An Agonizing Choice I Hope I Don't Have To Make

Choice on Dodd (0.00 / 0)

Good questions.  I believe many CT voters and Dems are asking similar questions about Dodd and their own litmus test issue.  It is up to Dodd and his Senate and Campaign staff to ease our dilemma through representing and legislating in ways where we will be proud and supportive with ease, not opposed with agony.

---

by: joemustgo @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 08:45:34 AM CST

Watching Alpert ... (4.00 / 2)

... walk Connecticut to raise awareness about the need to get out of Afghanistan made me want to walk with him. No other Congressman is doing this right now. No one is.

You can read where Alpert stands on the issues at his web site. It's pretty obvious that he's taking progressive stands on key issues, especially Afghanistan and Education.

 

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 09:01:11 AM CST

I have... (4.00 / 3)

made my decision months ago. Dodd is not getting my vote. I am sick and tired of being told to support someone just because they are not a conservative Republican. I am not persuaded by Dodds' recent flurry of seemingly consumer and middle class friendly initiatives. All this seems to me to be a desperate attempt at fence mending to save his political ass.

Merrick Alperts' stance on the war in Afghanistan and his position on health care have ensured that he has my vote in a primary.

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:12:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Just made... (4.00 / 1)

a donation to the Alpert campaign and it felt good. Getting some of that 2006 feeling back.

 Ned Lamont for Governor and Merrick Alpert for U.S. Senate!

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:59:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

vote how you like, of course (3.50 / 2)

But Dodd's flurry of consumer initiatives is not exactly a new thing -- he was the person who fought back the bankruptcy bill (Biden's bankruptcy bill) for so long.

–7.25 / –7.28

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:44:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

thank you for posting this (4.00 / 2)

I'm tired of Doddophiles defending their candidate like he's the be all and end all

Dodd has done alot in certain respects but in others.. he does fall far short. I was starting to think I was living in an alternate reality.

Merrick Alpert has reminded me that I do not

.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 09:36:47 AM CST

Dodd is absent on this issue (4.00 / 2)

Dodd has no clear policy for Afghanistan.  On his own Senate website he declares "[w]e need a strategy..." Yet, he is not able to articulate what his strategy would be.

Alpert offers a clear alternative to Dodd.  And, it is the right alternative.

---

by: Mr. Clean @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 16:55:11 PM CST

It doesn't matter whom either if Cts Senators are (2.50 / 2)

in this matter since the decision on What to do and how to do it will be decided by President Obama within a couple of weeks if not sooner.

There won't be an "immediate withdrawl" and only someone with absolutely no understanding of foreign affairs would even suggst such a thing.The best we can hope for is plan with some realistric goals and a realistic timeline that assures even if all those goals aren't met our military involvment will end when that timeline expires.  

---

by: ctkeith @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:52:53 PM CST

Keith - Are you the same person who said this (0.00 / 0)

a month ago:

Patraeus is running for POTUS in 2012

as a Republican.Count on it.
Obama should have fired Gen. McChrystal already for insubordination.

Gibbs said today pulling out of Afganistan was "not an option".In my opinion it's the only option and the only question is how many troops are going to die and how much treasure wasted before we leave.

Obama is a little younger than me and may not remember what Vietnam did to LBJs aganda but he is in the exact same position LBJ was.Hopefully he'll make the better decision and get our Men and woman the hell out of that hellhole.

by: ctkeith @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 18:49:43 PM EDT

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 10:43:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah thats me (0.00 / 0)

But nowhere in that comment did I say the wat to get ourselves out was an "immediate withdrawl".

I want Pres.Obama to announce a plan which makes it clear we're leaving in a specific amount of time( IMHO no more than 18 months).Our deescalation should be as thorough,thoughtful and well planned as our excalation was scattered,thoughtless and ill planned.

We owe  that to the people we put in harms way.Both those who serve in our military and those Afghanis who will face death for helping them in the last 8 years.

---

by: ctkeith @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 11:07:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well 18 Months Seems Excessive (4.00 / 1)

But I can't argue with a well-planned withdrawal - by immediate I just mean starting now.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 11:17:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Today (0.00 / 0)

There are over 60,000 American troops in country.We are in the process of pulling 130,000 more troops out of Iraq in the next year plus .Logistically,18 months may be a very optomistic goal.

Pres. Obama will give a nationwide address on his plans for Afghanistan shortly after Thanksgiving after a very thorough review in which he has already rejected an endless committment.I'm hopeful he will come to the same conclusion we both have that it is in our countries best interest to get out of the mess George W Bush so mismanaged it's now impossible for our presence to do any good.

As for Merrick what's his name I could care less what he thinks but if anyone is interested I'm sure if they tune in to his favorite national news organization, Fox News, to find out.

---

by: ctkeith @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 14:08:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It does matter who the Senator is (3.50 / 2)

I respectfully disagree with ctkeith.  I think it does matter which senator represents us when it comes to Afghanistan or Iraq.  Granted, President Obama will make a decision in the near future regarding number and kinds of troops, but we need a Senator who is not going to just rubber stamp the decisions of the President.  President Obama needs input from senators who may not agree with him.  This war is not likely to be over soon and many more decisions will need to be made.

It's important that Connecticut Democrats make the right decision when it comes to selecting the Democratic candidate who will likely run again Rob Simmons.  Merrick Alpert is against the Afghan war and wants us to withdrawal as soon as possible.  How many more young Americans and coalition forces have to die?  It is possible for special forces and undercover operations supported by good intelligence to be successful in eradicating Al-Qaeda.  I would recommend that we very strongly consider supporting Merrick Alpert in the Democratic primary.  As he becomes better known, I think that people will choose him over Rob Simmons.  

---

by: leftmiddledem @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 22:28:43 PM CST

Doddering Dodd (4.00 / 1)

I think Dodd is just running left these days because he's scared that even liberals won't vote for him in next year's election. If he wins in November, I expect he will go back to his old ways of coddling insurance and defense industries at the expense of healthcare and peace.

I have no reason to think that another six years of Dodd will be much different than his previous years.

Does anyone know if Dodd also voted to fund that useless Laser plane that the Defense Dept didn't even want? I know the Daily Show mocked Lieberman for supporting it--but I think Dodd may have supported it as well.

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 20:52:52 PM CST

Gift Horse (4.00 / 2)

I think Dodd is just running left these days because he's scared that even liberals won't vote for him in next year's election. If he wins in November, I expect he will go back to his old ways of coddling insurance and defense industries at the expense of healthcare and peace.

I actually like it when politicians come around to my way of thinking about things. Frankly, if Lieberman had cravenly changed his mind about Iraq in the middle of 2005, I'd have thought that was great. I mean, hardly anyone really knows these politicians personally, so why wade into analyzing their motives?

If they weren't doing what you wanted them to do, but now are doing what you want, count it as a win!

Nobody is ever as pure as they advertise on the packaging -- Merrick Alpert worked for Enron, for gods sake! -- so if they're generally receptive and generally good on the issues (few enough are), I'd rather just move on to the next item on the agenda.

–7.25 / –7.28

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 23:23:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Put another way (4.00 / 1)

Why the hell do we waste all this time and energy haranguing candidates and elected officials if our sticks and carrots didn't make them behave as we want? I want more Senators to try to attract the left by passing good legislation, not less.  

–7.25 / –7.28

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 23:27:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A lot of... (0.00 / 0)

good people worked for Enron. To try to tar everyone who worked there with the same brush as Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling is something I would expect from Glenn Beck, not you Matt.

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 23:49:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Eh (4.00 / 3)

Sure, it's unfair. But it's equally unfair for Dodd to get shit on for his contributions from the banking industry, when in truth there's nobody doing more to regulate banks and lenders anywhere in Congress. I pointed this out to Alpert, who is asserting corruption despite being able to cite a single bad vote any time in the last decade from his opponent on financial issues. He didn't give a shit.

–7.25 / –7.28

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 07:56:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Matt... (0.00 / 0)

I am not accusing Dodd of corruption...just with being a member in good standing of the Democratic wing of the Corporatist Party.

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 08:35:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You may not be (0.00 / 0)

But Alpert is.  

–7.25 / –7.28

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 17:39:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

would disagree with ... (4.00 / 2)

this statement: "...there's nobody doing more to regulate banks and lenders anywhere in Congress...." than Dodd.

And revise to ... "there's nobody doing more to appear as if he's regulating banks and lenders ..." than Dodd.

When you boil down the proposed regulations, factoring in all the loopholes, can you say for sure what is it that he and Congress are really changing?

Under the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency, Congress is already devising loopholes for ratings agencies, derivatives trading, student lending, and who knows what else.  

What will the final bill be? Dodd may appear as if he's fighting to regulate banks and lenders, but unfortunately, none of us are expert enough to know if that's really the case. We do know that some parts of the bill are consumer friendly, but some aren't. Are the loopholes big enough to destroy the reforms? We don't know, and probably won't know for sure until after it takes effect.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 10:21:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd be pleased (0.00 / 0)

... to hear who you think is doing more.  

–7.25 / –7.28

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 17:36:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

to name a few ... (4.00 / 2)

Alan Grayson, Brad Sherman, Pete DeFazio. Given the fact that none of them is a Chairman of the Banking Committee, their ability to push legislation by Barney Frank is a bit limited. But Grayson, at least, is working on getting an audit of the Fed, and he co-sponsored the Pay-for-Performance bill, which Barney Frank, Jim Himes and a batch of other Democrats effectively gutted.

Dodd has even more power than Barney Frank, and how is Dodd using that power? Not at all, as far as I can tell. Nothing's passed yet, the bailout went to banks (without any Congressional oversight) and NOT to mortgage holders, no banking regulations have been passed, and we can't be sure that whatever does pass will be worth anything.

I really do want to believe that Dodd can deliver some reforms this time. I really do. So give me some hope. Tell me how Dodd has used his power over the last 20 years, as Banking Chairman, DNC Chairman, or as a Senator to pass effective regulations on the banking industry -- at any time in all his years as a Senator.

Then tell my why I should expect him to now.

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 20:17:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

um, by "able" I meant "unable." [nt] (0.00 / 0)

–7.25 / –7.28

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 17:39:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not sure if the move left is genuine (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, I also like it when politicians come around to our way of thinking--but, with Dodd, I'm not convinced that the shift is real or permanent.


"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 19:01:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

More reasons to detest Alpert (0.00 / 0)

despite Afghanistan:

From the Fairfield Minuteman:

Alpert points out that the poll says that Dodd is incompetent, dishonest and untrustworthy, and out of touch.

The poll actually asks: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Chris Dodd is handling his job as United States Senator?" Fifty-four percent of all respondents disapproved. More than a quarter of all registered Democrats disapproved.

Alpert says this means that respondents have judged Dodd to be incompetent. Dodd is also "dishonest and untrustworthy" and "out of touch" according to the poll, Alpert says.

(The poll actually asks if he is both honest and trustworthy so a no answer (52%) doesn't  necessarily believe that he is dishonest - many people think all politicians are untrustworthy.)

This is NOT the way to win friends among Democrats - to distort polls and attack the integrity of a fellow Democrat.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 09:16:59 AM CST

Which begs the question... (0.00 / 0)

Why was this put on the frontpage in the first place?

---

by: Scarce @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 10:03:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Because Afghanistan May Trump Everything Else (0.00 / 0)

No matter how obnoxious the candidate is

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 10:26:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"detest" Alpert? (0.00 / 0)

I don't see how criticizing your political opponent is a reason to "detest" a man.

If Alpert had voted to authorize an illegal war that caused the deaths of millions of innocent people (like Dodd did), then OK, maybe I could see how something like that would be detestable.

But to "detest" him because he called his political opponent incompetent and dishonest.

Geez.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 10:42:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I Guess I Have A Different Standard (0.00 / 0)

when you're both members of the same party and this kind of attack is most likely to help the other party.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 12:04:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Isn't calling Alpert detestable (0.00 / 0)

... also likely to help the other party if Alpert happens to win the Dem primary?

You're members of the same party, so does that make you detestable too?

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 12:25:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fair Comment (0.00 / 0)

I withdraw the word - I will just say I strongly disagree with his campaign tactics and approach. And I apologize for using stronger words.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 12:38:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

FWIW ... (0.00 / 0)

I disagree with those campaign tactics too. It's no way to win over Democrats. You're right about that.

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 13:06:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think you're splitting hairs (0.00 / 0)

Being honest and trustworthy go hand in hand, which is why they were part of the same question.  Or, do you really think people responding to the poll were differentiating between the two and claiming that Dodd is honest but untrustworthy?

Also, since when is attacking the integrity of another politician (whether of the same party or not) taboo?  Hiding behind "integrity" was one of W.'s favorite defenses (i.e., attack my policies but don't attack my integrity).

---

by: Mr. Clean @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 11:26:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Jon's skewed logic behind dismissing Alpert (0.00 / 0)

Jon's comment seems quite strange to me.  52% of people recently surveyed by the Quinnipiac University Poll believe that Sen. Dodd is neither honest nor trustworthy.  But Jon maintains that because some people have a general distrust of all politicians, Sen. Dodd may actually be honest.  Who's distorting the facts here?  
The Poll lucidly shows that 54% of those surveyed believe that Sen. Dodd is not "handling his job" as they would expect their U.S. Senator to.  Analysis: Sen. Dodd is not competently doing his job -- in other words, he is incompetent.
Further, as already stated, 52% of those recently surveyed believe that Sen. Dodd is not honest or trustworthy.  Analysis: Sen. Dodd is not honest or trustworthy.

Now whether or not one agrees with the credibility of such public opinion research and the analyses of such polls is another issue.  But in democratic politics, as I'm sure we're all well aware, it is general public opinion that matters.  And it seems that the general public is speaking -- against Sen. Dodd's re-election.

Anyhow, who needs to attack the integrity of Sen. Dodd? -- he has effectively undermined it himself.  Further, does the mere fact that Sen. Dodd is a fellow Democrat merit the gracious disregard of his acute shortcomings?  I certainly hope not.  But maybe it's precisely that kind of obtuse deference that has kept Sen. Dodd in office this long.

---

by: SeriousDem @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:09:44 PM CST

The question was honest "and" (0.00 / 0)

not "or."

Do I think X is bright and unbiased? "No" doesn't mean I think X is stupid and biased, just one or the other. It's simple logic.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 16:48:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]