Dodd seeking health care reform advice from constituents via YouTube

Both the NY Times and Hartford Courant blogs are reporting on Senator Chris Dodd’s latest employment of technology for a listening initiative – seeking advice from constituents on health care reform via YouTube.

Viewers can share their ideas and vote on others at the YouTube Senate Hub channel.

“This is an opportunity to discuss with people why health care reform is necessary and to invite them to share their ideas on this important debate,” said Senator Dodd. “The present system isn’t working. When you have 46 million people without coverage, clearly we need to reform this process, and I am asking the users for their ideas on how best to do that.”

Dodd was deputized to lead legislative efforts on the issue in the face of the continuing grave illness of Senator Edward Kennedy, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Advertisements

32 responses to “Dodd seeking health care reform advice from constituents via YouTube

  1. Mr. Reality

    Sara you left this out ….SEC charges former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo with fraud…this is really a bigger story!!!

    “Angelo Mozilo, Monzillo or whatever his name is…” Chris Dodd’s favorite quote. He said it 15 times to the press, to make it look like he didn’t know him.

    With friends like that, Chris Dodd should get a reelected!!! C’mon!

  2. Well, forgive me for laughing at the hypocrisy in Heath’s post when he’s excoriating Dodd about ethics while posting about a dinner at which NEWT GINGRICH was the keynote speaker. The same Mr. Gingrich of whose conduct a House subcommittee on Ethics (lead by a Republican, Porter Goss) found represented “intentional or…reckless” disregard of House rules and that there was “reason to believe” that Gingrich knew he was providing false information to said subcommittee.

    Not just that,”The violation does not represent only a single instance of reckless conduct…Rather, over a number of years and in a number of situations, Mr. Gingrich showed a disregard and lack of respect for the standards of conduct that applied to his activities.”

    Yet this is the guy the State GOP is having to headline the Prescott Bush dinner and spearhead the attack on Dodd about ethics? Pot calling kettle black much?

    And Mr. R – In Gingrich’s case it was he who was found guilty. In Dodd’s case it is his “friend”. And in Heath’s hatchet job he also neglected to point out key phrases from the Newsweek article:

    “So far none of the allegations has added up to much. ”

    and

    “That Dodd should be in trouble for allegedly feathering his own nest is ironic. In a body populated by multimillionaires, Dodd is a relative pauper who has never shown much interest in making money.”

  3. “…Dodd is a relative pauper who has never shown much interest in making money.”

    That’s old hat. That was then…

    Gingrich got in trouble when he shucked off his old wife and married a younger, richer woman. Sound familiar?

  4. Bruce Rubenstein

    Gingrich got in trouble when he shucked off his old wife and married a younger, richer woman. Sound familiar?

    Newt is a hypocrite, like some in both parties. While Newt was excoriating Clinton for his affair, he was having one of his own while his wife was ill.

  5. Bruce,

    I agree. But here are things worse than hypocrisy, the compliment vice pays to virtue. Hypocrisy is the average journalist’s favorite vice because it involves a radical difference in words and actions. And journalists deal in words, the way bankers deal in cash. But Gingrich’s putting away of his faithful wife of many years is an offense against the laws of God, if not the laws of man. Why do we not criticize this breach of faith and honor with the same passion we reserve for hypocrisy? Because, at a certain stage of their lives, most politicians do this – Kennedy, Dodd, Gingrich, Lieberman — and we are afraid in our criticism, aren’t we, of being hypocritical?

  6. As for Dodd, how many times has he insisted in the course of his career hat there was no connection – none – between the money he received from campaign contributors and his regulatory duties as senator? This moral probity lifted him into office and sustained him there. He collected money hand over fist from Big Pharma and financial institutions; no matter, said Dodd countless times, he never shaped a bill with those dollars in mind. Well sir, it seems he may have done this. If Kevin Rennie, one of Dodd’s most persistent critics, had not joined the Hartford Courant as a columnist, the Courant would have been forced to invent him. And why? Well, there was all that huffing and puffing in the paper concerning former Governor John Rowland’s past sins. And, in fact, I was doing much of the huffing and puffing also. Now comes Dodd – and there is this curious silence on the part of some leading Democrats who are biting their tongues because — they do not want to be hypocritical. So they say nothing. Or they make excuses. Is that not shameful?

  7. Gingrich’s putting away of his faithful wife of many years is an offense against the laws of God, if not the laws of man.

    Gingrich also broke the laws of man. Specifically rules against using funds from tax exempt organizations for political purposes and lying to the House Ethics Committee.

  8. Funny thing about hypocrisy…we don’t hear anything from the party that opposed “Bush’s failed policy’s” tm(dems) . Obama gets elected and turns around and hires the same guy that ran both Bush wars that they continually criticized, Robert Gates.

    Hypocrisy? Of course not.

  9. Funny thing about hypocrisy…we don’t hear anything from the party that opposed “Bush’s failed policy’s” tm(dems) . Obama gets elected and turns around and hires the same guy that ran both Bush wars that they continually criticized, Robert Gates.

    Actually, I think you’ll find most of the criticism for the man who ran Bush war policies was aimed at the guy who actually deserved it, Donald Rumsfeld. Gates was only appointed in 2006, well after the Mission had allegedly been Accomplished.

  10. Actually, I think you’ll find most of the criticism for the man who ran Bush war policies was aimed at the guy who actually deserved it, Donald Rumsfeld. Gates was only appointed in 2006, well after the Mission had allegedly been Accomplished.

    Oh. So from 2006 to 2008 Democrats didn’t oppose the wars that Gates was in charge of?

  11. Sara,

    Now that the mission has been accomplished in Iraq, the present president is vowing to press on in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Better keep your rhetorical powder dry: “quagmire,” “can’t win,” “Vietnam all over again,” “no rendition of prisoners,” “Nuremberg,” “constitutional rights for non-combatants … “quagmire”

    It’ll be a slog because you won’t have Bush or Guantanamo (maybe) to kick around anymore.

    But press on.

  12. Maybe?

    Canada has just said no to a request from the Obama administration t0 accept some Guantanamo “detainees.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090605/wl_canada_afp/usattacksjusticeguantanamocanada_20090605193754

    “The United States asked Ottawa last month to take in three of 17 Chinese Muslim detainees held at the US naval base in southern Cuba, Canadian immigration ministry spokesman Alykhan Velshi told AFP.

    “Ottawa had also received a similar request from the former George W. Bush administration to resettle the ethnic Uighurs, he said. And it was pressed publicly by Amnesty International to take them in, but declined.

    “’Canada’s position remains unchanged: twice we have been asked, and twice we have said no,’ Velshi said.

    “’There are significant security concerns related to Guantanamo inmates, and our immigration legislation states that foreign nationals who are members of terrorist groups or who have engaged in acts of terrorism are inadmissible to Canada,’ he said.”

    My own suggestion a few weeks ago was to house them temporarily in one of Sen. Chris Dodd’s domiciles pending their Nuremberg-like trials; the impoverished senator has three or four domicile, and he can’t occupy all of them at the same time.

    But perhaps Sara can come up with a more practical non-hypocritical solution.

  13. But perhaps Sara can come up with a more practical non-hypocritical solution.

    Those that feel so strongly that we should close Guantanamo should be volunteering to take one home something like a foreign exchange student.

    I can see the ads already:

    This is Zahid. Next year Zahid will become homeless, won’t you help?

  14. Pot calling kettle black much?

    Phrase implies there’s something wrong with being Black; I’m shocked to see you use such a term.

  15. easthartfordtaxpayer

    Those that feel so strongly that we should close Guantanamo should be volunteering to take one home something like a foreign exchange student.

    Israel ought to take them off our hands. They are the most experienced in terrorism in the world and they owe us for billions in handouts we give them.

  16. Dodd should use youtube to show himself asking these questions that Dodd refuses to ask… and had to be asked by Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)

    Unfortunately, Dodd refuses to do anything that could upset his benefactors at Goldman, AIG et al.

  17. Bruce Rubenstein

    Now that the mission has been accomplished in Iraq, the present president is vowing to press on in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Better keep your rhetorical powder dry: “quagmire,” “can’t win,” “Vietnam all over again,” “no rendition of prisoners,” “Nuremberg,” “constitutional rights for non-combatants … “quagmire”

    the “mission” wasn’t honorable since the pretexts into the war were a lie…(WMD…mushroom clouds…Sadam and Al Queda…etc)

  18. the “mission” wasn’t honorable since the pretexts into the war

    Who cares?

  19. Hit “submit” prematurely.

    President Barack Obama says the international community has an obligation to stop genocide, even when it’s inconvenient.

  20. Israel ought to take them off our hands.

    An idea that might be interesting, to say the least.

  21. Bruce,

    War always occurs in three acts: The pretext, the war, and the after-effects. The pretexts are always a little crooked: Remember the Maine? Helen of Troy? The War is always messy: Gettysburg, which we remember now because of an address given there by Lincoln, was a bloody, disgraceful thing – except in its after-effects. We are still one nation, and slavery is dead. Usually the pretext is bad, the war bloody and the after-effect – sometimes, dare I say it, good. WWII, in this regard, is viewed as the good war – mostly because the good guys won it. I would argue that the consequences of the Iraq war are mostly good, which is not to say that all the reasons for starting it were honest or just.

    I believe the Iraq war was unjustifiably politicized; so was the Civil war, a war of choice in Obama’s phrase. Lincoln almost lost it. There were draft riots in New York, which prompted Lincoln to abolish habeas corpus. There were Dodds of the day who opposed this, and there were Northern newspapers that thought Lincoln should have been impeached.

    But aren’t you just a little bit glad the good guys won it?

  22. My objection to the pro-Obama liberals is their want of consistant standards. If the present commander-in-chief had his way more than a year ago and American troops were withdrawn, Iraq right now would resemble the West bank. Under those circumstances, Obama would not be able to defend Afghanistan or Pakistan. And where is Ned Lamont? Why hasn’t Chris Dodd offered a resistance to Obama’s military adventursomeness? Why have all the tongues that were flapping so recklessly during the Bush administration fallen silent?

    Because the whole mess was for show.

  23. My objection to the pro-Obama liberals is their want of consistant standards. If the present commander-in-chief had his way more than a year ago and American troops were withdrawn, Iraq right now would resemble the West bank. Under those circumstances, Obama would not be able to defend Afghanistan or Pakistan. And where is Ned Lamont? Why hasn’t Chris Dodd offered a resistance to Obama’s military adventursomeness? Why have all the tongues that were flapping so recklessly during the Bush administration fallen silent?

    Because the whole mess was for show.

    Where are all the anti war liberal street protesters? …. remember the signs–“give peace a chance”…”honk if your against war”….”bring the troops home now”….
    “impeach the war criminal”….spend war money on American problems”….Where are these signs today?

    Do liberals all of a sudden support war?

  24. Where are all the anti war liberal street protesters? …. remember the signs–”give peace a chance”…”honk if your against war”….”bring the troops home now”….
    “impeach the war criminal”….spend war money on American problems”….Where are these signs today?

    You’d find that they’re still just as active, just as upset, just as disappointed. Of course, you’d have to bother to try looking to know that.

  25. the “mission” wasn’t honorable since the pretexts into the war were a lie…(WMD…mushroom clouds…Sadam and Al Queda…etc)

    Bruce, I think you should call for the resignation for everyone who promulgated that “lie.”

  26. Where are all the anti war liberal street protesters? …. remember the signs–”give peace a chance”…”honk if your against war”….”bring the troops home now”….
    “impeach the war criminal”….spend war money on American problems”….Where are these signs today?

    Eastham, Mass in front of the windmill on Rt 6 every Saturday unless it’s raining.

    A small bunch of 1967 throwbacks who all appear to have taken one hit of acid too many, waves “Stop the War” signs with regularity.

    I think I’ll join them next week or so – I’ve never waved a sign in my life but I could slum it some it morning I guess.

    “Impeach Warmonger Obama”

    Of course I’ll have my sign professionally done – none of that cardboard and magic marker nonsense for me, I have standards you know.

    If only I could still fit into (or find) my button fly bell bottom Levis, I’d wear some sort of colored tee shirt with some slogan on it, but the only one’s I’ve ever owned were from Camel cigarettes and I’ve no idea where they might be at this point.

    Hopefully in my freshly pressed Nantucket Red khakis, and a nice button down sport shirt, I’ll fit right in!

    Should wear my boat shoes, or my Weejuns? Sure don’t want to stand out too much.

  27. Moderated???

  28. Where are all the anti war liberal street protesters? …. remember the signs–”give peace a chance”…”honk if your against war”….”bring the troops home now”….
    “impeach the war criminal”….spend war money on American problems”….Where are these signs today?

    Seeing as I’ve posted a response twice and both are hung up in moderation que:

    http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgmgk86r_11c6cxfjgh

  29. Thomas Hooker

    War always occurs in three acts: The pretext, the war, and the after-effects. The pretexts are always a little crooked: Remember the Maine? Helen of Troy? The War is always messy: Gettysburg, which we remember now because of an address given there by Lincoln, was a bloody, disgraceful thing – except in its after-effects. We are still one nation, and slavery is dead. Usually the pretext is bad, the war bloody and the after-effect – sometimes, dare I say it, good. WWII, in this regard, is viewed as the good war – mostly because the good guys won it. I would argue that the consequences of the Iraq war are mostly good, which is not to say that all the reasons for starting it were honest or just.

    No, Mr. Pesci, war does not always begin with a “pretext”, but with a casus belli, a reason for war. World War II’s casus belli, not “pretext”, was Japan’s unprovoked bombing of the American fleet at Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s declaration of war against America. We entered WW I after intercepting the Zimmerman Telegram in which Germany urged Mexico to attack America and promised that Mexico would be granted its lost territories in America after Germany prevailed over the Allies. The Korean War began with the surprise invasion of South Korea by North Korea. The Civil War’s casus belli was the Confederacy’s move to break away from the United States, and their forces’ attack on the Union garrison at Fort Sumter. We could go on. But your premise that America always goes to war on the basis of false assumptions or bald-faced lies, “pretexts”, is simply wrong.

    Overwhelmingly, America goes to war reluctantly and only after either being attacked, or being provoked. George Bush’s blatant lies about weapons of mass destruction were the exception to the rule. Indeed, his bald-faced lies that led to more than 34,000 dead and wounded Americans and hundreds of thousands of PTSD cases, not to mention hundreds of suicides, when fully disclosed, could well result in Bush’s criminal prosecution.

    And no, Mr. Pesci, getting rid of Saddam Hussein does not justify the loss of life and treasure that Bush’s lies precipitated. We are a nation of laws; we are a nation that, unlike dictatorships, embarks on the path of war only as a last resort. We Americans do not accept “pretexts” as justifications for starting wars. And for his “pretexts”, let us hope that American justice prevails, and Mr. Bush spends many years rotting in a federal penitentiary.

  30. A lot of liberals detest Bush for his preemptive war. But from a Constitutional perspective, I’m not convinced that Bush’s action (as bad as it was) was worse than the action of the members of Congress.

    They took an oath to uphold the Constitution. And while members, such as Dodd, love to talk about the Constitution in terms of FISA… they willfully ignored their Constitutional obligation to declare war.

    IMO, HRC was the worst example. As she ran for POTUS, she consistently tried to have it both ways with the voters. That’s why the Constitution required members to put their John Hancock on a declaration of war.

  31. We are a nation of laws; we are a nation that

    You have NO concept whatsoever as to just who Founded this nation.
    (And you continue to sully the name of a good man with every post.)

    We we’re founded by near-anarchists who set up “just enough” government that we wouldn’t have to listen to absolute tripe such as “..we are a nation of laws from hand-wringing wimps.

    You seem to like Thomas Hooker – what did he do 370 years ago last Sunday?

  32. And no, Mr. Pesci, getting rid of Saddam Hussein does not justify the loss of life and treasure that Bush’s lies precipitated. We are a nation of laws; we are a nation that, unlike dictatorships, embarks on the path of war only as a last resort. We Americans do not accept “pretexts” as justifications for starting wars. And for his “pretexts”, let us hope that American justice prevails, and Mr. Bush spends many years rotting in a federal penitentiary.

    You going to need a big cell because there were a whole bunch of well known Democrats the voted to give the President the power to go to war. If you want to lock them up—–lock them all up.

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