Christopher John Dodd.....Born May 27, 1944 is a lawyer from Willimantic, Connecticut. He served as a United States Representative from 1975 until 1981, when he became a United States Senator. He is now the senior Senator and currently serves as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
Dodd attended Georgetown Prepatory School, a Jesuit boys school in Bethesda, Maryland and graduated with a bachelors degree in English Literature from Providence College in 1966.
Dodd also served as a Peace Corps volunteer in a small rural town in the Dominican Republic until 1968 and then joined the U.S. Army and served until 1975.
He married Susan Mooney in July of 1970 and they divorced in 1982.
In 1972, Dodd earned a J D at the University of Louisville where he served as president of the student body. He began practicing law in New London and married Jackie Clegg in June of 1999.
Dodd is fluent in Spanish and Latin Rite Catholic. His wife, Jackie has held posts at the Export-Import Bank of the United States. They have 2 daughters, Grace born in 2002 and Christina, born in 2005.
Dodd was elected to the U.S. Senate in the 1980 election and was subsequently re-elected in the 1986, 1992, 1998, and 2004 elections. He is the first Senator from Connecticut to serve five consecutive terms. From 1995 to 1997, he served as General Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As General Chairman, Dodd was the DNC's spokesman.
Dodd had been rumored to be strongly considering a run for Governor of Connecticut in 2006. He decided not to seek this post. Dodd briefly considered running for President in 2004, but ultimately decided against it. He was also considered a possible candidate for replacing Tom Daschle as Senate Minority Leader in 109th Congress, but he declined, and that position was instead filled by Harry Reid.
Dodd voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution in 2002 but has since become an opponent of the war. Dodd has said the Iraq War has been waged “for all the wrong reasons” and that it is eroding both the nation's security and its moral leadership.
Dodd has criticized his congressional colleagues for failing to be more forceful in challenging President Bush's Iraq War troop surge of 2007. "This was debating about debating. This was the House and the Senate at some of its worst. ... I think we missed an opportunity to put our foot down and stop the surge."
Dodd voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement, and says that such agreements have "...brought increased cooperation and communication. They have been positive forces that promote political and economic stability, as well as growth and democracy. " In the same article he continues, "successful efforts to achieve a Central American Free Trade Agreement, and eventually in 2005, a Free Trade Area of the Americas, will help further these goals. As well, the United States stands to benefit along with our neighbors from increased trade relations throughout the hemisphere."
He is highly critical of the United States embargo against Cuba. He favors more lenient U.S. immigration laws. In January 2005, he met with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez in an effort to mend the strained relations between the two countries. Dodd stressed the need for closer ties, both economically and in the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking. On that occasion, he said that Chávez has “demonstrated he was Venezuela’s legitimate democratically elected president by winning a national referendum.
Dodd, along with Senators Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, and Robert Menendez introduced the "Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007", which he claims "restores Habeas Corpus rights, bars evidence gained through torture or coercion and reinstates U.S. adherence to the Geneva Conventions in order to protect the nation’s military personnel abroad."
He was one of 16 senators who voted against the Vitter Amendment to prohibit federal funding of the confiscation of legally owned firearms during a disaster.
The Golden Leash Award was presented to Senator Dodd by Public Campaign, April 29, 1998. "The Golden Leash is a symbol of the ties between special interest money and elected officials. It is awarded to Members of Congress who demonstrate egregious conduct in the quid pro quo practice of dollar democracy.
On January 30, 2002 Dick Morris wrote in an article for Jewish World Review:
"While many candidates of both parties have received campaign contributions from Enron and its self-serving 'independent auditor' Arthur Andersen, very few have passionately fought their cause in Washington as diligently as Chris Dodd. Dodd has received more money from Arthur Andersen than any other Democrat — $54 843.00 — and has aggressively worked to insulate Arthur Andersen and other accounting firms from liability to defrauded investors in cases like Enron."
Dodd announced his Presidential candidacy on the "Don Imus in the Morning" radio show.
The Democratic Senator supports stem cell research to help Alzheimers and diabetes and is Pro-Choice. Would treat same-sex couples equally in all rights except marriage, supports civil unions but opposes gay marriage. He would stop rewarding companies who create jobs offshore and would repeal their tax subsidies. He believes that mandatory minimum sentencing has been a disaster and would eliminate distinction between crack cocaine & powder cocaine.
Dodd would reform the No Child Left Behind to invest in failing schools and his highest priority would be equal education opportunity. He voted against Educational Savings Accounts and school vouchers.
He would increase corporate carbon tax. Dodd would also remove oil & gas exploration subsidies. He voted for Bush Administration Energy Policy. Senator Dodd is proudest of authoring the Family and Medical Leave Act. And supports a U.S. unilateral action to end Darfur genocide. He would prohibit Defense Department from outsourcing contracts. He also supports covering undocumented workers & their kids under health plan and voted against giving illegals access to welfare. He believes that All Americans deserve the same Health Care as members of congress.
Dodd is opposed to reinstating the draft but supports universal national service. He has voted for 20 pay increases to the military. Advocates raising minimum wage. He believes his biggest mistake was voting for the Iraq war.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 20
He's an interesting guy, does a lot of things I like but his ties to banking and approval of the free trade act are huge stumbling blocks for me.
bills, and other outsourcing legislation. Dodd's just another nelson. No thanks.
Good article! Appreciate the information but can't help but feel that Dodd is history as far as the 2008 election is concerned.
That is the most salacious gossip I can remember on him, and it was off of the top of my head. Imagine what else can be found...
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976926398
\\\\That is the most salacious gossip I can remember on him, and it was off of the top of my head. Imagine what else can be found... ////
It might be that what was found would be that this bit of gossip is false! Perhaps we could check it out by hiring Ken Star and spending 80 million dollars!
You and I have battled and pounded it out in these threads, for sure,
but I just thought I'd tell you that I appreciate your writing these articles on the
candidates. It's something that's needed quite a bit. After they're all done, it'll be
downright awesome. HELPFUL.
Originally SCHIP was supposed to provide healthcare options to the children of the poor. However, you can now see----they are trying to expand that. They want tax payers to pay for healthcare costs of people making up to $84,000 a year-----plus all illegals------and take it out of the healthcare options/benefits of the elderly!!
SCHIPing Away at Seniors' Medicare Benefits
by Rep. Marsha Blackburn
Posted: 08/02/2007
"Few issues before Congress are more important than increasing access to quality healthcare for all Americans. Unfortunately, this week's House consideration of H.R. 3162, (a bill to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP) proves that the Democrat Leadership is more interested in a dramatic expansion of the welfare state and less interested in providing quality free market access to health care for our nation's uninsured children.
H.R. 3162 is built on a flawed framework that eviscerates a successful block-grant supplemental program and creates a permanent entitlement along the lines of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. In so doing, the legislation creates another federal program that runs on auto-pilot without Congressional approval and eats up a larger share of your tax dollars every year.
Under the Democrat plan, states set their own eligibility requirements and can expand coverage for increasingly well-off beneficiaries if they choose. And they would have an incentive to do so, since their Federal funding allotment would automatically increase!
According to the Heritage Foundation, nine states have already expanded coverage to people whose incomes exceed 300% of the poverty level. With this new proposal to loosen rules even further, it's not hard to imagine some states increasing eligibility to include those above 400% of poverty -- creating a new, tax-payer subsidized and bureaucrat-run healthcare benefit for a family making $82,600.
I saw this first-hand as a former member of the Tennessee Senate, when TennCare, expanded insurance coverage to provide practically anyone -- rich, poor, out-of-state residents -- access to free government healthcare during the 1990's. Yet combined state and federal funding could not sustain TennCare's rising costs, and the program effectively lowered the quality of health care in Tennessee.
According to the Congressional Budget office, H.R. 3162 repeats this mistake by expanding SCHIP by $193 billion total in cuts to Medicare over ten years, while cutting $157 billion from the Medicare Advantage program and instituting a huge tobacco tax increase. Over 8 million seniors are enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program, including 9,000 beneficiaries in the seventh district of Tennessee.
This scenario could result in seniors losing their current health care provider or being subjected to increased costs and decreased services. After all, 57% of seniors currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage are in the lowest income range -- from $10,000 to $30,000, and many of the services provided to these beneficiaries are not provided to seniors through the traditional fee-for service Medicare.
Additionally, the reductions to Medicare Advantage will severely impact seniors living in rural areas. Current law encourages private plans to provide coverage in rural communities where costs are typically higher. So by eliminating this incentive, H.R. 3162 would significantly decrease access to private coverage in the rural areas, forcing seniors back into traditional Medicare.
Furthermore, H.R. 3162 includes a provision that allows Congress to walk away from its responsibility for the long-term health of the Medicare program. Current law requires Congress to address the sustainability of the Medicare program when general revenues will fund more than 45% of Medicare spending for two consecutive years in the upcoming seven years. That trigger was met in 2006 and 2007. Yet H.R. 3162 eliminates the 45% trigger that requires Congress to address the financial challenges of Medicare in a timely way.
I offered an amendment to repeal this reckless spending provision, but the Democrats rejected the amendment to prevent their Members from taking any action to ensure the future solvency of Medicare. This is not only irresponsible, but it is also one of the most egregious abdications of responsibility I have seen during my time in Congress.
The bill also cynically chops out the income limit for eligibility, and expands the eligibility pool to include "children" up to the age of 21. Do 21 year old young men and women deserve government-funded healthcare benefits at the expense of elderly Medicare beneficiaries?
And the cuts do not stop there. In perhaps the most outrageous blow to commonsense healthcare policy, H.R. 3162 repeals current law that requires proof of citizenship when enrolling in the Medicaid program. So while illegal immigrants enjoy access to government-funded health benefit, senior are left holding the bag.
The liberal leadership in Congress knows that it does not have the support of the American public to construct a full-blown socialized healthcare system. Instead, they're pretending that this radical change in policy is a simple update to a popular, long-established program -- a tactic that the Wall Street Journal termed "slow-motion socialism."
Experience has taught us that the best way to ensure quality coverage for all is to encourage individual choice and let the free market work, but H.R. 3162 ignores this record in spades. That is why I voted against, and encourage the President to carry out his promised veto on this legislation when it reaches his desk."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21784
You might want to loose the "Democrats bad - Republicans good" thinking process and look at a few facts before condemning the Democrats action.
First, the Democrats have not suggested cutting Medicare for the next five years. Second, the reason for their disapproval of Medicare Advantage plans is that they are draining the Medicare fund unnecessarily and I, as well as others, have contacted all my congress people and urged them to equalize the playing field. Right now the Advantage plans are costing more than traditional Medicare by about $1,000 per year and offering frequently less coverage than traditional Medicare. They are being marketed in an aggressive and unethical manner, telling consumer's outright lies, and The Bush administration is unwilling to police them to insure that they are living up to their contract.
What it boils down to is that the Medicare Advantage is being subsidized by our Medicare funds for the singular purpose of keeping a profit in it for the insurance companies. We have no business spending more of the worker's and employer's Medicare dollars to subsidize insurance companies. If they can offer something for the same cost as traditional Medicare, fine. More power to them! But if they've got to be subsidized in order to do it, that is just plain wrong and is anathema to a true conservative viewpoint. The true conservative would say if the government is going to do it at all, it should be done for the bottom dollar possible. That describes traditional Medicare. Advantage plans, in the long run, offer nothing as good as Medicare with a traditional supplement and they are far more possessive and controlling than Medicare ever was. Remember that any insurance company has a vested interest in denying your claim whether they have a legitimate reason for doing so or not. Many of the elderly, when a claim is denied, simply assume that the company is correct and they are stuck for the bill!
\\\\Experience has taught us that the best way to ensure quality coverage for all is to encourage individual choice and let the free market work, but H.R. 3162 ignores this record in spades.////
If you think for a minute that the current system is working effectively for the American people then you are seriously out of touch with real people! The so called "free market" system is broken and needs to be replaced. You can automatically knock approximately 30% off the cost by eliminating insurance companies.
And I believe the American people, given the truth, are quite willing to accept socialized medicine at this time although those who oppose it and stand to loose profits will pull out all stops and peddle all kinds of lies in an attempt to scare the people into rejecting this improvement. They have a lot to loose. Bear in mind that approximately half of the nations people are currently on some form of socialized medicine and don't want to loose it!
There are a lot more factors to this story but mainly I want to insure that those reading this are not left with the impression that it is fact, rather than biased conjecture and opinion. Or that much of it was not influenced by the receipt of substantial campaign contributions. The same contributions which have successfully blocked any action of this nature for many years and for the purpose of profit to the corporations involved.
Thanks, Brenda!
As long as lobbying is legal, the playing field will never be fair.
If so, I don't think it helped. O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on in the next segment, saying that Dodd shouldn't have been given an interview, as well as trashing him in general. Probably not as bad as I did in my earlier comments, but said in a more entertaining way! LOL!
Has anyone ever tried to get an answer from him or anyone in his office on the phone? It's impossible! ~ Marilyn
Ten unsolicited points from the world's worst connection. Merry whatever you celebrate!