This morning, Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut rose to speak against the FISA Amendments Act of 2007. I won’t lie to you and tell you that Dodd’s clarion voice humbled his critics and filled the eyes of onlookers with tears of admiration. Senator Dodd’s skill as an orator is acceptable but not tremendous. But Senator Dodd’s words, even spoken haltingly, brought a lump to my throat. It has been a long time since a politician in Washington, DC spoke with such conviction about the importance of checks on power.
Senator Dodd’s speech began:
I hope that my colleagues will join me in stopping this legislation.
Mr. President, why do I feel so strongly about this matter?
For the last six years, our largest telecommunications companies have been spying on their own American customers.
Secretly and without a warrant, they delivered to the federal government the private, domestic communications records of millions of Americans—records this administration has compiled into a database of enormous scale and scope.
That decision betrayed millions of customers’ trust. It was unwarranted—literally.
But was it illegal?
That, Mr. President, I don’t know. And if this bill passes in its current form, we will never know. The president’s favored corporations will be immune.
Their arguments will never be heard in a court of law. The details of their actions will stay hidden. The truth behind this unprecedented domestic spying will never see light. And the book on our government’s actions will be closed, and sealed, and locked, and handed over to the safe-keeping of those few whom George Bush trusts to keep a secret.
Senator Dodd challenges us to avoid a government based on faith in trustworthy individuals, and instead to maintain a government that will work regardless of the virtue of officeholders. I trust that the system of restrained power Dodd speaks of more than I trust any individual, and I respect Senator Dodd’s commitment to rebuild that system of restrained power, which is why I believe that even though Christopher Dodd will never win a Toastmasters’ trophy, he would be an excellent choice to be our next president.
(Source: Speech of Chris Dodd on Morning of December 17 2007)
I don’t understand why Dodd is doing so poorly in the polls.
Is he not blow-dried enough? Does he need an appeal to emotion (hope/ hope-with-experience) rather than common sense, patriotism and hard work? Need I point out the obvious, that as a white male he would have a better chance of winning than either of the two frontrunners?
You don’t suppose the telecoms have been making their contributions to someone elses’ campaigns.