficiently ambiguous that either side can claim they’re right. It goes without saying that immature debaters can also resort to name calling their opponents, but that’s not important right now.
FWIW, the Supremes have consistently upheld gun bans of various sorts, either directly or by refusing to review lower court cases.
48 ACR // Nov 18, 2007 at 5:53 pm ·
+0
>>FWIW, the Supremes have consistently upheld gun bans of various sorts, either directly or by refusing to review lower court cases.
They’ve heard very few cases regarding guns.
Further, seeing as even firearm detractors who also possess even a shred of integrity agree to the intent of the 2nd and that to change it will require a Constitutional change - it’s clear to see just who’s left.
49 gerardw // Nov 18, 2007 at 7:36 pm ·
+0
ACR said:
Yes, that would be “refusing to review lower court cases.”
50 adamcs95 // Nov 18, 2007 at 7:46 pm ·
+0
“Further, seeing as even firearm detractors who also possess even a shred of integrity agree to the intent of the 2nd”
Besides Rangal, who are these people?
Also, I find it offensive to imply that I don’t have integrity due to the fact I disagree with you based on the overwhelming information provided. I am being completly honest, and am not at any point lying. You on the other hand are presenting Half-truths, as exemplified from your partial quote of Madison, while ignoring the subject matter. I’m sure there are probably points I missed, however instead of showing the integrity to come out and prove me wrong you’ve resorted to petty name calling. For shame.
You must log in to post a comment.