Senators Dodd and Dorgan announce retirement

[myp]

Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut and Byron Dorgan from North Dakota both have said that they will not seek reelection this year. Both candidates were expected to have a very tough time winning reelection, especially Dodd who was trailing Republicans by several points.

Full story here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126279417891718047.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

 

[DodgeFB]

Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut and Byron Dorgan from North Dakota both have said that they will not seek reelection this year. Both candidates were expected to have a very tough time winning reelection, especially Dodd who was trailing Republicans by several points.

Full story here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126279417891718047.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Dodd knows the trail he took this session has come to a dead end. But still I will miss them both. I still miss a tooth I had pulled years ago.

 

[deanhills]

Looks as though we are going to have a very interesting year of elections. Do you know yet who will be contesting the seats and in your opinion who would stand the best chance of winning?

 

[myp]

Looks as though we are going to have a very interesting year of elections. Do you know yet who will be contesting the seats and in your opinion who would stand the best chance of winning?

Not sure about Dorgan's seat, but in place of Dodd the current Attorney General of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, is running. From the Republican side in Connecticut there are three main candidates: Peter Schiff, Linda McMahon, and Rob Simmons.

 

[deanhills]

Not sure about Dorgan's seat, but in place of Dodd the current Attorney General of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, is running. From the Republican side in Connecticut there are three main candidates: Peter Schiff, Linda McMahon, and Rob Simmons.

Well if Blumenthal is running, perhaps the Republicans would stand a better chance? From his bio it would appear that he has been subjected to a lot of criticism:

In 2007, Hans Bader, Counsel for Special Projects of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute ranked Blumenthal as "the nation's worst state attorney general", based on "a set of explicit criteria — such as encroachment on the powers of other branches of government, meddling in the affairs of other states or federal agencies, encouragement of judicial activism and frivolous lawsuits, favoritism towards campaign contributors, ethical breaches, and failure to provide representation to state agencies or to provide legal advice." Bader singled out Blumenthal for his role in the tobacco settlement and efforts to regulate carbon dioxide. The report, apparently the work of Bader alone, did not contain a description of the methodology used. All of the ten attorneys general ranked by Bader are Democrats.
In a landmark Connecticut Supreme Court decision, Blumenthal v. Barnes a unanimous court determined that Blumenthal sued the owner of a charter school while lacking authority to bring the suit. Justice Peter T. Zarella concluded in this 2002 opinion that the office of the attorney general is "a creature of statute that is governed by statute and, thus, has no common-law authority."

Source: Wikipedia

 

[myp]

Well if Blumenthal is running, perhaps the Republicans would stand a better chance? From his bio it would appear that he has been subjected to a lot of criticism

Yea, Blumenthal has certainly made some questionable decisions- especially with the AIG bonuses. Glenn Beck really got on his case:
[YOUTUBE]goNw7cu1G3g[/YOUTUBE]

 

[deanhills]

Yea, Blumenthal has certainly made some questionable decisions- especially with the AIG bonuses. Glenn Beck really got on his case:
[YOUTUBE]goNw7cu1G3g[/YOUTUBE]

Bush is definitely a nasty piece of works, wow, his questioning was awesomely aggressive, but he probably did ask a good question, and Blumenthal showed weak and defensive as he did not shoot back in the same measure. Looks as though the media is very powerful from the point of view of testing politicians, to see how they can respond. The more buttons there are to push, the worse it could be for the politician. Blumenthal probably needs to do some practice sessions for dealing with tough interviewers like Beck.

 

[myp]

Looks as though the media is very powerful from the point of view of testing politicians, to see how they can respond. The more buttons there are to push, the worse it could be for the politician. Blumenthal seems to come with very fixed opinions and shoots dead straight. I don't know him at all, but I think there is a lesson here. The more vague and dishonest, the more successful politicians are. The more honest and direct, the easier they can be destroyed by the media.

How can you say Blumenthal shoots straight? Did you watch the video? He couldn't even respond to what legal justification he had over the AIG bonuses. Sure he gave us his "it's what's right" excuse, but that is not his job- his job is to protect the law, not what he thinks is right.

Personally, I too thought some of the bonuses were excessive, but that is not the point here- it is that they had no legal justification.

 

[deanhills]

How can you say Blumenthal shoots straight? Did you watch the video? He couldn't even respond to what legal justification he had over the AIG bonuses. Sure he gave us his "it's what's right" excuse, but that is not his job- his job is to protect the law, not what he thinks is right.

Apologies myp, I was unaware you were online and I have modified my posting since your current reply without being aware that you had replied to it. You were right, I did not have a thorough view of the video, but did that afterwards before I noticed your reply, and Blumenthal showed very poorly in it. More than the subject matter of the interview, in which he also showed very hesitant, stuttering and unprepared, he does not seem aggressive enough to stand up to Beck. Which is strange, given that he is an Attorney General.

You are also right, there was no legal justification for going for the bonuses, and it was completely misrepresented to the public as well, as revealed by Beck. I had thought that the bonuses had been something over and above full salaries, but these bonuses seem to have been earnings as part of the salaries. The bonuses I would have been against are the ones that executives get to sweeten their executive package. Bonuses that are part of earnings of sales people given the nature of the business they are in, should be rewarded, not removed, obviously that would create a disincentive and not make economic sense. And Beck is right, there is no law that would justify removing the bonuses. All of it sounds pretty idiotic. The part that really worries me though is that Blumenthall appeared weak in his debate. I would have expected someone with his stature to have had a much more solid presentation.

 

[myp]

Apologies myp, I was unaware you were online and I have modified my posting since your current reply without being aware that you had replied to it. You were right, I did not have a thorough view of the video, but did that afterwards before I noticed your reply, and Blumenthal showed very poorly in it. More than the subject matter of the interview, in which he also showed very hesitant, stuttering and unprepared, he does not seem aggressive enough to stand up to Beck. Which is strange, given that he is an Attorney General.

Just want to make it clear that I was just confused as to your response and it was nothing personal

Glad to see you agree though. I agree with you too in that some of the bonuses were above and beyond, but that does not change the fact that the government has no legal justification to take them away. If they really were that worried about it they should have limited bonuses within the legislation and made it clear to the companies that in order to receive funds, they would have to limit bonuses. At that point the companies could have accepted or declined. That would have been the legal way of doing this.

 

[deanhills]

Just want to make it clear that I was just confused as to your response and it was nothing personal

Thanks myp. I just wanted what I had written to look right as what you had seen at the time when you made your correct reply, had changed.

Glad to see you agree though. I agree with you too in that some of the bonuses were above and beyond, but that does not change the fact that the government has no legal justification to take them away. If they really were that worried about it they should have limited bonuses within the legislation and made it clear to the companies that in order to receive funds, they would have to limit bonuses. At that point the companies could have accepted or declined. That would have been the legal way of doing this.

This brings us back to the very original criticism of the practice of Government getting involved in the world of business. That bail out should never have happened, Government really needs to butt out and stay out as they are not trained in economics or business, and that is not why they have been elected for Government either. All of this just has a very nasty taste to it. And one year after the results are as to be expected. Dow Jones took off, and unemployment has stopped bleeding, but the only ones to gain were the Banks, their clients, and Government representatives who get elected with funds from those people with large banking accounts with the large banks. I would have much rather that the bail-out money be applied directly to where it was needed. By creating building societies in local communities, but as business ventures, not as giving money for free ventures. The big banks were supposed to fail, and bailing them out just allowed the greedy party to continue. And the poor people to get poorer.