Obama Endorses More of the Same with Dodd

Torrington’s Register-Citizen offered a tough rebuke of President Obama today for endorsing Sen. Chris Dodd’s re-election “unquestioningly”. 

From the editorial:

It’s interesting to hear that President Barack Obama has already decided to support Chris Dodd in the senator’s reelection bid. Obama, after all, campaigned as an outsider, with the mantra of “change” as a continued refrain. Dodd, whatever the voting public thinks of him, represents the opposite of change, a senator for life, as inside as they come.

Aside from poor writing, the editorial highlights a key point about President Obama’s strong endorsement of Sen. Dodd.  Mr. Obama ran on a platform of rejecting “politics as usual”, while Senator Dodd remains the poster child for it.  This being the case, why would the President turn around and endorse Dodd?

The Register Citizen points out the motive: unadulterated party politics.

One would hope that Obama’s “change” would extend to members of his own party. The president, in his so far short time in office, has presented himself as something of an aisle-reacher, a bridge-builder. His unquestioned support of Dodd, however, speaks more to party politics than to bridge building.

At some point in the near future, inevitably, President Obama will come to Connecticut and stand on a spring lawn somewhere in Fairfield County to talk about how valuable Senator Dodd is in Washington, D.C.  He will appeal to the attendees to help finance the Senator’s re-election campaign and eliminate the problem of Dodd having only five Nutmeg State contributors.  The President will speak fondly of Mr. Dodd and emphatically advocate his re-election.

No one will talk about the irony of the moment, but there it will be.

Advertisements

16 responses to “Obama Endorses More of the Same with Dodd

  1. AndersonScooper

    Yep Heath. Matthew Daly got it right when he told Dennis House on Face the State, “WE CAN’T TRUST DEMOCRATS TO CLEAN UP THE BUSH MESS.”

    And you Republicans have shown such a willingness to put partisanship aside in order to work with the President for the good of the country. Or not! As in not one single friggin’ vote towards the imperfect but much needed stimulus package.

    Finally, given Rob Simmons eagerness to associate himself with the Tea Party whackos, why should Obama have waited to choose sides?

    Did you go to one of those events? The vitriol against our new President was absurd, but very, very ugly. Grotesque is probably the better word. But Simmons had no problem hanging with the haters.

    If you want the President to be friendlier to CT Republicans, you might take a page from Governor Rell’s playbook and show Obama some genuine respect and civility. (Instead you hope to build your political movement on hate, intolerance, and selfish greed.) Have you read any of the crap being posted by your own party chair Chris Healy on his websites?

    Just this weekend it was smear and innuendo because Obama shook Hugo Chavez’ hand.

    Good grief. But then again you guys can’t really talk about how well you’d run the country. Not so soon after the Bush mess.

  2. Did you go to one of those events? The vitriol against our new President was absurd, but very, very ugly. Grotesque is probably the better word.

    I don’t disagree with you one bit, but have you paid attention to what you and others had to say about our last President or our junior Senator? This reminds me of some of the far right nutjobs I know who made flippant remarks about moving to Canada when Obama was elected but would have called a Democrat a traitor for saying the same thing.

    I think both sides should be ashamed of they way they conduct political discourse, but the left shouldn’t expect anything better from the right than they expected of themselves during the Bush years.

  3. Does it take Superman X-ray vision to see the forest through the trees? Obama has a vision and plan for change to bring back prosperity for everyone. The Vote No Party , TEA Party, and W partiers all want to turn back the clock to bring us what we had for the last 8 years.
    So – Obama needs an army of people to work on that change agenda and overcome some pretty big obstacles. Chris Dodd is a huge asset in the fight to move the Obama agenda. Dodd is valuable in his Senate leadership and has fought for many of the issues now coming into play. Obama’s punch list includes many of the issues that were on Dodd’s list. So it makes sense for Obama do do all he can to help keep Dodd’s energy, talents, deep knowledge, experience and leadership in play to help win the big fight.
    Obviously there are a lot of trees in the Litchfield hills – maybe the Register Citizen might be wise to take another look and find the forest. Change for the sake of change doesn’t make sense when you get rid of the good people you need to help make the change happen.

  4. Turns out it was only 4 donors from Connecticut:

    Waterbury Republican-American
    4/20/2009, A2

    The only Connecticut residents contributing to the Friends of Chris Dodd campaign so far this year:

    (1) Robert Petricelli of Simsbury, $1,000.
    (2) Elaine Wilson of Redding, $500.
    (3) Richard Mul ready of West Hartford, $500.
    (4) George Finley of South Glaston bury, $250.
    (5) There is no No. 5 A lawyer listed from Watertown is actually from Watertown, Mass. All the rest of the $1,048,673 in contributions for the first quarter came from Political Action Committees (PACs) or outside the state.

    Source: Federal Election Commission filing.

  5. Did you go to one of those events? The vitriol against our new President was absurd, but very, very ugly. Grotesque is probably the better word.

    Are you talking about an anti-war protest in 2003 or the Tea Party in 2009?

    In the same post you complain about Republicans being unwilling to be bipartisan but I’ve never heard your outrage as an American when Bush was pilloried. That’s because bipartisanship to you is when Republicans cave in and come to your side.

    Give me a break.

  6. The “change” mantra was laughable during Obama’s campaign. His endorsement of Dodd without question is ironic enough as you point out Heath, but when coupled with a cabinet chock-full of tax cheats and old Clinton hacks, you know it’s business as usual.

  7. AndersonScooper

    No, bipartisanship to me is those Republicans who realize(d) the Iraq invasion was based on lies and unnecessary.

    Bush deserved to be pilloried. For someone who was voted into office with less votes than the other guy, he sure didn’t reach across the aisle much, except to kiss Joe Lieberman for backing his costly war.

    I don’t really expect you ‘wingers to abandon your fight against gay rights, affirmative action, and a woman’s right to choose. I don’t expect Rob Simmons to quit pallin’ around with the anti-Hispanic SCIRI freaks. Nor do I expect any of you guys to join Sam Caliguiri in voting to increase minimum wages.

    But on the American economy during the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes? Yes, I expected you all to join forces with our President.

    Instead you throw ridiculous Tea Parties in order to try and brand Obama a socialist.

    PS– like Howard Dean, I was solidly behind Bush when he went after the terrorists in Afghanistan.

  8. AndersonScooper

    Moderated? Ugh.

  9. Aside from poor writing, the editorial highlights a key point about President Obama’s strong endorsement of Sen. Dodd.

    Heath,

    I don’t think it’s nice, to criticize, the Register-Citizen, or the unique prose style, of its Editorial Board.

    Sincerely,

    New London, Calling

  10. Maybe Dodd and Obama could/should appear at some small, community bank. If things go well, Dodd becomes associated with the working-man’s bank. If things don’t go well, no one will have come and Obama can distance himself a bit more.

  11. In the same post you complain about Republicans being unwilling to be bipartisan but I’ve never heard your outrage as an American when Bush was pilloried. That’s because bipartisanship to you is when Republicans cave in and come to your side.

    Not to defend the indefensible but, by the same token, this is almost pure hypocrisy. No, wait…. H*rs*sh*t.

    Plenty of Democrats took President Bush at his word with regard to Iraq. As Americans. As patriots. And voted that way in the United States’ Senate, for example.

    Point to one instance to date where Republicans have responded to an Obama initiative in-kind.

    [crickets chirping]

  12. And you Republicans have shown such a willingness to put partisanship aside in order to work with the President for the good of the country. Or not! As in not one single friggin’ vote towards the imperfect but much needed stimulus package.

    How was the stimulus package needed, TrueBlue? What has the stimulus done that we couldn’t live without? This is a serious question, and I’ll doubt you know the answer.

    How about TARP? That bill was called, “Toxic Asset Relief Program,” and as of today, not a single toxic asset has been purchased. Yet, Democrats often jump up and down about how we absolutely, positively needed to buy up all of these bad assets or the economy would collapse. Has it? You tell me. The economy’s not doing well, but it’s doing no worse than when TARP was first passed, and TARP hasn’t done anything.

    Have you given any independent thought to whether these bills were necessary, or do you just get your information from the brilliant Robert Gibbs?

  13. No, bipartisanship to me is those Republicans who realize(d) the Iraq invasion was based on lies and unnecessary.

    No, bipartisanship is when someone from a different party agrees with your opinion. Ask Al Gore whether knocking out Saddam Hussein was necessary. Ask Bill Clinton or John Kerry whether it was reasonable to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It wasn’t just those two, either.

    By the way, hope and change hasn’t stopped North Korea from firing missiles, or Iran from splitting atoms, has it?

    Bush deserved to be pilloried. For someone who was voted into office with less votes than the other guy, he sure didn’t reach across the aisle much, except to kiss Joe Lieberman for backing his costly war.

    How about the Bush who defeated John Kerry with a majority vote? Bill Clinton never did that: in both 1992 and 1996, more people didn’t want Bill Clinton to be their President than actually wanted him to be their President. By your logic, everyone should have bowed down and let Bush run the wars the way he wanted, right?

    But on the American economy during the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes? Yes, I expected you all to join forces with our President.

    Even when he has no idea what he’s doing, and his advisors are utterly clueless? Any Congressman, of any party, who blindly supports the President’s plans without taking the time to figure out whether they’re necessary, is failing his or her constituents.

    Are you going to bash Joe Courtney for voting against the first bailout?

  14. “When America draws her sword, let all tongues fall silent” — Roosevelt on war.

    That pretty much was the tradition up until Vietnam, when members of congress opposed the war. There certainly were plenty of reasons for opposing some actions during WWI and WWII, but little tongue wagging in congress. John Kerry, on the other hand, who accused American troops, including himself, of behaving like Genghis Khan during Vietnam, was elected to office because of his unquiet tongue.

    It is now something of a tradition for prominent members of congress to oppose wars — volubly.

    That tradition, you can be sure, will be maintained during President Barack Obama’s war in Afghanistan. But the yeas will be nays and the nays will be yeas. And no one will cry hypocrisy.

  15. So, what is Dodd’s position on President Barack Obama’s committal of troops to Afghanistan, which some have called a quagmire with mountains?

    And what about Kerry?

    Does anyone know?

    Has anyone asked?

    Maybe one of the local war protestors on this site can be dispatched to find out.

  16. Can anyone here give, say, five good reasons for committing more troops to Afghanistan?

    1) To eliminate the WMDs?

    2) To protect the oil supplies?

    3) To kill Osama, who may be dead anyway?

    4) To curry Republican support for Obama’s domestic program?

    5) To protect the poppy supplies?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s