E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS From NBC's Ken Strickland
Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd waited 27 years before he became the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. But Republican Saxby Chambliss got the top spot on the chamber’s agriculture panel only two years after being elected senator.
What gives?
"Republicans do a better job with this than the Democrats," Dodd said during an exit interview with NBC News. "It's good for the institution."
Senate Republicans limit their chairmanships to six years. (This also applies to the "ranking member" position when the GOP is in the minority.) But Democrats allow their members to hold committee gavels indefinitely.
Dodd says he prefers the Republican way.
"I think it's good for the members. They don't get so ossified, waiting for someone to die or get defeated, or make a different choice, to move up,” Dodd said of the GOP’s more fluid system for committee leadership. “They kind of force the institution and individuals to move along."
(To be clear, the rise to chairmanship is by no means an exact science for either party, often involving luck, timing, and election results.)
Dodd spent more than 20 years each on the Senate Foreign Relations, Banking, and Health Committees, sitting behind then-Chairmen Joe Biden, Paul Sarbanes, and Ted Kennedy, respectively.
"I teased them," he said laughing, "loved [them] dearly, built great friendships with them - but for 25 years they never moved." That changed in 2007 when Sarbanes retired and Dodd took the Banking Committee gavel.
NBC's Ken Strickland sat down with nine senators departing the upper chamber this year. He asked Evan Bayh, Robert Bennett, Sam Brownback, Kit Bond, Jim Bunning, Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan, Judd Gregg, and George Voinovich the same eight questions and a wildcard query. This excerpt was taken from the transcript of that interview. Additional reporting can be found on politics.msnbc.com
Leave a Comment:
While I somewhat agree with Dodd... about the chairmanship limits; he didn't fully say why he's for one than the other.... I agree with the concept when it comes senators and congress (because term limits is a good thing).
One a counter is when someone is involved in the senate arms committee for 6yrs and is doing a good job, I wont like to dump that person for someone new, just because they are new? the certain experience gained in these leadership position is got to be invaluable.
In any event, why do democrats have one set of rules and the republican's another. Maybe it's time for a complete overhaul of congressional rules... it just seems that they are becoming archaic, and need to conform to today's political environment.
And lastly, DODD is a DUD, and an IDIOT, hopefully we don't get a complete IDIOT McMahon.
I agree with most of what you say but I disagree about Dodd being a dud, an idiot. I may not always agree with him but he is not an idiot. We saw a lot of him in Iowa during the lead-up to 2008 presidential caucus. He is knowledgeable, and quite open during campaigns plus he is a nice man. I don't judge him based on what was reported but rather on what I saw and heard.
I take back the IDIOT and DUD thing... he's just been rubbing me wrong for the last 2yrs....as a conservative-liberal (j/p)....
Tunde. That's ok, it's understandable. He did get a bad rap over the executive bonus legislation which was more a Geithner thing but Dodd paid the price. I feel the same way sometimes even at some of my favorites.
It's not that surprising that the Democrats emulate the unions - promote based on seniority, not ability.
Dodd is dead wrong. The seniority system is not good for the Senate. It is, in fact, the source of a great deal of the inbred political wrangling that angry Americans are now calling "business as usual" in Washington that leads to gridlock and obstruction. It also leads to such incomprehensible situations as an accountant in charge of a health committee that should be headed by a doctor or other health professional. The seniority system is probably the single most abhorrent thing about the Senate to the American public.
Did you read it? Dodd said he prefers the republican way.
BionicBub,
Dude, all I can say is read the article.... you are not even on same page as the author, or even Dodd, lol.
hehehehe... C'mon y'all. Pictures are good too. What's even funnier is that there are at least 7 other people (as of now) that agree with him. ROFL!!
Does MSNBC need to start publishing articles now in Comic Sans with crayon-colored letters in order for Republicans to be able to read and understand?
BionicBub, do you not comprehend what you read? Dodd was defending the republican way of doing things. The democrats are the idiots who put their leaders in for LIFE. The republicans rotate every six years so they give new, fresh faces with fresh ideas a chance.
I think Dodd is right. You see democrats can agree with republicans. I don't think any senator of either party should remain as head who-ie on a committee forever. For one thing, it limits their understanding of the other committees and does not allow for expanding knowledge. Too long in one place does not provide new perspective, another view unless someone retires, is not re-elected or dies. A combination of both seniority and rotation makes more sense.
I certainly can agree with your idea of rotation... but the experience lost when using someone new for critical roles, is something I believe would suffer - because these are key positions when you learn to become adept at over time.
So maybe a modified term limit would be the solution i.e. a new person is appointed, while the senior leader ranking is removed but still belongs to the committee, this ensures that the knowledge gained by them is not lost to policy or rules.
Tunde - senators can still ask their colleagues for advice. While I can't prove that a new chairman would heed that advice, it would seem rather foolhardy to completely ignore it and push a more senior member aside. Our senators are a great number of negative things; I wouldn't call them (that =) stupid.
Tunde. The rotation should be done so that only a few rotate out of each committee at a time, not the entire committee. That way you retain knowledge gained but also get fresh ideas.
Maybe Dodd is right. He, for example is the head of the banking committee and is a shameless whore working on behalf of Wall Street and the banking industry.
Dodd's claim to fame other then being the chair when the financial situation became a crisis and not knowing what was going on in Fannie, Freddie and his own mortgage was that he was Kennedy's bar buddy. He lacks imagination, intelligence, and integrity. With Kennedy gone he lost his sponsor in the club. Can anyone tell me one piece of legislation that can be attributed to this individual?
Financial regulatory bill - Obama's policy (to date) with the highest rating...
Given your choice of going for the "Kennedy Was A Drunk" laughs, I'd say the same statement could be made about you.
Off-topic, but couldn't resist:
We will not be seeing much of this O'Donnel woman on Fox and Freaks so much.
She is, after all, rather small-breasted.
hahahaha~!
someone I know calls "faux and freaks"......soft porn... it's just funny that you mentioned that~!!!!
Have you seen their website.... at a glance of the pictures, you would first think the site is pervasive.
Go to their website right now, they have a section called "FOX on Sex" - this is actually a news organization.
Because they seem to gravitate to sexy immagry so much, it completly escapes me how Palin winds up on there so much. Talk aobut 'rode hard, and put up wet'! Maybe it's that mouth.....
Fox must be doing something right. You goobs apparently watch them and since a news organization thrives on ratings they must be doing good. This republican hasn't looked at the Fox web site in years but you, apparently, can't stay away. What a bunch of maroons.......
I look at Playboy, too, Chris 335678. That makes it a newspaper??
maroons? you mean MORON?
Yeah, you probably dont watch fox, or MSNBC or CNN... or even read anything for that matter....
I guess you are fine with being ignorant. Good for you.... whatever floats your boat; man.
I will continue to watch CNN, and MSNBC and occasionally tune in to faux to see what is up with the lunatic fringe - you gotta know your enemy, you know?
THE DUMB-ING DOWN OF AMERICA CONTINUES - ALA Chris-335678 (hey you missed the 4 in your name - it should be Chris-345678, but good luck though)
To Tunde Akins :
"Maroons" is a common slang for "moron", so please be informed you've outsmarted yourself [and how utterly non-difficult is THAT ? !] in this latest "gotcha" attempt of your's, against a politically differing poster.
I guess the best way to describe the etymology [of this particular definition of of the word "maroon"] is that it's the slang form of the word that a person might tend to choose when they very much think that calling a bunch of persons morons, in a given situation, even if it obviously involves "stating the obvious", still really cries out to be said.
But if it seems rather too crude and heavy handed seeming to come right out and call people morons, the speaker / writer might instead choose to call them "maroons".
Somehow it seems somewhat less DISTASTEFUL contentious and combative that way, with even a trace of "shaking one's head in disbelief" good-spiritedness about it.
I myself LIKED the way Chris referred to you in no way elite "elitists" as maroons, rather than as morons.
I see it as his way of saying : "If you guys had even half of a functioning human brain, to share among the whole lot of you, you might be dangerous, but since you clearly don't have even half a functioning human brain among the whole lot of you, making you absolutely no threat whatsoever, I'll think I'll refer to you as 'almost loveable' loser 'maroons', instead of using the [slightly more blunt and to the point] term 'morons' ".
In other words, you're "the gang that couldn't shoot straight", and if you ever did somehow hit something, there's a very good chance you'd be hitting yourselves in the foot... if not the head !
Haha : )
Take "brilliant" Drive-by-observer, who began this thread so ignominously.
To try to prove his "point" [if one can even call it that], that none of the women who serve as commentators on the FoxNewsChannel could possibly be worthy of being spoken of with respect, because so many of them seem to tend toward the rather physically attractive, how did Drive-by-observer going about attempting to do that.
He unspeakably crudely tried to make that "point" by revealing that the paramount thing he had to say, about a woman who just come from essentially nowhere in the polls, a couple of months or so ago, to win a truly amazing Republican party Senate nomination, is that it was his observation that he considers her "small breasted".
Proving only one thing : Drive-by-observer is simply UNIMAGINABLY "small brained" to have that be his one comment he chose to leave on a national website, about a woman who's clearly now a major player on the national political stage, who's truly inspired millions upon millions of people around the country, in recent days, with what she's [already !] accomplished in the political arena.
Frankly, I completely failed to notice if her breasts were small, large, or "right about at the national average, for females".
This country's clearly in big trouble, and as for us now trying to elect people people to honestly and effectively address our truly major problems head on, I really like what I've heard Christine O'Donnell have to say, on the issues, and on her principles, and on the type and quality of campaign she chooses to run.
After that, I also noticed she's clearly lovely, charming, incredibly personable and vivacious, and with absolute "charisma to burn !".
As opposed to her former opponent, Mike Castle, who in addition to having resorted to running a truly vicious and despicable, lying, personal mud-slinging campaign against Ms. O'Donnell, and then not even scraping up the modicum of traditional human decency required to manage to congratulate her in any way whatsoever, on her victory, [Castle] also happens to be, if you're ever heard him speak, the veritable "human energy crisis", possesing all the personal and political charisma of Porky Pig.
And you really ARE a bunch of maroons !
Bruce-2368742,
First of, when I asked "Maroons?" I actually was asking what it meant... and I actually googled it since I had never heard of the term (unfortunately google didn't return anything meaningful)... and when I said "moron?" I actually meant it as a question, not GOTCHA as you refer...
And smart-azz, if you read my post without your prejudices against liberals, you would realize that my post was about learning from all sources (including faux, which I clearly have a differing opinion). Chris's point was that I shouldn't go to fox... he never elaborated on why...but that's his point.
I'm free to take it to mean that he doesn't read~! or doesn't like to look at multiple sources. That's how I took it. AND YES, I occasionally watch fox, along with CNN and MSNBC....what's the problem with that?
You feel comfortable in using the "elitist" term because that's what been spoon-fed to you by faux news - to describe a need to be literate/educated on issues. When I say dumbing down of America is in full force, it obviously is because that what you prefer...low information voters, who vote on fears rather than issues.
You then went on a tirade about "having half a functioning brain"...shezzz, calm down bro... I know you like to show that you are a smart (elitist in your words); but what ever makes you feel good about yourself.
Haaa, who am I kidding even responding to you... I'm giving you what you crave... you need a hug?? No I'm serious... you okay?
Tunde, your "problem" as I see it is: The typical arrogant liberal certainty of correctness couched in terms of intellectual superiority. I'm sorry, but such apparent smugness only belittles YOU and diminishes your arguments which might otherwise be worthy of consideration. As an example: "faux" is used by you as well as "Fox." How pejorative, how partisan, how stupid. Do you not THINK that MSNBC is at least equally biased? Or, is that ok because they espouse your political philosophy? There is nothing wrong with believing in any which way, and being passionate about it. But I would submit that it is sagacious to always listen to people of a different perspective and not dismiss them as just misguided or worse yet, intellectually inferior.
Oh brother.... u people with 6 digits at the end of your screen name.... I give up... I feel intellectually superior (simply because I'm a liberal)... have your cake and eat it.
I don't agree with limits on terms. As long as the caucus is happy with the performance of a leader, the leader should be allowed to stay. Otherwise you're just kicking out someone who is/was still useful and well liked? For what? just 'cause you need a rule for the sake of having a rule?
My argument would be that no one in government should remain in power indefinitely. That includes the President (already term-limited), Congressional officials/Chairpersons and, yes, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Even if well intended, leadership perpetuity in any branch of government eventually leads to self-serving arrogance and a king-complex that serves no one well. These limitations would minimize the pain and suffering we experience in any branch of government caused especially by those of a certain political persuasion who view ineptitude, stupidity and sheer ignorance as modern-day, "anti-Washington" virtues.
I've always looked the other way when Chris Dodd has been in bed with the finance industry and after all, his Dad was a crook too - because he usually voted right. But his latest grandstanding re: Elizabeth Warren has a lot of us saying, "Don't let the screen door hit your butt on the way out." He's made his (and will make a helluva lot more lobbying next year), so now that he's retiring he can play elder statesman. Oh, please.
Hey Minneapolis--
Despite his Countrywide misstep I believe I can successfully argue that Dodd has more integrity and smarts in his pinky toe than your poor-"me too"-dweeb-of-a-governor T-Paw and chief wingnut Bachmann combined. I suspect Elizabeth Warren gives you fits because her intelligence and smarts are considered such rare commodities in your crowd. In any event, try resisting the urge to despise what you don't know or can't comprehend.
Tyler,
Are you paying attention?
Rode hard and put up wet. Must be that mouth.
Is this what passes for the latest in political discussion?
Their are a bunch of sick libs on this sight.
C'mon, that mouth has had LOTS of snark and mean politics come out of it. I can't comment on it?
"sick libs" is so much better, though....
Dodd is a good poster child for term limits. He should be indicted for his role in the financial meltdown. Glad to see him go..............
Dodd like Rangel and dozens more CROOKS on both sides and houses that stay to long believe that stealing or taking advantage of their position are different subjects/ matters when it applies to them. If you or I do something like what they do it is wrong ,if they do it it is alright do to age or circumstances that they forget or evade. THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO PUT TIME LIMITS ON ALL THESE POLITICIANS 3 2 YR terms for house of reps and 2 4yr terms for Senate. If they cannot steal enough in that time frame they are to DUMB to get a longer period of time.
Could /would you try and get the info on what MSNBC new requirements want to submit comments on sports . Before they had a Discuss section at the end of an article. That no longer exists about sports each time I try to use my newsvine password and Email it comes up as not valid. I try to get info on what they are looking for to register and it has about 5 lines that I can not figure out what to do. . At Age 81 i am afraid i will be in the big comment section in the sky before i can figure out what they want after having such a somple format before. Appreciat any assistance you can provide.
I think it is time for Dodd to resign and payback some of the profit he has gained through his shady deals.
When you have someone like Ted Stevens, who chaired the appropriation committee, and sends WAY too much pork to his state, I feel that a position that controls the purse strings needs to not be in one person's hands for WAY too long.
I thought maroons was code for macaroons - as in cuckoonut macaroon.
I refuse the Republican way in anything! They put us in this mess- Dodd included. Did you see the poverty numbers today? Have you listened to who is making the most money in America, what? you say, yes, the top 2% are making 25% of the money----Think back, what did the Democrats give America during the 25 years they held the Congress, Senate, and Whitehouse- Work, Entitlements for the Middle class, a progressive Democratic government- Not paid for by the Corporations, but representative of the Voters. Democrats are trying to turn this mess around- We need to be patient, work together and Never let this happen again.
MaggieE,
You speak some wise words.... appreciate your comment; we need to let voters know they are been bamboozled by the right wing-nuts, ala faux and freaks....keep doing what you are doing :)
If America wakes up in the next few elections there won't be any senior members left in Washington - lets get rid of the good ole boys that got us into this mess. I hope Dodd enjoys his retirement - heck he should have plenty of money saved up after his buddies and Country Wide gave him those sweetheart loans.