The retirement of Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) announced today is being headlined as a sign that the Democratic Party is under attack and flailing. New York Times: "Democrats Face Shifting and Perilous Political Environment." Yahoo! headlines the AP story in more texty language: "Losing 2 senators, 1 gov equals worries for Dems." The slant of nearly every story out there is that Dodd's retirement is a sign that Democrats are embattled, unpopular, unhappy, un... winning.Well, some of us are, sure. Chris Dodd was facing a pretty ugly race in Connecticut, which is maybe what one should expect if you're sitting on the Banking Committee during the worst banking crisis in years. He made tough decisions -- some of them ultimately good, some of them probably pretty bad. Those decisions are unpopular with his constituents. His choice became to lose an election or not to participate, and he chose the latter -- which is by far the more friendly party move.
Why aren't we celebrating this? It's exactly how things are supposed to work. Well, ideally, Senators would be rewarded somehow for making unpopular but probably necessary decisions -- and yeah, I'm thinking of the AIG bonus package -- but so long as we live in a soundbite world, where all anyone's heard of Senator Dodd for the last year is that he luuuuurves banks, quiet retirement into the Connecticut Countryside isn't a bad deal, for him or the party.
The willingness of some senior Democrats to step aside is actually kind of a heartening sign of party unity. Dodd and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), the retiring parties this year, could have easily stuck around. They could have gone the me-first route that's been particularly popular on the other side of the aisle -- consider the 2010 re-election efforts of David Vitter in Louisiana or John Ensign's announcement he's still running in 2012 in Nevada. Instead of taking the selfish path, both Dodd and Dorgan are taking one for the team, giving up lifelong ambitions and the narrow chance of proving themselves right in order to offer a better chance for a new Democrat to take a seat in 2010.
Why does this make Democrats embattled? Doesn't it, instead, prove we're becoming a party that's better organized, better focused, and perhaps more likely to keep winning?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Catherine Forsythe
Writer to the Stars
Emily Holleman
Iron Skillet
Leslie Harpole
old new lefty
Salon.com
Comments
I notice the media is all over the midterms now like it's the new hot big story even though we have nearly a year to go until they're held. It reminds me of how the Prez elections are dragged out for 2 years. I wish we could just ignore them until late spring at least. The pundits are going to have analyzed themselves inside out long before the votes are counted.
A disgusting man who has fed at the trough of our money for far too long.
Good riddance.
The OS editors, with their usual aplomb, titled your post something like Dodds quitting is good for the Dems. The truth is, it's good for the country.
The media will spin the news the way they want. It's a Big Lie, propagated by millionaire pundits, to claim that the media are neutral and have no interests of their own. They have plenty of their own vested interests.
Those interests lay primarily in maintaining their profit, their power and their ability to propagandize The People for same. The Corporate Press exists to maintain the status quo, to resist "excessive" democracy and to protect the powerful.
That's its job, and it does it well. Big Money, Corporate-Democrat toadies like Dodd & Co. have always been about themselves and the lobbyists who own them--there's little evidence that this has changed, either individually, or as a group.
As others have noted, this Insane Clown Posse of limousine liberals that is retiring, or considering retirement, is most likely leaving due to purely selfish reasons.
Either way, it's nice to say "Good riddance, crooks. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out."
It may turn out to be a good thing for the Dems, given the batshit-crazy tenor of most Repubs these days (did you see where Richard Pombo is mounting a comeback? jesus f*cking christ, who's next, Santorum?), but I hardly think the party is going to win any hearts or minds by turning into the legislative arm of formerly moderate Republican interests.
Actually putting a GOOD face on Dodd stepping down is like visiting the land of Oz. The unwillingness to see the blanket of corruption and disarray in the Democrat party is a tribute to denial.
A sign of strength my patootie.
I am still concerned at the constant and unrelenting media slant on virtually every political story.
America is having a hard time right now. I don't care if you agree with him or not, he knows how to get things done. While he has never been caught with cash in the freezer, he gets them done. Right now we need people who can get it done.
So when the fire gets hot, Dodd, just quit.
Ritter wont be missed. He dissed unions, was not a pro-choice guy and was generally weak. Like with Dodd, this may portend better democratic candidates, so to me all this isnt necessarily a bad thing.
I can give you a complimentary tutorial on how to delete marketing posts. Or do you have an interest in this clothing outfit?
Although... I did have mixed feelings about Dorgan leaving. I listened to most of his reasons for leaving on NPR last night, but I couldn't help thinking that he must be thinking that there are lots of better ways he could be using his time than in the trenches of the senate.
Dodd confuses me even more. At the beginning of the 2008 race/campaign, he was my first choice, since he was campaigning to restore the Constitution.
I didn't give too much credence to the mortgage "scandal," since I figured there was probably alot less to that story. Still, he did really cave quite a bit on a lot of important legislation this past year.
However, if he really does push through a meaningful financial reform bill, I am completely willing to forget his errors. I just wish I were more optimistic.
I do give him credit, though, for not dragging the CT Democratic party down with him by trying to force another win. That does show class.
But more importantly:
On what concrete example do you base your notion that when people pool their money, via taxes, for use on social programs that citizens stop being productive and economies collapse? Fiction writing? Because present day nations with such systems don't bear that out (Denmark for instance). Conversely, nations that abandon their citizens to fate are usually banana republics (like certain Latin American countries, and some North American ones too such as our own).
Do you think that you would stop being a productive member of society if you knew that if you got sick you could see a Dr; that if you lost your job you could still see a Dr? Or are you one of those people that thinks the poor are entitled only to die?