Goodby Dodd...about time you left

United States
January 6, 2010 11:38am CST
For those of you who have not heard Sen. Chris Dodd has decided not to run for re-election. Well why you might ask? Well it is being reported that it was because his camp thought the race would be "unwinnable". Due to his role in making sure the bail out was worded so that companies recieving bail out money could use it to pay out multi million dollar bonuses to their CEOs. Looks like his state remembered his role in that and his popularity has suffered greatly. One corrupt politican down.....the rest of congress and senate to go. What do you think? Is Dodd really the bad guy here? Should he have retired or ran again? Was it winnable?
2 people like this
5 responses
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
6 Jan 10
It is sweet, but it would have been much sweeter if he had just came out and said "My constituants, my country, I have violated my oath of office repeatedly, saught great power and wealth and in doing so, have betrayed you all. Because of this, I am no longer fit to hold the honor of sitting in the senate and serving you. So I am bowing out in dishonor so that a more honorable person can take my place"...
1 person likes this
• United States
6 Jan 10
I would pay big bucks to see most of our elected officials make that exact speech.
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
6 Jan 10
Well, apparently a vote only costs a few million, can't imagine a resignation speech like that is too much more expensive. I'd pay it if I had it. I think I have my next facebook post too, lol....
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
6 Jan 10
I wonder how much we'd have to pay Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu to make such a speech. Those two don't come cheap you know.
@anniepa (27231)
• United States
7 Jan 10
Before Senator Dodd made his statement I'd heard several reasons given - both for his decision not to run for reelection and for his poor showing in the polls. One of the latter was what you mentioned and another was that some Connecticut resident weren't happy about his choice to move his family to Iowa for a time in 2008 while he ran unsuccessfully for the Presidential nomination. Personally, I think Dodd will be greatly missed! I sure haven't agreed with every single thing he's ever done, including what I saw as a move to the right in helping ensure the bonuses could be paid, but how could anyone possibly agree with everything any politician had done in a career that spanned over three decades? Whatever the case, I wouldn't call him either corrupt or "the bad guy". Ultimately, it would have been up to the people of his state and now we'll never really know if it would have been winnable or not had he stayed in the race. Strangely enough, Dodd's dropping out probably made it more likely that the Democrats will hold on to that Senate seat. Annie
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
7 Jan 10
It isn't a matter of agreeing with everything a senator does, it's more like something they have done being so horribly disagreable that it doesn't matter what they've done that you may have agreed with. I AGREED with a lot that senator McCain had done...but he did some things that were so horribly disagreeable that I couldn't possibly support him any more, T.A.R.P. being one of thos thing. You really have got to start raising your standards.
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
7 Jan 10
Well the agreeing with most of what politicians do is how the big parties stay in power. Everyone agrees with at least 55% of what one party or the other does and that's how they stay in power. That's why people are willing to support politicians who lie, call women wh0res, or even try to imprison constituents who mock them for five years. So long as you agree with enough of the person's politics and they have the right letter next to their name, you find a way to overlook their worst behavior.
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
6 Jan 10
Well I wish he'd retired a long time ago, but I'm glad his actions led him to give up rather than try again since you never know how foolish the voting public will be. People like him, who have been entrenched for decades, are the ones we need to get out most. Dodd is the "bad guy" to some extent, but he was simply following orders given to him by the Obama administration. They have proven themselves to be masters of scapegoating and they set him up nicely. For the final question, yes, it was winnable, but it was an uphill battle. I think he would have likely lost by a single digit margin, but if his opposition was weak enough he could have won.
• United States
7 Jan 10
I think he knew he would have a hard time winning with all his past bad deeds. His popularity in his state is in the dirt. He did the party a favor. WIth him off the ticket the democratic party stands a better chance of keeping that seat. He knew it, the democratic party knew it.
@gewcew23 (8011)
• United States
7 Jan 10
No he was not winnable he would have been easily defeated by any of his Republican opponents. The part that does not seem right is Dodd is still the winner here. Did he get punished for being bribed, no yet his decision that were persuaded by those bribes up on capital hill hurt a lot of American. He still gets to claim his pension while many are losing their pension. He will probably get a great job while many do not have a job. He still gets to live in that home that was basically paid for by Country Wide while many do not have a home anymore. So he will not have his power, true for a man like Dodd power is everything, so maybe he is being punished.
@piasabird (1737)
• United States
6 Jan 10
Good riddance! Now if we can only get rid of the rest of the rubbish.