Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Chris Dodd says "Enough"; will the others listen?

Chris Dodd totally rocks.

He was my third choice - and if he'd talked like this last year, he'd probably have been my first. (full text and video):
Controlled death. Outsourced torture. Secret prisons. Month-long sleep deprivations. The president's personal power to hold whomever he likes for as long as he'd like. It is as if we woke up in the middle of some Kafka-esque nightmare.

Have I gone wildly off-topic . . . ? Have I brought up a dozen unrelated issues?

I wish I had. . . I wish that none of these stories were true.

But we are deceiving ourselves when we talk about the U.S. attorneys issue, the habeas issue, the torture issue, the rendition issue, or the secrecy issue as if each were an isolated case! As if each one were an accident! When we speak of them as isolated, we are keeping our politics cripplingly small; and as long as we keep this small, the rule of men is winning.

There is only one issue here. Only one: the law issue.

Does the president serve the law, or does the law serve the president? Each insult to our Constitution comes from the same source; each springs from the same mindset; and if we attack this contempt for the law at any point, we will wound it at all points.

That is why I'm here today. . . . Immunity is a disgrace in itself, but it is far worse in what it represents. It tells us that some believe in the courts only so long as their verdict goes their way. That some only believe in the rule of law, so long as exceptions are made at their desire. It puts secrecy above sunshine and fiat above law.
See Froomkin today for a round-up of reactions.

Labels: , ,

3 Comments:

At 9:13 PM, June 25, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous had this to say...

Dodd really deserves a lot more respect and attention than he gets. I didn't have a clue who he was a year or so ago. The more I listened to him and read what said, however, the more I wished the Democrats would have given him a serious opportunity for higher office.

You know what his problem is? He's not handsome. He's an average looking guy, which is a no-no in American politics. John Edwards was knocked for being "pretty" or maybe too "boyish" looking, but he gained a pretty good following. Obama is easy on the eyes. Yeah, he's smart and he's a good speaker, but don't kid yourself that a 5'9", 300 pound Obama with the same speaking ability, voice, ideas, etc., would be the Democratic nominee. It never would have happened. Hillary has put a lot of effort into her looks since her early days as a presidential candidate's wife. Remember the hair band? Romney's easy to look at, which may be one of the reasons he got as far he did.

Looks count for far too much in politics. Is it stupid? Of course. One major reason the USA is in such a mess right now is that our priorities are bassackwards. If we're stupid enough to elect people because they're easy to look at and we think we'd like to chug some beer with them, then we deserve the pitiful leadership we get.

 
At 5:38 AM, June 26, 2008 Blogger The Ridger, FCD had this to say...

Yep. My mother really liked Howard Baker but she used to say all the time that he was too short to be President because he wouldn't look right on TV. (Mind you, she was complaining about the way perceptions affected us, not saying that she wouldn't have voted for him.)

 
At 2:51 PM, June 26, 2008 Blogger John B. had this to say...

I have grown to like Dodd over the past year. I had not heard much about him before he took a public stand on FISA and telecom immunity last December. I was impressed by how willing he was to break with the Democratic leadership.

If he hadn't dropped out so quickly, I might have voted for him in the primary.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

     <-- Older Post                     ^ Home                    Newer Post -->