Shaumeyer Endorses Dodd
I have come to my decision: I am endorsing Christopher Dodd for president.
I was mulling this over tonight, thinking about the positives I have in my mind for Dodd and for John Edwards, and the balance tilted towards Dodd.
If I were voting in an election (or primary) of the type where one voted for one's favorite two candidates, I would vote for Dodd first, Edwards second, and support whichever one came out on top. On Edwards' side, I think I am most impressed by his firm conviction that we, the country, cannot overhaul our health-care system by negotiating with the major pharmaceutical and health-insurance corporations, as suggested by Clinton and Obama. I can easily support all of Edwards' populist ideals that I've seen. I think he can only get stronger as the race goes on, if he can hold on.
But here was the determining factor for me. For some time I've asserted that what the Democratic party needed, and what voters would respond to, was someone who acted on his or her bold, liberal ideals with determination and conviction. Trying to please everyone pleases almost no-one, but it's a disease liberals are prone to.
The obvious struck me when I realized that the action Dodd took this week in the Senate to block new FISA provisions that would grant retroactive immunity against prosecution for all the telecomm giants who chose to collude with the Bush administration and spy on American's telephone calls. Some time back now he put a "hold" on the legislation, and said publicly that he was doing it and would certainly filibuster if Senate Majority Leader Reid insisted on bringing the legislation to the floor. One recalls that presidential candidates Clinton and Obama promised to support the filibuster when Dodd announced his intent.
Well, Reid decided to bring the legislation to the floor. Dodd prepared to filibuster, as promised, because he was convinced that a line needed to be drawn for individual privacy and liberty here and now. Dodd's move generated quite a bit of public support. Oddly, neither Clinton nor Obama were to be seen anywhere near the Senate when it was time to make good on their promised support. Reid blinked, pulled the legislation from the floor, and Dodd won one for liberty, freedom, the rule of law, and the Constitution.
Dodd did what I had wanted: he made a bold move based on strong convictions and he carried through. I realized tonight how important this move was — as a gesture and as a legislative reaction — both to me and to America. There are a number of other reasons why I am willing to support Dodd, but this is the the standard bearer. Chris Dodd made the bold move that was important and necessary; if he can do it once, he can do it again.
I am happy, therefore, to give my unqualified support to Chis Dodd's campaign for President 2008.
One Response
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 at 23.55
Permalink
Dodd did indeed show himself to be a stand-up senator on an extremely important matter. I will have no problem or reservations supporting him if he gets the nomination.
Like you, I also am drawn to John Edwards. He's a good campaigner and the country is overdue for his populist agenda, to begin to rebalance 25 years of mostly Robin Hood-in-reverse policies.
But unlike you, I am also strongly drawn to Joe Biden. I will say I'm disappointed that Biden didn't show up to support Dodd's filibuster gambit.
Ugh. I can't settle on one at this point. And going by what happened last time around, it very well might not matter if I did, because I seem to be permanently out of sync with most Iowa Democrats.