Support Senator Dodd

[filkertom]

Sen. Chris Dodd is threatening a filibuster of the new bill that would expand FISA to grant retroactive legal immunity for telecoms (AT&T, etc.) for spying on us at the behest of the Bush Regime. (And you know who's first in line to stop him from doing so? Our "Democratic" Majority leader, Harry Reid. Jayzus.)

Not that you've heard about it from the mainstream media. It's all over the blogs... but not the "news".

Go here to sign up your support for Sen. Dodd. I mean, unless you really want BushCo and the phone companies spying on your calls. In which case, bluntly, you're full of shit. This isn't partisan. This is yet another impingement upon our freedoms.

(I am not yet really supporting any candidate for president. Edwards is closest on my list. But he's dropping the ball on this kinda stuff, and if Dodd runs with this one and a few others....)

Comments

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

FWIW, Edwards isn't actually a current senator. He didn't run for reelection in 2004 because he was running for VP.

I'm really happy Dodd is standing up like this, and I want to see Clinton and Obama step up too, but Edwards doesn't really have any action to take here other than condemning the immunity (and keeping pressure on the other candidates about it), which I'm pretty sure but not certain he's done.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I'm very well aware Edwards is no longer a senator. Frankly, it's yet another area where he's more honorable than Joe Lieberman. But, as Mark says below, it'd be nice if he said something.

[markbernstein.livejournal.com]

Yep, already did the sign-up thing, and am considering a donation to Dodd's campaign. And I'll likely vote for Dodd in the Michigan primary in January, given that Edwards isn't on the ballot.

In Edwards' defense, he's not currently a senator, so he can't do what Dodd's doing. I do wish he'd issue a statement in support of Dodd.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Not that you've heard about it from the mainstream media. It's all over the blogs... but not the "news".

Um, this story has been published in a number of places in the MSM, as of a few days ago:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&q=dodd+hold+fisa

some specific examples, in case this updates and some of the results expire:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/18/post_137.html (18 Oct)
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/senator-dodd-an.html (18 Oct)http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/opinion/20sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin (20 Oct)


All that said, I applaud his stance and I've signed the petition--thanks for the link.

You're Very Welcome -- but....

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Um, you do realize that the very Google page you list has no front-page news links? No TV or radio networks? The closest you get is a blog from the WaPo and a syndicated opinion column in Yahoo! News. Slate and The Nation, while respectable, are not MSM. And AlaskaReport, Manufacturers' Blog, and The Van Der Galiën Gazette damn sure aren't.

See, this is precisely the problem. It's not on the networks; it's not in the NYT or WaPo or Chicago Trib or LA Times or any fucking where. Example #47,817,906 why I want to bitch-slap anyone who dares to invoke the spurious bullshit propaganda term "liberal media" anywhere near me.

Re: You're Very Welcome -- but....

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Your point is well-taken; the Google News link didn't show articles that had as "mainstream" a circulation as some.

However, the third link I posted (formatting screwup, sorry) is to a NYT editorial. Some searching on their website (on "dodd hold") turns up two additional recent articles (on 19 and 20 October) that mention Dodd's hold:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/us/nationalspecial3/20nsa.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/washington/19nsa.html

And if you look at the Washington Post, they have a couple of articles (as well as several other items) as well:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101802482.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101802620.html

Granted, the Chicago Tribune and the LA Times don't have squat. And it's reasonable to ask where the NYT and WaPo articles are in the print editions (no idea, but probably not on the front page). But I do think that the NYT and the WaPo deserve some credit for covering (and following up on) this story in a timely fashion...even if they aren't promoting it as much as they arguably should be. (And I actually give the NYT a lot of credit for having addressed this issue in an editorial...which page does get a lot of eyeballs.)

Re: You're Very Welcome -- but....

[devospice.livejournal.com]

You damn lib'rals always wantin' yer "rights" and yer "freedoms". Makes me sick! Why can'tcha just be a proud 'Merican and shut up about it?

:)

Re: You're Very Welcome -- but....

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

re: "liberal media":

I had a rant about this, but it's turning into a post in its own right.
Cliff's Notes version:
"The facts are what they are; truth is not biased."

[bryanp.livejournal.com]

I see similar complaints from people at the other end of the political spectrum (yeah, I know Standard BryanP rant #3 :)

A story they feel (and justifiably so in many cases) should be given much more attention in the press is barely noted. Usually I can do a bit of googling and show that they've missed quite a bit of coverage. In this particular case, at least for today, I can't do that. You're right - this should be getting more coverage. Hopefully it will show up more in coming days.

Glad you're feeling better.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Adding to the story: Sens. Biden and Feingold have said they would join Sen. Dodd in a filibuster.

Now if only another sixty or so Dems would grow cojones, the way the country is yearning for them to do.

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

I signed this last week. Chris Dodd has been all over liberal talk radio; today he did phone interviews with both Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes.

[bayushisan.livejournal.com]

I agree that violating the constitution should never have happened. I think that there should have been a way for us to get the information we needed without breaking the fourth ammendment. Yes it would have been harder and more work but that's the point. As a country we should have been willing to go that extra mile because we're the United States of America.

Like you Tom I'm undecided on a candidate. I have my own criteria, being a conservative Christian, and though I'm sure there's not much we'll agree on politically I'm glad that there are some things that we can and do agree on.