Dodd Issues The Reid-Feingold Challenge

Reid-Feingold bill co-sponsor and Presidential candidate Senator Chris Dodd will ask his co-aspirants to support the Reid-Feingold bill:

"I am calling on all the candidates in this race to join me in clearly standing up to the president once and for all by stating their support for the Feingold-Reid legislation that sets a firm timetable to end this war by March 31st, 2008. After more than 3,200 lives lost, tens of thousands wounded and $400 billion spent, it is time to bring an end to a war that at every turn has failed to make America safer. The hour is late. It is time to begin putting our country on a more secure path."

Hear, hear! Disclosure, I am supporting Chris Dodd for President at this time.

< Duke Lacrosse Defendants Cleared: They are Declared Innocent | MSNBC Drops Imus Permanently >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Excellent (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Categorically Imperative on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 02:59:06 PM EST
    Good to see someone leveraging their position as a candidate to force some of the others to stand up to the maladministration's greatest boondoggle.  

    Dodd can only help the country and his own standing as a candidate by continuing to hammer on this until the others come around.

    Yep (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 02:59:56 PM EST
    Whatever the motivation, I woulod love to see all the candidates endorse Reid-Feingold.

    Absolutely a ZERO (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Categorically Imperative on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:04:44 PM EST
    percent chance that Clinton or Obama ever endorse Reid-Feingold.  Less than 50% they vote for it if it gets to the floor.

    We'll see (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:13:06 PM EST
    Reid said there would be a vote on it. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by cal11 voter on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:16:01 PM EST
    Either Reid is wrong, or we'll find out where the candidates stand on Reid/Feingold.

    Yep...poor phrasing by me (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Categorically Imperative on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    I meant to account for the possibility that Bush signs the bill that comes out of conference.  I stand by the prediction that there is no way they endorse Reid-Feingold publicly; the most that will happen is a vote in favor of it in the Senate.

    I wonder what will emerge from conference. (none / 0) (#8)
    by cal11 voter on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:29:43 PM EST
    Will they give Bush something (weak goals) which I think Bush would be tempted to sign, or will they call Bush and send him binding mandates?  Reid/Feingold?  We'll see what happens.

    Good question (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Categorically Imperative on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:53:34 PM EST
    On that I have no real guess, educated or otherwise.  Should be interesting to watch, and my hope is they don't water it down.

    What do you think (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:26:15 PM EST
    of a Richardson/Dodd ticket?

    Honestly (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:37:03 PM EST
    I am not thinking about tickets or 2008.

    Honestly, all my support is geared towards ending the Debacle.

    If Hillary comes out for Reid Feingold, I may endorse her.


    Fair enough (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:43:59 PM EST
    but I fear that the politics are running away from the issue.

    May???? I thought you only had one test. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 04:28:44 PM EST
    Ugh. If you endorse Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by conchita on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 05:02:58 PM EST
    I may have to take a break from TL.  Not a threat (that it should matter anyway), but I will not be able to stomach any site that endorses Hillary and months ago told Emily's List I could no longer support the organization after they endorsed her.  Frankly, I am surprised that you would be able to go there given how hawkish she is.

    My support is menaingless (3.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 08:04:03 PM EST
    I'll support her to day and drop her tomorrow.

    I care about the IRAQ DEBACLE.

    2008 is NEXT YEAR.


    My support is menaingless (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 08:04:13 PM EST
    I'll support her to day and drop her tomorrow.

    I care about the IRAQ DEBACLE.

    2008 is NEXT YEAR.


    Point well taken. (none / 0) (#21)
    by conchita on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 08:24:33 PM EST
    Sorry, my dislike for her is extreme - to the extent that it clouds my judgment.  Should have kept in mind that you have flirted with Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd in the past what 72 hours.  

    I will sleep with all of them (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:27:59 AM EST
    if it ends this Debacle.

    Very funny (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:28:05 AM EST
    I still can't figure out if you're a pro or an amateur.  I will gladly bed hop for an end to the horror too.

    Although (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 05:40:36 PM EST
    One thing that for certain is that things change.

    Sen. Dodd's bill S. 576 (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by leoncarre on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 08:03:14 PM EST
    because of Dodd's Restore the Constitution Act S. 576 which would restore habeas corpus as well, I am supporting Sen. Dodd for prez as well...

    Excellent fp post/diary by Meteor Blades at dkos (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by conchita on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 09:55:09 PM EST
    My favorite part:

    But, even now, we're seeing that a number of the johnny-come-lately withdrawal plans from the Democratic presidential candidates don't really cut it. While it can be said that each contains worthy elements, when you start checking them out in detail, you find disturbing omissions. Some don't deal with permanent bases, some don't say withdraw all the troops, some don't deal with war profiteers. Some are, in other words, neither here nor there. Some are better than others. Do your own parsing.

    Worse still, even now, it's not at all clear whether a Democratic majority will stand firm against Mister Bush should he choose - as he has promised - to veto the supplemental spending bill because of its timetable. The response to that veto - the Feingold-Reid proposal with its funding cut-off and demand for withdrawal starting in four months - is very far from a slam dunk.

    And if we add to the bill John Murtha's plan to prohibit the sending (or re-sending) of inadequately trained, equipped and rested troops, and limit spending to two- or three-month increments, then surely the legislation will lose by a wide margin, an unknown number of Democrats refusing to go along. They remain as cowed by the Bush Administration, and as desperate to "cry uncle," in John Edwards's phrase, as they were back in '05 and '06 when, inarguably, the mess in Iraq was less of a mess, the civil war was just getting started, a lot fewer dollars had been spent and a lot fewer people were dead.

    There is no excuse for surrendering anything to a Bush veto. No excuse for triangulating while the blood and dollars flow. All the Democrats ought by now to recognize just how right Russ Feingold was 20 months ago, and how right he is now. Those who choose to oppose his legislation deserve a hearty ass-kicking.

    Also read this in one of the comments.  Not an ideal source but Novakula is claiming:

    A bipartisan deal on the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq war appears to be in the books, with less talk now of a presidential veto and a subsequent crisis over funding the troops in the field. The final version probably will contain the benchmarks opposed by President George W. Bush, but with no cutoff of funding.

    Feingold is a leader (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 11:18:17 PM EST
    So sad he won't be running in 08.

    The rah-rahing was rather subdued on that thread. MB better watch out or he might get himself banned for his concern and whupping on Dems.


    just checked back (none / 0) (#28)
    by conchita on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:25:04 AM EST
    and sad but true.  what the h happened over there?

    The operatives took over (none / 0) (#30)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:23:36 AM EST
    They're working the sheeple like border collies over there. Purely my take on it of course.

    Maybe not such a bad thing though overall - working toward a specific goal like electing members of your party needs some top-down organization not just bottom-up to be efficient. But I don't like the way the movement people got pushed out. Though it's good that it's expanding the network, getting people to start new sites and think about what's happening and what it means.

    I'm starting to think ratings are the most pernicious aspect of the blogs. They lead to factionalization, judgmentalism, and exercises in power instead of keeping the focus on the constructive exchange of ideas. Maybe that's where it all started to go wrong.


    time and the law (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by orionATL on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 10:30:52 PM EST
    but btd

    you're a lawyer


    it seems reasonable to ask

    what time was it

    when you wrote

    "at this time"?

    Does anyone think (none / 0) (#13)
    by bx58 on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 05:02:08 PM EST
    we could be setting ourselves up for a situation where we're forced to use "unthinkable" force in the ME? Stretching our armed forces to their breaking point is one clue.

    It's starting to look like it.IMO

    Baghdad will soon resemble (none / 0) (#15)
    by annefrank on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 05:33:34 PM EST
    a version of Gaza under the Occupiers where all Iraqis will need an ID card to go anywhere - if they dare.

    Dodd has had bad AM reception all these years? (none / 0) (#17)
    by CMike on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 07:08:44 PM EST
    Democratic Sen. Dodd Enters Presidential Race

    By Dan Balz
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, January 12, 2007; Page A06

    ...Dodd took the unusual step of announcing his candidacy on the "Imus in the Morning" radio program, partly, he said, because he has been doing interviews with host Don Imus for 14 years. But there was a practical political reason as well: Imus was willing to give him more airtime. "Condi Rice was going to do the 'Today Show,' " Dodd said. "CBS said they would give me three minutes. I got 20 minutes on Imus."

    And Dodd is trying to stop the madness (none / 0) (#22)
    by bx58 on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 09:02:27 PM EST
    Whats your point? Maybe if Bush had been on Imus we wouldn't be in this mess?

    You are who your friends are.


    Somebody say something. (none / 0) (#25)
    by bx58 on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 10:37:43 PM EST
    Imus didn't have people on who made money off the "war on terror." He wasn't a shill for the BS artists clouding the airwaves.

    Whether it was all corporate or all Clinton we may never know. Obama is toast.


    What's my point? (none / 0) (#26)
    by CMike on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 11:05:43 PM EST
    Big Tent Democrat is "supporting Chris Dodd for President at this time." There's more than one issue involved here. Dodd may have come around on Iraq but there are other considerations.


    Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, a Democratic candidate for president and a frequent guest on Don Imus' radio program, told CNN Wednesday he'd consider going back on the show if he deems the popular talk-show host's apology sincere.

    "I will wait to see how Don Imus' actions here underscore the sincerity he expressed in his apology and if that's there, then I'd go back on," Dodd said. "If not, then I won't."

    At this time, I'll keep waiting for Al Gore to announce.


    I think your point is ridiculous (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:34:19 AM EST
    MSNBC hired Don Imus and they are a major media player.  If you want to get some air time you have to play with someone who has a court to play on.  This is silly.  He said he didn't think he needed to crucify Don Imus if Don was sincere.  Don was whining this morning about having to apologize so much.  I guess he isn't very sincere.  Settles that now doesn't it?

    "I guess he isn't very sincere." (none / 0) (#33)
    by CMike on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:01:58 PM EST
    You are just getting this now? After fourteen years appearing on the Imus show do you think Dodd is on the verge of figuring this out?

    Is your entire reason for being here (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:03:36 PM EST
    to belittle or be "right" in some way?  I thought we were discussing today, Dodd, and Don Imus......sorry, I didn't realize we we're discussing fourteen years.  I didn't know who Don Imus was before he came to be on MSNBC and I didn't start watching MSNBC until 5 yrs ago.  I was pretty busy before that.