The Questions I Wish We Were Asked

Tuesday night's Democratic Presidential debate in Philadelphia included some of the most serious discussions of Iraq, Iran, and global warming that we've had thus far during the campaign season. I was happy to get the opportunity to speak clearly and directly to why I believe I've offered the boldest, most honest assessments on all three of these critical issues.

But they aren't the only areas where the stakes are high and there are clear differences among the candidates. And so, today I want to talk about a few things we weren't asked by the moderators Tuesday night at Drexel University.

For me, it starts with our Constitution. In November of 2006, the American people overwhelmingly elected Democrats with a mandate to change course. Much attention was focused on Iraq, but make no mistake - Americans were also signaling that they wanted Congress to rein in the abuses to the Constitution under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. Over the last few weeks, we've seen issues pertaining to the rule of law come up time and again.

Retroactive immunity. Waterboarding. The qualifications and judgment of Judge Michael Mukasey. Data mining. Warrantless wiretaps. The list, sadly, goes on...

At no point Tuesday night was I or any of my fellow candidates asked about their opinions these issues -- some of the most important the next President will face. Not once. So I want to take this opportunity now to talk about these issues.

1. Less than two weeks ago, Senator Dodd, you announced you would filibuster any FISA legislation that included retroactive immunity. Why are you opposed to amnesty?

Quite simply: you can't defend America if you don't defend the Constitution.

The Bush administration came to the telecom companies, some even before 9/11, and asked them to eavesdrop on Americans. They didn't produce court orders or warrants to justify their surveillance. And the telecoms went along with it.

These companies have some of the best legal counsel money can buy. They know the law through and through. And they broke it anyway. That is inexcusable and I'm not about to let Congress step in and stop lawsuits against them for violating the privacy of ordinary Americans.

2. Do you think waterboarding is torture?

Absolutely, according to both US law and international conventions. And in my view, the Bush Administration knows full well it is.

3. You were the first Democratic Senator to announce your opposition to Michael Mukasey's nomination. Why do you think he isn't qualified to be Attorney General?

A lot has been made of Judge Mukasey's troubling stance on waterboarding and torture more broadly. While I think those are critically important questions, his beliefs on executive power are in many ways far more important. The attorney general must be a reliable defender of the rule of law.

But Mr. Mukasey seems to share the exact same ideology as other members of the Bush administration. He thinks the President has the authority to ignore the rule in the name of national security. Mr. Mukasey doesn't seem to understand the oath we take: we don't swear to support and defend the Constitution OR protect the country. We defend the Constitution TO protect the country.

For that reason alone, he should be disqualified to serve as the highest-ranking law enforcement official in the United States government. For me, he is. And I would hope the rest of my opponents--Republican or Democrat--would agree. Because it's time we elect a President who understands that while America's strength may come from our military and wealth - its greatness comes from our faith in the values expressed in our Constitution.

Learn more about my campaign at ChrisDodd.com

Follow Sen. Chris Dodd on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SenChrisDodd

Comments

[loslobo]

Senator Dodd I agree those issues should be discussed but instead of focusing on the telecoms why shouldn't you go after the source of America's pain and suffering? Because Bush/Cheney "asked" the telecoms BEFORE 9/11 doesn't that need looked into? Along with Cheney's Energy Task Force that where dividing up Iraq's oil fields BEFORE 9/11.

If you want to be the next leader of the free world, then dismantle this criminal administration and the country will rally behind you. The truth will be very hard to take but it will be the only thing to set us free.

[Talcott]

Indeed Sir

The MSM is not going to ask questions, that hit

so close to the root of mendacity, this President

has wielded.

[truthyguy]

The question I would like to have asked was not for the candidates. It was for the media:
Why is the media not giving any meaningful time to candidates other than Hillary Obama and Edwards? And why are the majority of questions asked to other candidates mostly centered around the positions of Hillary Obama and Edwards?
Aren't they, through experience and service to country, entitled to have their ideas and positions made known to the public? Or has the media made the voters' decision for them on the issue of who is qualified to lead our country out of the mess we are in - due in good part to the media's false stories and inadaquate reporting in the 2000 and 2008 elections?

[Plowboy]

The Democratic Party doesn't stand for much, it seems. And because of its strategy of selling out, I can see that those of you who stand for our Constitution, for obedience to our laws, and for common human decency will find it difficult to get nominated by that party.
But keep fighting. I believe that ultimately those professional triangulators and deal makers will fail.

[RickO]

Sen. Dodd,

You did a great job at the debate, sir. I'd love to see you go toe-to-toe with the eventual Republican nominee (whereby you'd eat his lunch). I just wish the media was as attentive to your campaign as they really ought to be. I would be proud to call you Mr President.

[OckhamsElectricRazor]

Chris Dodd for Senate Majority Leader!

[OhgReaTone]

I like Chris Dodd - he has not been my favorite but I can see him emerging because of his intellect, experience, maturity, and plain old common sense - whatever that is. And he has a sense of humor.
Ohg.
http://thefireside.wordpress.com/2007/10/13/chris-dodd-white-hare/

[PoliticalAnimal]

It's hard to believe, Senator, that someone in elected office would deserve praise for standing up in defense of the U.S. Constitution, something our leaders are sworn to do. But that is the sorry state of affairs we have been brought to, and so we are reduced to thanking you gratefully from the bottom of our hearts for having the courage and wisdeom to defend our nation from those who would seek to destroy it.

[Norm]

Well, Senator Dodd, there are a lot of questions I wish you were asked too. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of questions in Tuesday's "debate" I wish everyone to the left of John Edwards on stage were asked. Granted, I do not have cable TV and spent 20 minutes of the debate trying to stream it on MSNBC.com swearing at the "This video is not available" message. Maybe you got to answer all your questions while I was MIA.

But to digress and not digress. Unless and until these debates are on broadcast television, a significant number of voters will not only not know the candidates, but not know the issues. They will end up voting from sound bites and you know how that goes. I have talked to five friends on both sides of the ideological spectrum who know nothing about Bush and Iran. "Aw, he wouldn't attack Iran," I heard. They might think a little differently had the debate been accessible to them. And your numbers might go up. That the debates are broadcast to a TV elite may have a profound impact on the election and it does no service whatsoever to non front running candidates, who have a lot of collective wisdom and a lot to say. This is shameful.

[Levity]

Thank you, Senator. You and Kucinich are the only candidates serving in Congress today who are showing leadership and keeping their oaths.

And here's a question that must be asked of Mukasey before he is rejected as Attorney General nominee:
When did you first suspect the courts would rule that parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional? As a judge dealing with Patriot Act cases, why didn't you acknowledge this years earlier?

[Anastasia]

Gandhi showed us that we can be "nice" and stand up for our beliefs at the same time.

Unfortunately, some Democratic politicans still believe that the way to victory is through triangulation rather than leading the American people on issues that they feel passionate about.

Having deeply felt convictions, and the courage to fight for them, is key

[intlaw]

Yes, yes. The media is strangely nearly silent about the fact that presidential authorizations to engage in secret detention (forced disappearance) and "coercive interrogation" (e.g., torture, cruel treatment, inhumane treatment, etc.) are crimes under international law (e.g., crimes against humanity and war crimes), as documented in Paust, Beyond the Law: The Bush Administration's Unlawful Responses in the "War" on Terror (Cambrdige Univ. Press 2007), available at www.cambridge.org/us
Thank you for taking a stand against water-boarding, the cold cell, stripping persons naked and using dogs to terrorize them, threatening to kill a detainee's family members.
International crimes authorized by this administration have brought dishonor to the United States, placed our military and CIA personnel in harms war, aided the enemy in seveal ways, and violated the soul of America and our common decency.
Jordan J. Paust

[LindaJay]

Senator Dodd, I completely agree with you. This is one of the biggest issues in my mind of the next election. I refuse to vote for someone who will not commit to putting the Constitution back together. Our forefathers warned over and over again how easy it is for governments to sink into tyranny, and that we must be ever vigilant to keep it from happening. They were right. It only took a handful of years for the Bush Administration to make that happen. So this is one of the paramount questions, along with the Iraq/Afghani/Iran wars, and rolling back the rampant cronyism and tax breaks for the rich.

Unfortunately, our mainstream media has become almost beyond redemption. They have come to the point that they are openly, blatantly biased, openly contemptuous of any politician they don't like, totally partisan, and totally irresposible. In these times, a Watergate would never be reported by the press - not unless it was the democratic party's fault, of course. These particular moderators would never have asked a question that might impune Bush/Cheney. After all, Tim Russert has barbecues with the Cheney family and lives in the same rich little enclave in his million dollar house. Dick is his buddy.

That brings up another issue: what will the next President of the United States do about restoring a Free Press? I'm sick of Pravda!

[GregNewYork]

Mr. Dodd,

You where right on during the debate explaining your view on Marijuana laws in the USA.

You where also right on with your view on Drivers licences for Illegal Aliens.

Make these 2 issues heard and you will hear from a lot more voters who will support you.

Sincerely,
Greg - Long Island

[cseper]

As Russert does his good work for America, I wonder if he ever ponders WHY he did not "go after" GW Bush about such "character" topics as his SEC investigation (about insider trading at Harkin), about how he made his fortune on gifts from his daddy's friends which allowed a TAXPAYER BUYOUT (your fortune, George, is all TAX DOLLARS), pressing Bush about where he actually was when he was NOT reporting for Guard duty in Alabama, etc.
See, there are lots of these kind of obscure "character" topics about EVERY candidate, and they can be ignored by "the press", or they can be gone after with zeal.

Russert "picks his battles", and invariably he suits up to go after Hillary, but leaves his tough-guy tactics at home when he faces Bush, Giulianni, or any of a myriad of Republicans.

Russert claims to be doing adversarial journalism, which is what the people demand, and I have no problem with him going after Hillary ... she's a big girl and can handle herself well (he caused her no damage in the most recent "debate", he only provided Hannity with some sound bites to distort).

What bothers me is that I want a Russert for the Democrat side, some reporter who will ask the Republicans the same sort and intensity of questions that Tim poses to Hillary.