Via the Hartford Courant:

U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd has been diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer. Dodd is scheduled to undergo surgery during the Senate's August recess and said he expects to be back at work after a "brief recuperation" at home. "It's something that's very common among men my age,'' said Dodd, who is 65 and the father of two young daughters. "In fact, one in six men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer at some point during their life.'' Dodd, a Democrat who is up for re-election in November 2010, said he feels fine. "As you have probably noticed, I'm working some long and hard hours lately,'' he said. "And that will continue."

I am certain that everyone wishes him the best in his treatment and hopes for a speedy recovery. I only wish that every American could have a chance to receive the kind of treatment he will receive. Via tparty, An email from Sen. Dodd to supporters below the fold:

I just got a note from Chris Dodd that says in part:

One thing is crystal clear: you want substantial health care reform, and you want it now.

I've been reading through your ideas and comments about health care reform, and the common thread through virtually all of them is that you want a real solution to cover all Americans and reduce costs.

At the bottom is a link to donate money to Chris Dodd. This man cannot get a decent bill out of the HELP Committee, and he wants my money. Nothing doing.

More specifically, he wants to know your likes and dislikes in the admittedly dysfunctional American Healthcare system:

I am thinking that this is another opportunity to drive home the message of support for Single Payer!

Have at it right over here:

Senator Dodd asks: Is your health care working? What changes would you like to see? Add your ideas at YouTube's Senate Hub at http://youtube.com/senatehub

Democratic Senators are writing a major health reform bill. Rising costs are hitting families and businesses and now 46 million Americans live without health coverage. We need reform. Respond now with your ideas as the Senate writes health care legislation. You can help.

What are you still doing here?

Should we be worried that Dodd wants the Treasury Department to loan it to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation when they usually have only a 30 Billion line of credit?

[update] In a banking version of an Imelda Marcos like closet explosion, BILLIONS of other shoes drop...

• "I am not a crook!"

Senator Chris Dodd released the details of his Countrywide mortgages. In a statement released with it he said that he would refinance the loans. But, please, pay no attention to this fact:

"Jackie and Chris have "decided to refinance (their) homes", which seems unremarkable, given that they had an ARM that guaranteed their rates for 5 years and the rates re-set last July or so, I gather. Who wouldn't at least try to refinance?"

h/t to ctblogger and greenpeas, with more commentary, videos and documents available at the link.

I already gave you plenty of reason to rage against Senator Chris Dodd the other day, after he tried to tell us he wouldn't listen to our very clear message... But now, courtesy of CaptCT, I can give you a million reasons to double down on this industry shill:

Jackie M. Clegg Dodd serves on the board of health care, pharmaceutical, and financial services companies.

Here's a list:

Director , Brookdale Senior Living Incorporated
Brentwood , TN
Sector: HEALTHCARE / Long-Term Care Facilities

Director , Cardiome Pharma Corporation
Vancouver, B.C. , CN

 Read more…

Via Mark Pazniokas of the Hartford Courant, 675 angry and frustrated people showed up to this healthcare forum at Goodwin College:

On the first day of a listening tour on health care, an issue pivotal to the new Congress and his own re-election, U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd got an earful Friday.  Read more…

I'm not a weepy-eyed romantic when it comes to the Constitution, but I do believe in rewarding good behavior and symbolic gestures that can have an impact on the political process. As a Little Person, the chance to make the latter comes very, very infrequently. Most of the time our Betters don't give a flying fuck what we do. I think this time it's different. Even if you only give a buck, think of what you're doing not so much as a way to help an old rich White guy make his next payment on the condo in Gstaad, but as a reminder that unlike millions of others, the Constitution is more important to you than the next episode of 'American Idol.' and of course, give your real money to your long suffering Correntian Heroes or we'll kill your dog.

Dear CD-

No, I'm not retiring from the Senate - I'm working hard as ever, to restore the Constitution, stop that terrible FISA bill and put a Democrat in the White House.

But after our incredible journey campaigning for the Presidency, there is something that does need retiring: our debt.

My internet team tells me the campaign inbox was flooded with messages of thanks and inquiries about how you can continue to help now that the presidential campaign is over.

Today, you can help by contributing financially to our effort to retire the campaign debt.

Love your Constitution. ok, i changed that part a lil bit.

I've spent the past days with my wife and family, unwinding after a grueling process that changed the debate at home and abroad -- that is our legacy from the campaign.

 Read more…

Okay, maybe it's only one cheer.

A provisional cheer at that, although I'm inclined to make that two provisional cheers.

What I'd like to suggest, no doubt to the consternation of most readers, is that Reid's decision to pull the FISA bill Monday evening was pretty much what Reid had in mind the whole time.

What I'm sure of is that the many comments I've read that characterize what happened on the Senate floor on Monday as Reid having been forced to pull the bill by Chris Dodd's threat of a filibuster simply don't match what I saw, via C-Span's live streaming.

Before I proceed, let me make clear that I wish to take nothing from Chris Dodd's role here. He deserves all of the praise he's getting and then some.

His speeches on the Senate floor were magisterial. I've been watching him for more years than most of you and I have never seen him so compelling. And yes, it counts that he left his campaign in Idaho to come back and lead the opposition to a version of the Senate bill that was inadequate to the task of restoring the good sense, the respect for civil liberties and constitutional government, that had fueled the passage of the first FISA legislation in the late 1970s.

As Dodd graciously acknowledges in the video Lambert has posted here, many Democrats contributed to the sense I had, watching the debate on Monday, that I was not looking at a dispirited, disunited, frightened caucus, without a clue about how to oppose the policy of obdurate obstructionism employed so successfully in the past six months by the Bush administration and its enablers in the Republican Senate caucus.

Democrats were on the attack, making compelling, easy-to-understand arguments that have wide-spread appeal among a majority of Americans, and they were ready and able to shoot down the lies and prevarications employed by key Republicans, like Orrin Hatch. Most important, the list of Democratic contributors to this success was long and varied, and included Harry Reid.

CD updating the update to reflect the latest news: Reid has pulled the bill.

Well, we're into it - a full-throated Senate debate on many of the dearest, in all senses of that word, fundamentals of constitutional government,

The opening, as Lambert has suggested, was a bit confusing.

Dodd gave a passionate analysis of the many strands of this new FISA legislation, meant, mainly on the Democratic side, to correct the excesses of last August's Protect America Act, which more or less gutted the FISA court as a check on the power of the executive branch to secretly ignore the civil liberties of Americans not to be spied upon by their own government.

To talk process for a moment, the thrust of Dodd's first speech was in support of the many and profound reasons why the Senate should not proceed on the matter at hand as long as the Intelligence Committee's version is the basis of the debate and the subsequent voting on the entire issue. In other words, he was arguing against the imposition of cloture, so that the Senate might spend time debating the merits of substituting the Judiciary Bill as the basis for debate and amendment.

It didn't look or sound to me like this was Dodd's attempt to get a genuine filibuster going, and indeed, the vote was lopsided in favor of cloture, all Republicans voting yes, only ten Democrats voting no.

This is not the end of the debate by any means, though, and from what I've seen thus far, do not despair that passage of the Intelligence Committee's version of this new FISA bill is a done deal, including the extending of amnesty to those Telecoms which choose to go along with the administration. Here's why:

Glenn:

Two other Senators at least -- Feingold and Kennedy -- have committed to being on the floor to enable Dodd to take periodic breaks by asking questions. Despite issuing prior statements claiming they would support Dodd's filibuster, none of the other presidential candidates in the Senate -- Clinton, Obama or Biden -- have indicated that they will do so tomorrow.

Boy, do Hillary and Obama both suck. What a surprise! Just to refresh your memories.

[Oopsie. Scottie walked it back. I guess it was just a cheap stunt to sell books. Who knew?]

Your case has re-opened. On Plame, what did Bush know, and when did he know it? 'Cause Scott "Sucker MC" McClellan dropped a dime:

E&P was first mainstream news outlet to report on Monday night that the McClellan excerpt [from his new tell-all book] reads:

"The most powerful leader [sic] in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

"There was one problem. It was not true.

"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration "were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."

Chris Dodd--yay!--responds:

[Welcome, InfoWorld readers. Note to Bob®: I am absolutely Pammy's biggest fan!]

[UPDATE: Comedy gold! Pravda on the Potomac's weak-chinned Fred Hiatt buries the story on D01.]

[UPDATE: SJC puts off granting the telcos immunity, because the Republicans demanded more time to consider the 26 amendments. At least they didn't go with Spector's bogus Compromise, where the Federal government--that is, you and me as taxpayers--would have assumed the liability the telcos are on the hook for. Modified rapture.]

CNN:

Sen. Chris Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, said he will not support President Bush's nominee because Mukasey said the president can overrule a federal statute when the nation's defense is at risk.

"There's no such provision in the Constitution whatsoever," said Dodd, a 2008 presidential candidate.

More like this, please!

Funny when Pumpkinhead becomes a junkyard dog, isn't it? Insofar as a wordy vacuous cipher can be called a dog, of course. From CNN transcript, Pumpkinhead recites the authorized version. His recital is useful, because it illustrates the sheer wrongness that dominates discourse in the Village.

MR. RUSSERT: After September 11th, the government went to many of the private telecom companies in our country and asked them for information, data.

Tweety's first lie: The administration was seeking this power before 9/11.

The government said they were legally justified to it. They wanted to see if there was a nexus between international terrorists and some phone calls made back here to the United States.

Tweety's second lie: The program is and has always been about voice and data -- Tweety even says so just above! -- not just wiretapping. (This has been a problem with the press coverage from the very beginning.) And further, Tweety recites what the administration says without qualification. Surely, at this point, skepticism is more than warranted?

You have been very outspoken about [against] giving those companies immunity from any kind of prosecution, even though they were doing what the government asked them to do.

Tweety's third lie: "The government" has three branches, only one of them is the executive branch.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democratic [sic] on Senate intelligence, has a view much different from yours.

Tweety's bias just showed. The Democrats are in the majority on the Committee, so Rockefeller is the chair, not the "ranking member." Dodd could have broken in, and corrected this obvious "error."

This is what Rockefeller says: “We recognize that private companies who received legal assurances from the highest levels of government should not be dragged through the courts for their help with national security. The onus is on the administration, not the companies, to ensure that the request is on strong legal footing, and if it’s not,” it’s “the administration that should be held accountable.”

Tweety's fourth lie: The telcos have an independent duty to obey the law, regardless of what the administration says or doesn't say.

Why you going after these companies for doing what they thought was in the public interest?

Tweety's fifth lie: FISA provides for criminal penalties; felonies. Intent has nothing to with it.

There you have it. A very compact compendium of Village wisdom on warrantless surveillance, all of it wrong. Wrong on the facts; wrong on the law; and wrong on how the very foundation of our government, the Constitution, works. Tweety's chatter and clutter and chaff is what passes for discourse these days. Reach me that bucket, wouldja hon?

Now Dodd:

The creamy delicious taste of empire is turning oily and rancid. Chalmers Johnson, in a review of The Matador's Cape, by Stephen Holmes:

With this book, Stephen Holmes largely succeeds in elevating criticism of contemporary American imperialism in the Middle East to a new level. In my opinion, however, he underplays the roles of American imperialism and militarism in exploiting the 9/11 crisis to serve vested interests in the military-industrial complex, the petroleum industry, and the military establishment. Holmes leaves the false impression that the political system of the United States is capable of a successful course correction. But, as Andrew Bacevich, author of The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War, puts it: "None of the Democrats vying to replace President Bush is doing so with the promise of reviving the system of checks and balances.... The aim of the party out of power is not to cut the presidency down to size but to seize it, not to reduce the prerogatives of the executive branch but to regain them."

With the exception, of course, of Chris Dodd.

And what is to be done?

[Welcome, Eschatonians, and thanks to Lord Atrios for the link. I called up Hoyer's office, and courteously informed the young staffer about the link. And you know what? They didn't know who Atrios was. So, this is a teachable moment_{MR SUBLIMINAL And be polite, dammit!} to show Hoyer that (a) restoring Constitutional government is good politics, and (b) it's good to have the blogosphere with you. Why not call his office and do some teaching? (202) 225-4131. Did I mention that you should be polite?*]

Here's a very interesting speech that Representative Hoyer gave yesterday over at Georgetown Law School.** (I'm not clued into Village mores enough to know if the location is significant, but I'm guessing it is. Heck, it's the Beltway's own law school...). Here's the text of the speech, and some of what he had to say; I'm leaving out the terra-terra-terra ass-covering boilerplate to focus on what's new:

We also swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, and to honor the values and principles that are contained therein for example, the Fourth Amendment right that Americans be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law.

Honoring the system of checks and balances carefully established by the Framers of our Constitution will make us more, not less, safe. This was the conclusion of those men in 1789 who had just fought a war, and who faced a very uncertain and dangerous future.

[Here follows a long list of abuses and usurpations; essentially, the same critique we've been developing on torture, surveillance, the rule of law, abuse of power, et cetera, et cetera.]

Nor have we helped our cause by dispensing with centuries-old legal concepts such as habeas corpus. And, the Administration s penchant for presidential signing statements that assert a right of the President to effectively ignore all or part of the laws he signs must give all of us pause.

It is long past time for effective Congressional oversight and Judicial review of this Administration's actions.

And now comes something I personally find amazing:

[Welcome, acolytes of the famously lingeried one. But move along! Move along! There's no story here.]

Gosh, how odd. Or not.

Because you'd think this story has everything: Dodd, alone among the Democrats, stands up to a Bipartisan juggernaut to grant the telcos retroactive immunity for massive lawbreaking--a story the Times itself broke--by saying he'll put a hold on the bill. Reid, the Senate [cough] leader, says he'll ignore the hold. Dodd raises the ante, says he'll [gasp] filibuster. Biden joins in. Hillary and Obama waver on the sidelines.

We've got the Jimmy Stewart figure, standing alone against great odds. We've got dissension in the Democratic caucus. We've got craven politicians. We've got bags of corporate cash.

In short, we've got a rich, compelling narrative, filled with drama, human failings, and high principle.

And if all that's not enough, Dodd's from the Time's circulation catchment: Connecticut. What, the locals aren't interested in their Senator?

So, you'd think the Times would be all over this; or at least give it a paragraph in the Week in Review.

But n-o-o-o-o-o-o-o! I wonder why not?

Perhaps it's hard for Hillary and Barack to get hold of their expensive Beltway consultants on a Friday afternoon. Or maybe the consultant's scarfing a cocktail wienie, so they can't speak clearly.

Regardless, check out this amazing WaPo chat:

San Francisco: Will you join Sen. Chris Dodd's hold and proposed filibuster on any FISA bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecoms? Thanks for joining us for this chat today, Sen. Biden, and thanks for the leadership you provide the Democratic Party and America.

Sen. Joe Biden: Yes.

Amazing for the brevity, I mean. (Via McJoan Big Orange). Dunno who that was from SF, but I'd like to think it was FDL's Teddy.

And before you say "Oh, Dodd and Biden aren't top-tier candidates":

I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, wondering (praying, if I did pray) that it would, and now it has. (Beltway Dems? Hillary and Obama staffers? I've included a helpful diagram at left, that shows the difference between Dodd and you.)

Amping up his efforts to block the Senate FISA bill containing retroactive immunity for the telecom companies, Senator Chris Dodd's campaign says that he will filibuster the measure if the Dem Senate leadership tries to circumvent the hold he plans to put on the bill.

Dodd's filibuster threat comes in response to reports -- based on anonymous quotes from the leadership's office -- which said that Reid's aides think they can get the bill to the floor despite Dodd's hold.

(See here for my dialog with Reid's office.)

Will Dodd's efforts be enough to break the trad press blackout on this issue?

We can't know 'til we try.

Meanwhile, reward good behavior here or here:

Chris Dodd for President

PO Box 51882

Washington, DC 20091

Of course, Senator Reid's office could make all this go away very easily, simply by saying that he'll follow precedent in this matter, and respect Dodd's hold.  Read more…

The Des Moines Register:

Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama all declined in last week's debate to say they'd have U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term - in 2013.

"I was stunned, literally stunned" to hear them say that, Dodd said in an interview for last weekend's Iowa Press program on Iowa Public Television. "It was breathtaking to me that the so-called three leading candidates would not make that commitment. That's six years from today."

"The one issue that gave us the majority in the House and Senate last year was Iraq. It's the dominant issue in the country. We're spending a fortune, $10 billion a month. Reconciliation is no closer today. I think for anybody out there wondering whether or not Democrats get this at all, or not ... to stand up and say six years from now, I will not make the commitment that U.S. forces will be out of Iraq, I found breathtaking."

Then again:

I never realized what an obnoxious asshole O'Reilly is until now.

Because I never listen to the shouting heads. Honestly, balance one guy putting up a picture of Joe Lieberman fishing for Bush's tiny little member with O'Reilly ranting on day after day after day, and I know where the Hate is.

Good for Dodd standing up to him. More like this, please.

My favorite part?

[I'd like to leave this up top for awhile, 'til I get some kind of answer. - See Update 1 - Update 2 - Update 3 - Update 4 - Update 5: At last! Somebody gets it! Read more for the YouTube. - Update 6]

[Welcome, Readers of Duncan The Grey. I was starting to think nobody noticed this one. Question: I thought by this time that it would be obvious that Bush wasn't governing Constitutionally. Was I wrong?]

Just asking....

Since I won't be in Chicago, I thought I'd put the Constitutional Question now.

Je repete: Say, Kos: "What is the Democrats' plan to restore Constitutional Government?"

Is the replacement of Constitutional government by tyranny under Bush on anyone's radar? Is there a workshop, maybe? Some kind of panel?

Kos? (Since your mission is to elect Democrats)

John Edwards?

Obama?

Hillary?  Read more…