What is going on with Chris Dodd?

by: Mike Lux

Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 18:15


I don't know Chris Dodd well, but have always liked him quite a bit. I appreciated his advocacy on behalf of children, on civil rights and civil liberties, and on many other important issues. I thought he was a great DNC chair back in the '96 cycle. I knew that his closest friends on the Hill were Ted Kennedy and Rosa DeLauro, who have always been two of my favorite people. I thought he ran an honorable and strongly progressive campaign for President in 2008.

But lately, it seems like Chris Dodd has been taken over by a Wall Street pod person. He repeatedly tried to make major compromises to please the big banks in the financial reform bill, saying that the bill could not pass without these changes when in fact the bill got steadily stronger on the floor of the Senate, and the Republicans were always too scared to filibuster it. He has come out strongly against filibuster reform. And now he is mounting a major campaign to defeat Elizabeth Warren, both with public statements (for a while using the filibuster excuse, now just blatantly questioning her ability to do the job) and especially in private. Based on everything I am hearing from insiders at the White House and Capitol Hill, the two people who are most anxious to keep the President from nominating Warren are Geithner and Dodd.

What is going on with Dodd? I am told by extremely good sources that he remains extremely angry with Warren for daring to push back against the compromises gutting the consumer protection bureau, so that at least is one reason. More disturbingly, some are suggesting that he feels like he needs to carry water for the White House on this, so that they have a good excuse not to pick her, although I am more skeptical of that idea because I know there is a strong contingent at the White House that favor her nomination as well as some who oppose. Finally, the DC rumor mills have been ablaze for months that Dodd is looking at a lobbying career when he retires, and as former chair of the Senate Banking committee, he could be in line for some pretty sweet contracts with the big banks.

Whatever the reasons, this is a very disappointing way for someone with an honorable career like Dodd to go out on. I hope he steps back from the dark side.

Mike Lux :: What is going on with Chris Dodd?

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
What is going on with Chris Dodd? | 50 comments
My guess is that like his father, who was a Nuremburg prosecuter (4.00 / 1)
and a distinguished public servant and senator, he went "bad" towards the end of his career as the temptations that are dangled before every elected official became too hard to resist. Like his CT colleague, he's a water carrier for Wall St. more than one for the WH. Unlike Joe, I see him as weak and stupid (not that Joe's a genius) more than willfully malevolent and corrupt.

I'm glad that he's ending his career in politics. As an agent of progressive change, he's spent. That became clear with his feckless "filibuster" of FISA telcom immunity. (Perhaps he was "recruited" for his by Obama, Inc.)

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Lobbying Gig (4.00 / 2)
My guess is it's the potential lobbying gig that's affected his behavior.  He's 66 and has two young kids - needs to make sure they are provided for.

Connecticut (4.00 / 1)
he's from there
Well, so am I. (0.00 / 0)
Also, I can think of a lot of people that have been carping about Dodd for this precise reason for the better part of two decades now... and they still live in CT.

I'm not raggin' on ya. I'm just sayin'. ;-P

Scumbags can appear in any state, yes?


"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; .... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " -- Frederick Douglass

[ Parent ]
it just seems like every single elected official from Connecticut is fucking terrible (4.00 / 1)
regardless of party affiliation

also seriously Vince McMahon just won the Republican primary by proxy

also Joe Lieberman

[ Parent ]
Yeah, it's a fair point. (0.00 / 0)
I can't possibly explain Republican choices at all. I didn't grow up in that part of the state, or that culture. When I was a teenager, William Sloan Coffin was Yale's chaplain and I even spoke with him a few times--amongst others. Different times.

But if you want to find political scumbags, just look at any state now. Any state. Yeah, even Rose DeLauro (of New Haven) isn't all that great anymore. She used to be alright, but I guess people do change after all.

It's just too easy to throw rhetorical bombs the way you do at times, as much as I get the anger... and the occasional need for it.  

"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; .... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " -- Frederick Douglass

[ Parent ]
is pointing out facts really "throwing rhetorical bombs" (0.00 / 0)
how is anything I said untrue?
[ Parent ]
real sharp analysis, there (4.00 / 1)


sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
Dodd's problem is he's acting to much like Dodd (4.00 / 8)
Dodd also played a crucial role in the 1999 passage of the deregulatory Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which dismantled key provisions of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, breaking down barriers among commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies. In fact, according to Ed Yingling, head of the American Bankers Association, Dodd was the bill's unsung hero. "It was about to die," says Yingling, "because [former Republican senator] Phil Gramm, on a side issue, was just hardballing it. There were seven or eight of us who were chief lobbyists for the industries. What we were saying was, 'We're running out of time. If we can get Chris Dodd in the room, we can work it out.'" They got Dodd, and Dodd got it done, but Dodd doesn't like to talk about it anymore.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/2...

but you see he's been a stalwart DNC democrat (4.00 / 1)
oh

oh

[ Parent ]
A sterling example. Perfect. (0.00 / 0)
Now really, it doesn't get much worse than that, does it?

Thanks to Gramm-Leach-Bliley, our economy has been laid waste.

Hoocoodanode? (Besides Kent Conrad, anyway)

"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; .... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " -- Frederick Douglass

[ Parent ]
No no, Kent Conrad's the bad one (0.00 / 0)
from North Dakota.  You're thinking of Byron Dorgan, the "good one".

Besides Dorgan, the other 7 who voted against Gramm-Leach-Bliley were:

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Richard Bryan (D-NV)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Dick Shelby (R-AL)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)

These eight are true heroes of America (yes, even Dick Shelby) and should be honored in the pantheon of unpopular-but-right votes, along with the 1 (Feingold) who voted against the USA PATRIOT Act and the 23 who voted against the Iraq war.

[ Parent ]
Carelful on Harkin (0.00 / 0)
He voted for PATRIOT and the Iraq war.  With Senators it helps to remember that only one third of them are up for re-election at a time.  In 2002 Harkin was up, so . . .
[ Parent ]
I meant in the context of that particular vote on Gramm-Leach-Bliley (0.00 / 0)
where their willingness to vote the right way should be considered separately from their other (good and bad) votes, including PATRIOT and Iraq.  Dick Shelby has been on the wrong side on just about every vote, but he still deserves credit for his vote on Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
[ Parent ]
Cynicism leads to good news (4.00 / 1)
The good news, if you want to call it that, is his lobbying value goes up if Warren heads the agency.  The more Wall Street is "under assault" the more value the best lobbiests become.

So if this really is for cynical purposes, he only needs to look like he's trying to stop Warren, but not actually succeed, which would be consistent with his rhetoric.

(Is he actually that smart and cynical?  I have no idea.)

That's a great point. (4.00 / 2)
That's so true, I can almost smell the fat piles of cash just thinking about it.

So basically, if Dodd really does tank Warren, then that means he's looking for an immediate pay day, as opposed to a lobbying gig, right? Lobbying, as we all know, is hard work!

They should just rename Washington DC the Wheel of FortuneVille. and be done with it.

(Oh how I wish I was being sarcastic)

"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; .... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " -- Frederick Douglass

[ Parent ]
Dodd has long been in Wall Street's hip pocket. (4.00 / 8)
I'm surprised you weren't aware of that, Mike. I haven't know any pols who haven't long known about this. I too liked his presidential campaign. I gave his campaign money just to reward his civil liberties stands, which I very much appreciated at the time. I'd love to see a reprise of that, actually....

I don't think it's because I'm originally from CT that I've known about his connections to The Ponzi Kings of Wall Street. He's been famous for that, or infamous amongst some, for a long time. Many, many years now.

I think the fact he's retiring gives him the opportunity to really shill for these parasites in a way he couldn't really get away with before. That's it. I have no doubt Dodd will be generously rewarded (wink, wink) with a lovely cush job that pays an amazing amount of money for doing no work starting in say.... March or so. He'll have to take meetings with his money in the Caymans, poor thing.

Lord knows he's certainly earned it!

As an aside, another kept creature of Wall Street is Barney Frank. I'm certain that when he finally retires, we'll all be gasping then too at his slavish devotion to Wall Street. He's certainly earned a pretty penny over the last two years too! It must be awful to have to wait to really get paid for all that work!

Tune in next week on As The Stomach Turns, for another gut wrenching story of official debauchery.....

"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; .... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " -- Frederick Douglass

sometimes we see what we want to see (4.00 / 1)
ya know?
[ Parent ]
Of course. We all do it at one time or another. (4.00 / 1)
In my case, I knew who Dodd was, but I felt it necessary to reward his speeches on civil liberties and the constitution. It may have been crass on his part, as is likely, but still.....

Reward good behavior and all that. It's still worth it to do so, IMO.


"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; .... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " -- Frederick Douglass

[ Parent ]
I think Mike just sees people in terms of their party loyalty (0.00 / 0)
and hence Dodd is supposed to be awesome
[ Parent ]
I have to admit, I bristle at the personalization of this. (4.00 / 2)
I also think you're being a tad hyperbolic about Mike's opinions. I personally don't know why someone as  connected as he is somehow surprised at Dodd's long-time connections to the Financial Vampire Squid (CR-Matt Taibbi). Nor do I really care, either.

Personally, I see Mike's opinions on this and other matters more through a diplomatic filter than anything else. In other words, he's trying to challenge the orthodoxy from a progressive standpoint without getting into the real nitty-gritty, which he is likely much more knowledgeable about than he lets on. But that's not to say he's trying to mislead US as much as he's trying to find a line which won't offer up too much blowback on his position. IOW, there's a strain of careerist defense-playing here which really isn't worth much abuse, at least IMHO.

That's not a satisfying answer, I know. I don't like it much either. But I can also understand his position, as a person who is trying to keep one foot on the "outside" and one foot on the "inside." That doesn't mean that I approve of it, but I can understand it, as one who has also been in a similar position.

At some point rather soon, people in Mike's position will be faced with the choice: Which side are they on? It's already happening, given Gibbs' and others engaging in wholesale Hippy Punching all the time now.

Reality will always trump the best laid diplomatic plans, especially when it's basically just career-driven toeing-the-line at the base of it. Still, in terms of ideas, he's still pretty progressive. There are many people in positions similar to his that gave up all that a long time ago. So at least he's trying.

Mike may turn out to be a real boon to the progressive movement, if he so chooses to be so--wrath of a pol scorned, etc. But that requires a decision he's not ready to make. Yet. Then again, he may not make that decision. I don't know. I'm not sure I care all that much either, really.

So I won't harp on this going forward, but I hope you can understand my wish this discussion be depersonalized. This isn't about Mike, in the end. This is about all of us.

Damn if that isn't enough "sensitive rationalization" for one day!



"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; .... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " -- Frederick Douglass

[ Parent ]
Why didn't Robert Byrd retire before he died? (0.00 / 0)
It's the same question about Dood now, isn't it? Why doesn't he just shut up?

Ego. Pride. Greed.

Arrogant pathetic old man syndrome.

[ Parent ]
I'd trade a weaker stance on civil liberties (4.00 / 1)
For a strong, committed progressive stance on economics.  I'm tired of Wall Street tools getting a free pass on their economic votes (until it's too late) because they've cultivated a few signature civil liberties issues.  It just seems short-sighted.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Think harder... (4.00 / 2)
If you don't understand the centrality of civil liberties to people's ability to provision for themselves by participating in our economy - such as it is - then I'd ask you to imagine Black American's chances to participate in the marketplace before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and how it might be different now if that legislation had not passed.  Civil liberties, like reading, is fundamental.
[ Parent ]
I have thought a great deal about this (0.00 / 0)
Imagine if the New Deal had been scuttled because FDR hadn't been willing to compromise with racist Southerners, such as in declining to support federal anti-lynching legislation.

Right now, I think that things like increased corporate power and the deregulated financial services industry and union bashing are more fundamental problems with this country, so I am willing to put some concerns about civil liberties on the backburner.  I'm not saying civil liberties are unimportant, just that there are bigger fish to fry.


Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Your point is valid, right up to the part about the trade-off. (0.00 / 0)
Economic justice (to use an old expression), is inseparable from social justice.

It sounds to me like you are really talking about some form of justice here. So why not let that dichotomy fall by the wayside altogether?

"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; .... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " -- Frederick Douglass

[ Parent ]
One wonders if FDR (4.00 / 2)
might not have been better assured of the success of his legislation had Black Americans had effective suffrage during his presidency, rather than having to wait for bans on "white primaries," poll taxes, literacy tests and other efforts at voter discrimination.

It doesn't work politically or economically if there isn't full access to participate.  We can spin what if-s all night, but it's not democracy if some get to say how it's gonna be, and the rest have to just live with those decisions later when we get around to including them.

The economy is - in part - a process of deciding what goods get produced, who produces those goods, and who gets those goods.  It's hard to say what our economy might look like had Black Americans had a bigger voice during FDR's time.

And, it's hard to say how much different things might be now, if ~ 60% of state prison populations weren't comprised of racial or ethnic minorities.  Kind of hard to participate in an economy from behind bars... hard to say what the unemployment numbers might be if sentencing were more equitable.

Equitable treatment under the law is a fundamental element underpinning an economy because it determines people's ability to participate in it.  Civil liberties and economic participation are not separable.

[ Parent ]
I agree with Anthony (4.00 / 2)
If it's all a seamless web and we're not allowed to say that one issue is more important to us than another then we are all mutual hostages to each others' causes.  Back to the days of the progressive laundry list.  You can't get up and make a speech about South African apartheid, say, without ALSO mentioning the just struggles of the American workers and the struggle of the Puerto Rican people for independence, and for a woman's right to choose and the struggle against police brutality in the ghettoes, and ... and ... and ... where did this get us, exactly?

Anthony's point is that civil liberties votes are cheap compared to anti-Wall St. votes.  You're not taking on as much entrenched power when you take a civil liberties vote.  I think putting a lasso around Wall St. is going to be the acid test of the progressive movement in this generation.  In earlier generations it might have been civil rights, or the establishment of workers' rights to organize, or defeating Nazism.  Don't worry, there'll be plenty to fight AFTER we win that battle.  (if only we could win it).

This doesn't mean that we let civil liberties issues fall by the wayside, but our analysis needs to be able to go where it needs to go and not be handcuffed to a straitjacketed morality that is afraid to emphasizing anything.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
I don't know how "straightjacketing" even enters into this. (4.00 / 2)
Okay, it's fine if you want to make that trade-off. But I don't see why anyone at all needs to pre-negotiate such a trade-off.

What I and some others (if I may speak thusly without offense) have simply said is that it's not necessary in the least to even think in such terms.

Who knows, in some "what-if" scenario, that may become necessary. But in principle, why on earth simply offer that up as acceptable offal out of the blue?

"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; .... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " -- Frederick Douglass

[ Parent ]
I think the left needs to consider such trade-offs (0.00 / 0)
Because the left is weak.  People want to blame the corporate media or the Democratic establishment, but the real reason why the progressive movement never seems to have great victories is because the progressive movement lacks strength.

I get that it sucks to be in such a position, but I am convinced that the left, for now, maximizes its policy goals by accepting that it is not the majority partner in a center-left coalition and acting accordingly.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
It seems to me that the conservative movement (4.00 / 1)
moved itself, by doing the opposite of this:

accepting that it is not the majority partner in a center-left coalition and acting accordingly.

When conservatives did what you suggest, they were weak. When they stopped doing that, they began to achieve some real power. You don't built strength by making trade offs.  You build strength by fighting tooth and nail for your agenda.

Democratic office holders want to portray themselves as good on civil liberties. They want to portray themselves as for the regular folks on the economy. The WH bristles when they get attacked from the left on these issues because it undermines their message.  That gives us power.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
The ideological spectrum is asymmetrical (0.00 / 0)
The right wingers cause way more problems for Republicans perceived as not being conservative enough than the left causes for Democrats perceived as being too conservative.

Some see forcing a run-off as a progressive victory, but I think the inability to actually defeat Blanche Lincoln in the Arkansas Senate primary illustrated the limits of the left.

So, I see problems with how the left is configured and I think the progressive movement needs to make trade-offs by narrowing the agenda for which it will fight tooth and nail for.  For now, I think there needs to be a progressive-populist economic focus.  I advocate simplifying the message, then staying rigidly on message.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
3 things (4.00 / 1)
The right wingers cause way more problems for Republicans perceived as not being conservative enough than the left causes for Democrats perceived as being too conservative.

This is true. The point is - do you change it by challenging it or do you accept it.  I say that how we got here is b/c the right chose the latter. But the fact that conservatives have more leverage over Republicans then we do over Dems doesn't mean we don't have leverage over Dems.

Some see forcing a run-off as a progressive victory, but I think the inability to actually defeat Blanche Lincoln in the Arkansas Senate primary illustrated the limits of the left.

Politics isn't one shot. Conservatives failed many times before they got it right.  I see it as a first step.  

I advocate simplifying the message, then staying rigidly on message.

I don't think movements work like this. You can tell other people that their concerns don't matter, but they likely outcome is that they'll just stop listening to you.  Again, conservative success has been a product of drawing  rhetorical connections between their various positions, and always arguing conservatism.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
It's not just one shot (4.00 / 1)
Blanche Lincoln was just the most recent in the long line of progressive defeats.

Really, what I'm advocating is a left-wing opposite of the Club for Growth that single-mindedly goes after people for not being progressive enough on economic issues.


Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Are you kidding? (0.00 / 0)
The whole Bush period, at which today's Tea Partiers now rail, was in fact a throwing over many of the right's most cherished dogmas for reasons of political expediency.

They couldn't cut the size of the government - it was more important to pass some unaffordable Medicare benefits (Medicare, the conservatives' worst nightmare program!) without giving the 2004 election to John Kerry.

Sure, now that that blew up in their face and the Democrats swept into power and there was a vacuum on their side of the aisle, the GOP suddenly discovered the principles they hadn't thought about during the whole Bush Era.  And a fat lot of good these would be doing them now except for the miserable economy that Obama was forced to inherit and his inability/unwillingness to wage the kind of populist fight that might offer some hope of their overcoming it.  But now, the country is in a mess and only the Republicans are offering scapegoats.

They did not build their base by sticking to principles!  Had they done so they would have been defeated in 2000 and 2004.  They could only win with stealth politics.  Their "principles" were only in effect when they lost power.  But they knew how to strategize, evidently.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
I'm not kidding (4.00 / 2)
I'm using a lens that moves beyond the last decade.  Conservatives came into ascendancy in the Republican party much earlier than any of the dates you mention. For models, you need to think about the period from around 1964-1994. Their base was built long before the Bush II years.

One more thing - I think you confuse their principles with their rhetoric. They never cared about cutting government or about spending.  They are about cutting certain government functions and cutting spending on certain people.  The Medicare program was a massive give away to large corporations, serves almost no one well, and made it easier to argue for deforming Medicare because of exploding costs.  I don't see any disconnect.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
It also bought them enough senior votes (0.00 / 0)
to take the election from Kerry.  

Of course their principles are a crock of shit.  They don't dare utter them in normal economic times, and even in these miserable economic times a halfway competent Democratic Party that wasn't totally beholden to every corporate interest should have been able to make them choke on their principles.

Sticking to principles is not what's got them sitting pretty now.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Disagree. (0.00 / 0)
Their rhetoric is a crock of shit.  They are steadfast on their principles.
[ Parent ]
Until they get into office. (0.00 / 0)


sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
How do you separate economics from civil liberties in the (0.00 / 0)
Google - Verizon - "public" vs "private" internet deal?  
[ Parent ]
I'm tired (4.00 / 3)
of having to trade at all on such fundamental considerations.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
Well, I am too (0.00 / 0)
but I don't doubt that to some extent I have to do it.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
Rec'd, with one quibble. (0.00 / 0)
It's really not necessary, or advisable, to sacrifice one for the other. Indeed, it's imperative people not do that anymore (including my own shortsighted one-time donation). So points for pointing out the short-sightedness on my part.

Ah, but way back then, it didn't seem so silly to me. My bad.

I would prefer that civil liberties be viewed within the economic context as well as the other stuff. Frankly, I don't see how the two can be separated anymore.

"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; .... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " -- Frederick Douglass

[ Parent ]
Maybe not for much longer (0.00 / 0)

As an aside, another kept creature of Wall Street is Barney Frank.

I was struck by Frank's panic when Scott Brown won in MA.  

Methinks he got intimations of his own political mortality.

The voters are not as forgiving of whoring as they used to be.

[ Parent ]
Defending Anthony from the left Side of the page (4.00 / 1)
This damned thread has gotten ridiculously indented such that it is impossible to tell which post anyone is responding to.

So I am taking it out to the left of the page by starting a new post that's really a continuation of the old one.  Dedicated readers of this site will not get lost.

Anthony started all this fuss by saying:

For a strong, committed progressive stance on economics.  I'm tired of Wall Street tools getting a free pass on their economic votes (until it's too late) because they've cultivated a few signature civil liberties issues.  It just seems short-sighted.

Now look, you can get all philosophical about it and debate the number of angels on the head of a pin, but when you boil it down to reality, all he's really saying is this:

Given a choice (in a primary, say) between someone who's strong in opposing

increased corporate power and the deregulated financial services industry and union bashing

and another who's a basically a tool of Wall St. but has taken some strong stances in favor of First Amendment principles. he would tend to prefer the former.   So would I.  Now if you want to counter this by imagining the ideal candidate who encompasses both, fine, but what if she ain't running?

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
How often do we face this sort of choice? (0.00 / 0)
There are plenty of people who are good on civil liberties issues but want to restrict government action on the economy; they're called libertarians.

How many people currently involved with electoral politics favor an active government in the economy and with helping those in need, while at the same time also favoring expansion of government power in civil liberties? (One might argue President Obama, but it's not clear how much he supports the former.)

Anyway, if we do face this choice it's really up to each person to decide which issue(s) are more important to them.  Personally I think economic issues are more important in part because social and civil liberties issues, to an extent, tend to take care of themselves, and are easier to mobilize people around anyway because they're usually easier to understand and have "hot-button" positions and emotions about.

[ Parent ]
one example: (0.00 / 0)
If Harry Reid loses and we have a battle for Dem Senate Leader between Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer I'd take Durbin in a heartbeat over Schumer because the latter is bought and paid for by Wall St. whereas the former is not, at least not in the same way.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
But they're about the same on civil liberties (0.00 / 0)
So it's not like we have to choose between the stronger person on civil liberties vs. economics.
[ Parent ]
I think that some of us were talking past each other (0.00 / 0)
For me, I didn't criticize this position, although I do think there is way too much emphasis on strategy around primaries and not enough on other mechanisms.  But when Anthony talks about agenda setting and message discipline in the progressive movement, that clearly goes beyond the question of how to handle primaries.

Now if you want to counter this by imagining the ideal candidate who encompasses both, fine, but what if she ain't running?

For what it's worth, what I want to do is to support candidates when the do the right thing, and criticize them when they do the wrong thing, in order to move them closer to being ideal. And I think the only way to do that is to get different kinds of progressives to support each other, and to articulate the ways that civil liberties, social insurance, living wages, women's rights, ending empire, etc., are all of a piece, not by privileging one set of concerns over another.

PS - thanks for bringing the thread back to the left.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Clearly... (0.00 / 0)
...he has lost his mind.
What is going on with Chris Dodd? | 50 comments




USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left
QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox