June 3rd, 2007
09:41 PM ET
3 years ago

Dodd would not do away with all ear marks

WASHINGTON (CNN) - When asked if he would do away with all earmarks, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, responded by saying earmarks should be discouraged and they are “a problem” but he would not ban them completely.

“I wouldn’t want to have a blanket approach,” said Dodd. “There may be events that need to occur and things haven’t gone through the Congress before.”

He continued by saying, “I wouldn’t want to put us in that rigid straight jacket.”

– CNN Political Researcher Xuan Thai


Filed under: Uncategorized
soundoff (3 Responses)
  1. B.T. Mendelsohn, Ashburn, VA

    This analysis is misleading. The question was will he vow to not sign any bill that comes before him as President if it contains earmarks. His answer was that he couldn't make such a blanket promise because the bill before him might be one that it was vital for him to sign despite the earmarks.
    I think Sen. Biden had the best answer on earmarks, which was to find ways to fund elections that do not require candidates to raise obscene amounts of money.
    Joe Biden, however, did screw up on his answer on stopping Iraq War funding. He said that the Democrats have only 50 votes in the Senate, and
    that they need 67 to end the Iraq war. He must know that a veto proof 67 votes is only needed to
    pass something, not to prevent something, such as the budget supplemental, from passing.

    June 3, 2007 09:56 pm at 9:56 pm |
  2. R. McComb Toronto Canada

    When does the debate start? Looked to me like a PTA meeting ast Starbucks, If Mrs Clinton was not married to the former president would she even be considered a serious candiate? ..... BTW please let the Democrats know that they need not go to Home Depot and buy wood and nails to build a 2,300 mile fence along the Canadian border ...or if they do at least use Canadian lunber.. was that guy for real?.

    June 3, 2007 11:38 pm at 11:38 pm |
  3. City of God

    That's one sexy Dodd!

    June 5, 2007 01:35 am at 1:35 am |