Christopher Dodd Has to Go

I am not at all sympathetic of the plight of the automobile industry. The Big Three of Detroit have largely brought their terrible situation upon themselves through decades of bad decision making. In spite of this reality, I was offended when Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) informed the CEOs of Ford, Chrysler, and GM that if they wanted money for their companies, they needed to go. This is the same Christopher Dodd who has been on the Senate Banking Committee for years and oversaw the financial debacle of Wall Street that led to an $800 billion bailout at taxpayers expense. This is the same Dodd who has fueled record government spending for years that has led to our debt of trillions of dollars.

As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Dodd proposed a housing bailout on the Senate floor in June 2008 that would assist troubled mortgage lenders such as Countrywide Financial. Condé Nast Portfolio reported that in 2003 Dodd had refinanced the mortgages on his homes in Washington, D.C. and Connecticut through Countrywide and had received favorable terms due to being placed in what was later called the "Friends of Angelo" (Countrywide's CEO) program. Dodd received mortgages from Countrywide at allegedly below-market rates on his Washington, D.C. and Connecticut homes. Dodd has not disclosed the below-market mortgages in any of six financial disclosure statements he filed with the Senate or Office of Government Ethics since obtaining the mortgages in 2003. The Senator's home state Hartford Courant reported Dodd had taken "a major credibility hit" from the scandal.

If direct payment has influence, the problem is even more widespread. Countrywide has also contributed a $21,000 total to Dodd’s campaigns since 1997. Dodd has also received $70,000 in campaign contributions from Bank of America, which is buying Countrywide, in the last year-and-a-half before the Countrywide Financial loan scandal surfaced. Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the only other Senators who have received more money from Bank of America than Dodd. However, no politician has received more contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than Dodd's combined $133,900.

Marcus Cicero, when discussing the Roman Empire, said "the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled..." Dodd's throwing stones in a glass house and maintaining a straight face in the process, is arrogance at its height. Senator Dodd needs to go and should be a part of a serious "house cleaning" that should be seen in both the US House and Senate. It is true that, in the end, many familiar faces like Dodd would disappear. That would be a face lift the US could afford.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Christopher Dodd's Bold Move for Exposure

Christopher Dodd (D-CT) is considered an also ran in the race for the Democratic nomination in 2008. He lacks money, he lacks supporters, he lacks political base, but he keeps on running. Desperate times call for desperate measures and he is certainly in that situation. However, this week he has been one of the most mentioned names on the news, often eclipsing Clinton and Obama.

Why the sudden interest in Dodd? Well, the Connecticut Senator is the Chairman of the influential Senate Banking Committee and he is taking the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke to task for doing too little, too late in the current mortgage crisis.

There is a great deal of speculation as to his objectives. Some say that he is trying to look like the champion of the lower income individuals who have been harmed by the mortgages they obtained. Others think that he is trying to curtail the independence of the Federal Reserve. I'm cynical, I think the low profile candidate of the high profile race is looking for a little media attention. He isn't going to seriously influence our monetary system. Furthermore, he won't even intimidate Bernanke in rescuing home owners (although I won't be surprise if Congress does such a bail out). He simply is trying to develop an affordable way to get his face on the evening news. This week, it worked.

See How They Run: Also, See How They Fly

The first debate for the 2008 Presidential election (photo) took place last night (can you believe it?) and the biggest story wasn't how different the candidates are from one another (there was little discussion on such), or even the difference between the Democrats and President Bush (a big part of the discussions), but about how the candidates got there.

All of these candidates have taken the nation to task because of the Global Warming issue that has become so prominent today. All of them discuss the need to conserve energy, develop better fuel alternatives, and car pool at every opportunity.

Of the 9 candidates that participated in the South Carolina debate sponsored by MSNBC, at least four of them (Clinton, Obama, Dodd and Biden) left from Washington, DC at about the same time (following the Iraq funding debate in the Senate) on four separate private planes (all of the Democratic candidates are using this mode of transportation). At a cost of around $9,000 a flight and at a huge fuel cost, you would think one of these champions for energy efficiency would have suggested jet pooling! It didn't happen, they just boarded their respective energy hogs, possibly shaking hands at the airport and wishing each other a good flight, and met each other again at the forum.

Most people are chuckling about this story, but it speaks to me about the hypocrisy that is pervasive in politics today. Candidates who pound the public over the head with their moral mandates while breaking their own rules every opportunity that get. Until a couple of elections ago, virtually every Presidential candidate traveled on the major airlines, saving their supporters dollars, helping the environment, and conserving energy. Ironically, there was little talk of Gloabl Warming in those old days. I, personally, find the hypocrisy sickening and will start reminding politicians to put their money and their actions where there mouths are.

See How They Run: Why Are They Running So Early?

This is the earliest time in US history for candidates to declare they are running for President. The question many are asking, is why? I think this can be attributed to several reasons:

* Some candidates have never stopped running. John McCain (R-AZ) has been running since 2000 when he challenged George Bush. He has continuously raised money and organized and has been biting at the bit for years. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has been running for President since 1992 and many argue that she served many of the years her husband was in office. In order to appease their supporters and to try to deter potential competitors (this obviously didn't work), these candidates had to jump in early. Them jumping in early forced others to do the exact same thing.

* Others on the lower end of the electability scale jumped in early to build support and even an identity. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) (see photo, above), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Mike Gravel (D-AK), and Ron Paul (R-TX), are just a few of the candidates that fill that bill. This group has different objectives. I'm sure all would love to be President, but they are also interested in merely seeing their perspectives out there, to push their opponents in their ideological direction, or to even run for a high level post once the election is over. For example, many believe Joe Biden (D-DE) is actually running for Secretary of State in a new administration or even the US Supreme Court. Others honestly believe that the big name people will actually fall on their face, creating opportunities for these lessor known candidates.

* Some have major name ID, but lack national experience. This includes Rudy Guiliani (R-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL), both of whom are major players, neither of whom have been tested on the national scene. Many are arguing that Obama is actually running for 2012 and is building momentum and working through his mistakes now. If he is lucky, he will have the same success as Bill Clinton who many said he was doing the same thing in 1992.

* Speaking of working out mistakes, all of the candidates would like to have as much time as possible, in order to be judged in the most favorable way.

The question I have is, will all this early running help improve or hurt the electoral process? Will it excite more people or bore them to tears? My guess is that most Americans are going to be so sick of the elections, they will simply want them over with by November 2008. On the other hand, I believe candidates will increasingly early in elections to come. In fact, don't be surprised if someone announces for 2012 (keep your eye on YouTube) any day now.