Okay. But why doesn't
that NYT news story have the word "Dodd" in it?
This story the NYT put up last night had "Dodd" in it. Have you noticed the role of the former Senator in the SOPA fight? He's kind of a lobbyist (for the movie industry), except that he can't actually be a lobbyist, because it's illegal for a former Senator to lobby Congress in his first 2 years out of office.
Hired as the consummate Washington insider to carry the film industry’s banner on crucial issues like piracy, Mr. Dodd ended up being more coach than player.
He's more of a coach, less of a player, because it's illegal to be a player — if in this ridiculous sports metaphor, a "player" is a lobbyist — so he's less of a player.
He helped devise a strategy that called for his coalition to line up a strong array of legislative sponsors and supporters behind two similar laws — the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, and the Protect I.P. Act in the Senate — and then to move them through the Congress quickly before possible opposition from tech companies could coalesce.
Oh, my! Isn't that elegantly phrased! It's nice to be nice to Mr. Dodd — who plotted behind the scenes to ram this thing through Congress before it was noticed by "tech companies" — i.e., all the ordinary people who like to use the internet.
But slow pacing gave the Internet and free speech advocates time to wake up and mobilize, turning what might have been a relatively simple exercise for Mr. Dodd and his allies into a bitter struggle.
His plot failed, but it should have been easy for the consummate insider, don't-call-him-a-lobbyist, Mr. Dodd.
The delays violated a cardinal rule among professional lobbyists, who generally believe the worst enemy of a proposed law is the legislative clock.
Oh, those damned delays, foiling the plots of consummate insiders, violating the rules of professional lobbyists, of which Mr. Dodd is not one, because that would be illegal.
पोस्ट्स
४५ टिप्पण्या:
I thought Dodd got enough graft from the Banking industry and Freddy Mac to retire.
Guess not.
This is more enraging than Mitt Romney's taxes.
I can only imagine the new era of prosperity we'd be living in if only we'd had Twitter when they passed the Copyright Term Extension Act or the DMCA...
Dodd should be in prison. Period.
Outstanding post, Althouse. Nailed it.
Considering this is one of the people who made sure the subprime mess crashed the economy (with much help from his little errand boy, Barry Obama), not to mention making sure the banking industry remains a bigger mess than ever, I don't doubt for a second the Gray Lady doesn't want to ballyhoo his name too much.
Next to Jamie Gorelick, Dodd is the worst enemy of this country's well-being and its people's security.
rcocean said...
I thought Dodd got enough graft from the Banking industry and Freddy Mac to retire.
Guess not.
Upkeep on the "Irish cottage".
Laws for Sale. Laws for Sale. Get them while they are hot.
Every Law comes with its own five year or $50,000,000 whichever comes first warranty.
They come in blue or red colors. One of the 535 sales associates in Washington, DC will be happy to take your order.
If you ever have a problem, our Customer Service Rep, Mr Dodd, will fix things for you.
Next to Jamie Gorelick, Dodd is the worst enemy of this country's well-being and its people's security.
Bawnie Fwank belongs in there too.
FLASH, Breaking News Alert: Chuck Norris has just endorsed Gingrich, and Romney was last seen fleeing for a Mormon safe house in the Cayman Islands where Chuck Norris can never find him.
We now return you to regularly scheduled programming.
Dodd will still get paid for this failed attempt, I'm sure.
It's all legal.
Corrupt, of course. But legal.
They have been in power so long that they have legalized corruption.
So, here the big tech folks were against the big content folks.
What happens, in the more common situations, where a company or industry or spec int is pushing for gimme legislation that doesn't rouse the attention of another politically connected company or industry or spec int?
/rhetorical question
@David, a fitting coda to this Althouse Post.
The only other way you could have improved this, Professor, is to paraphrase Shakespeare:
For Chris Dodd is an honorable man ...
What happens, in the more common situations, where a company or industry or spec int is pushing for gimme legislation that doesn't rouse the attention of another politically connected company or industry or spec int?
We get the financial industry/auto industry bailouts.
So long as Washington controls what is bought and sold, the politicians in Washington will be bought and sold.
Professor, you obviously think SOPA is lousy. I'd really like to see a detailed post on why you think so.
There are two kinds of leftists in the world. Type one says "what, huh?". The others says "that's a crying shame, BUT DID YOU SEE ROMNEY PAID TAXES ACCORDING TO THE LAW?".
There are two kinds of rightists in the world. Type one says "we do good moral stuff". The others says "the world would be perfect if OUR WISDOM AND BRILLIANCE RULED".
Shorter version: lib = problem, con = solution
PB&J: Yes, it's so much easier to pretend everything's the same. We both want the same thing: I want to keep my money, and the left wants to keep my money too. Only idiots like you think these are equal.
What happens, in the more common situations, where a company or industry or spec int is pushing for gimme legislation that doesn't rouse the attention of another politically connected company or industry or spec int?
We get ObamaCare and the HiTech Act
The Right believes in limited government. The Left in the expanded version. The greater the power and control of government, the more people and companies must spend their time vying for the favor of government.
PB&J's Rhetorical question:
What happens, in the more common situations, where a company or industry or spec int is pushing for gimme legislation that doesn't rouse the attention of another politically connected company or industry or spec int?
That is a great expression of why the reach, control and influence of government needs to be limited. Right on. Also, what Revenant said.
Spread Eagle said...
Next to Jamie Gorelick, Dodd is the worst enemy of this country's well-being and its people's security.
Bawnie Fwank belongs in there too.
Definitely, but not in a see-through shirt.
Brilliant post, Ann. Thank you.
It became toxic.
Yes. A lot of politicians from both sides were found playing with hollywood's lobbyists. Now? They're terrified.
Besides, "to become law" all a majority of congress critters needs to do is plant the legislation in some other bill. "Save The Children," Act. Or something.
Is Obamacare dead, yet?
How come Rupert Murdoch is still considered a player?
How come Leahy and Dodd can roll up votes?
He's more of a coach, less of a player, because it's illegal to be a player — if in this ridiculous sports metaphor, a "player" is a lobbyist — so he's less of a player.
Dodd is coach Jerry Sandusky and the "ordinary people who like to use the Internet" are the ten-year-old boys in the shower with him.
Does the umpire let them advance to first base on a balk?
Shorter version: lib = problem, con = solution
Dang! Hey, guys, we're finally getting through to PB&J!
"One of the 535 sales associates in Washington, DC will be happy to take your order."
That is one of the biggest problems: Too much power in the hands of too few people.
Things would be a lot better if we had 6,275 members in Congress instead of just 535.
(Bonus points to anyone who knows why I chose that particular number :D )
I wondered why that SOB Dodd was sitting at a prime table for the Golden Globe awards the other night.
Didn't realize he'd become a whore lobbyist for Hollywood.
Someone really needs to do a story on how the Dem Senate Glitterati have fallen. 10-15 years ago we all were told that Dodd, John Edwards, Corzine, etc were superhero's, here to save the country with their bold and unselfish actions.
Right on, Ann. Right on.
Gorelick, Dodd, Frank...
Surely we can find an (R) or two to add to the Rogues' Gallery, just to keep things non-partisan?
I love it when you talk like this.
For Kirk Parker:
John Rowland (R) former governor of CT, then federal prison inmate; Newt Gingrich (R) "historian" for FNMA/FHA, then leading GOP presidential candidate.
Vote for divided government, it slows them down.
Criminals like Dodd care not about the "law", that's for the little people.
Very interesting that Rubio is showing his true colors by sponsoring this Gestapo bill. Now he is running away, but the cat's out of the bag.
When the President is not eligible then there is no law.
PIPA and NDAA prove the intent of the criminals on both sides of the aisle to Control. Criminal treasonous thugs
Mick:
What you don't seem to "get" is that as a result of pressure from constituents, almost all republican sponsors of SOPA and it's senate cousin withdrew their support. The Democrats, however, mostly continue to support these monstrous bills. The obvious explanation is that democrats, liberals and progressives (Leftists all) are truly ideologically committed to a Marxist/Socialist system where strict government control of public discourse is mandatory to get and keep power. Thus, they are not just responding to the monied interests of Hollywood. All politicians can be bought on certain issues, but the hardcore Democrats are unshakable in their Leftist ideology, which is fine if you want a Marxist state like the old USSR.
Dodd should be in prison. Period.
Exclamation point.
Purplepenguin, I'd say two for every county in the US, but you're off by 7 reps then. Unless that's not right.
pbAndjFellowRepublican said...
. The others says "the world would be perfect if OUR WISDOM AND BRILLIANCE RULED".
Shorter version: lib = problem, con = solution
The world would be perfect if you progg/ libs weren't so goddamned stupid and keep your filthy hands off my stuff.
FTFY
cokaygne,
I definitely agree with you that Newt is problematic here, but who's Rowland and why have I never heard of him? Is it perhaps because neither of them are as clearly implicated in the last decade's Bad Stuff? ISTM your reply is only half-responsive: I'm asking for more than just "who I wouldn't even trust as dog-catcher", I'm asking for folks actually responsible for some of our nationally bad stuff.
And to answer my own question, I'll offer up McCain, for his terrible namesake legislation alone if nothing else.
"Purplepenguin, I'd say two for every county in the US, but you're off by 7 reps then. Unless that's not right."
I never considered tying it in with counties, but that is a great guess.
The reason I used that exact number is because that is what how many people would be in Congress if the first proposed amendment to the US Constitution was ratified by the states.
As it stands now, we don't have anywhere near the "representation" that a free country should have. Not only does our current situation make the common citizen more detached from gov't, it also makes it far-far easier for a small group of people to "buy off" our entire gov't.
purplepenquin said...
That is one of the biggest problems: Too much power in the hands of too few people.
Actually, it would be better if the number of congressman remained the same and the federal government were smaller.
Say at least 2 trillion per year, and minus 50 agencies/departments, smaller.
Yes, that would be better...but it would be best of all to have a smaller gov't but with a bigger Congress.
And no, that ain't a contradiction. Anyone who has read the political theories brought forth by Professor Bernardo de la Paz knows what I'm talking about...
The homeowner who has borrowed & sacrificed to keep his mortgage current may not enjoy the same forgiveness.
Community Association
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा