Three Cheers for Chris Dodd

My, but this has been a busy few days for the worried telecoms. They've long insisted that a few years ago they didn't do anything other than their patriotic duty when they handed over private customer data to the government without a court order to help with the newly christened War on Terror. Perhaps that's true. But if so, it's inexplicable that they'd need the new Democratic FISA bill to include retroactive immunity for any illegal acts they may have committed. To borrow an old-line Republican talking point, if they didn't do anything in the first place, why are they worried about immunity?

A few days ago, the momentum seemed to be going against the telecoms. In recently released court documents, former Qwest head Joseph Nacchio (who was, admittedly, appealing a conviction for insider trading) claimed that the National Security Agency was requesting that same private information before 9/11 and cut Qwest out from contracts because the company wouldn't provide it. Verizon also admitted to passing along that info on its customers, although as far as I saw, they only admitted to doing it after 9/11. Chairman Pat Leahy and ranking Republican Arlen Specter of the Senate Judiciary Committee came out strongly against casually offering immunity to the telecoms without even knowing what they'd done that might be illegal (although Specter is almost Democratic in his ability to talk tough and then cave on actual votes when it counts). I was starting to think that maybe the Senate might act responsibly.

But then came this morning's "compromise" bill from Jay Rockefeller's Intelligence Committee. The Prez and his director of national intelligence love it--they get everything they want, including absolute immunity for the telecoms. But up to the plate stepped Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut. After a concerted blog campaign pushed the idea, Dodd put a hold on the bill. Any senator can put a hold on any bill, and it takes a concerted effort for the Senate to go around that. Often a hold will shut down a bill if the majority leader doesn't want to go to the trouble of getting around it.

Dodd is running for president, and this is probably good politics for him. I've often said that Congress is getting such low approval ratings because they refuse to stand up to an unpopular president. It can't hurt Dodd with the base for him to push the Senate to stare down the Prez. Majority Leader Harry Reid hasn't endorsed anyone in the presidential campaign, but I have to wonder if he doesn't have a soft spot for Dodd. According to Congressional Quarterly (and passed on by TPMMuckraker), Reid is going to fight Dodd's hold and plans to bring the telecom bill up for Senate debate next month. If Dodd successfully stays on top of this situation, he can turn this to his advantage and focus even more attention on the problems with this with this bill. How can Bush-weary Democratic voters not love a senator who's not just unafraid of standing up to the Prez but also willing to go to extremes to prevent the useless Democratic Senate from caving yet again? As the situation catches the imagination of voters, Dodd has the potential to become a true hero here. Not only can it advance his cause, it also can't help but improve his name recognition in the presidential sweepstakes.