Peter Schiff to Challenge Chris Dodd?

[Bono]

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/lifestyles/columnists/x743979580/Dodd-could-face-serious-challenge-in-re-election-bid

Dodd could face serious challenge in re-election bid
Web site casts senator in harsh light

It’s hard to believe, but the 2010 election cycle is officially under way. (I know, it seems as if just yesterday the election cycle came to an end.)

And although it may be a while before we see any real action on the part of candidates, be assured the preliminary process is beginning.

The most interesting race of 2010 will likely be the U.S. Senate contest. Incumbent Democratic Sen. Christopher J. Dodd is up for re-election next year, and will likely face the stiffest challenge in his political career. This could prove to be as big — maybe bigger — than U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s 2006 re-election bid.

Already names of potential Republican challengers are being floated — two in particular: Former 2nd District Congressman Rob Simmons and Darien businessman Peter Schiff.

Simmons is better known, but I think an unlikely candidate. I’m not convinced he has any interest in mounting a grueling statewide campaign, nor do I believe he has any real interest in returning to Washington — especially these days with Democrats solidly in charge, and looking like they’ll hold the majority for several years to come.

Outside shot

Schiff, on the other hand, is a dark horse, but would appear to have the background in the one area that could prove to be Dodd’s Achilles’ heel — Schiff’s an expert on the nation’s financial markets. Dodd, of course, is the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and at the forefront of the financial meltdown.

An Austrian school economist, Schiff is frequently seen as a guest commentator on CNBC, Fox News, CNN and Bloomberg Television, and just as frequently quoted in major financial publications. He supposedly predicted the economic crisis we’re now facing, and served as economic advisor to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul during the 2008 GOP primaries.

There’s no clear indication yet whether he actually has any interest in being a candidate, but if so, he’d likely give Dodd a run for his money on this one issue.

Dodd’s popularity in the state has fallen as quickly and as sharply as the Dow Jones. His approval ratings are below 50 percent for the first time in his political career. And he still has to deal with the controversy surrounding the preferential treatment on two home mortgages he received. He’s promised to release all the documents related to the Countrywide VIP program once the Senate Ethics Committee completes its investigation.

It’s unlikely the investigation will result in any finding of wrongdoing on Dodd’s part, and the loan documents, when released, will probably show no impropriety on his part. But even so, that probably won’t be enough to win back the support of those he’s lost.

Dump Dodd

In fact, there’s already a grassroots effort coming out of Woodbury called Dump Dodd 2010. They’ve registered with the Federal Elections Commission as a Political Action Committee, allowing them to raise money and contribute to a potential challenger; they’ve launched a Web page (www.dumpchrisdodd.com), and they’re hawking Dump Dodd buttons and bumper stickers. (The material on the Web page is not flattering or unbiased in its view of the senator. It’s slanted to cast the senator in the most unfavorable light possible — surprise.)

They’re also urging supporters to write letters to the editor to their local newspapers expressing their disappointment and disapproval of the senator — and mentioning the Web page in those letters — in an effort to recruit supporters for the movement.

It looks like another hard-fought Senate campaign is shaping up here in the land of steady habits.

Ray Hackett is the Norwich Bulletin’s Community Conversations Editor with more than 30 years experience covering local, state and national politics. He’s covered Connecticut politics for the Bulletin for 20 years. He can be reached at 860-425-4225 or rhackett@norwichbulletin.com.   

[WalterMitty]

i like rob simmons a lot, but i would stll support dodd.

[Bacon King]

oh noes, rally the dodd squad!

[Bono]

oh noes, rally the dodd squad!

Well, the thing about Schiff is that he has enough money to fund his campaign on his own. That said, I don't think Dodd is in danger yet.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Any particular reason this wouldn't be safe D?

[Bono]

     Any particular reason this wouldn't be safe D?

Well, as the article says, Dodd's approval ratings have fallen below 50%.

[DownWithTheLeft]

served as economic advisor to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul during the 2008 GOP primaries.

Endorsed

[Meeker]

There's no way Dodd will ever lose.

[Kevin]

There's no way Dodd will ever lose.

4 words

Never say never-ever

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

     Any particular reason this wouldn't be safe D?

Cause Dodd has made himself the bailout king supporting every bailout that has come down the pipe including the Auto bailout that never happened. The fact that he got a very sweathart marghage deal from Countrywide financial. The fact that he is number won in donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The fact that his presidential bid eroded some support.

I was thinking Simmons would be best but this Schiff guy is really impressive.

[SPC]

Yay. Finally someone with economic sense running for Senate.

[AndrewTX]

I dont know who I'll endorse and support this time. I supported Dodd in 2004, but I dont see myself being a member of the Dodd Squad again.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Any particular reason this wouldn't be safe D?

Cause Dodd has made himself the bailout king supporting every bailout that has come down the pipe including the Auto bailout that never happened. The fact that he got a very sweathart marghage deal from Countrywide financial. The fact that he is number won in donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The fact that his presidential bid eroded some support.

I was thinking Simmons would be best but this Schiff guy is really impressive.

     In that case, I heart Schiff.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

He's an anti-regulation, free market true believer. Barf.

[Meeker]

I will go R-WA for a month if Dodd gets less than 60%.

[ChrisFromNJ]

He's an anti-regulation, free market true believer. Barf.

[Sam Spade]

Without sounding too ridiculous, I do believe that if TSHTF before 2010, Dodd's is a seat to watch, especially considering his involvement in the whole mess, if the opponent is credible.

Same thing goes with Corzine in 2009, actually.

It's still an *if*, mind you...  I'll remind myself to bump this in the future should such an event arise.

[ChrisFromNJ]

If the conservative talk radio myths about Chris Dodd reach critical mass, then he is in trouble. But one would hope that truth would prevail, and I have no doubt that it will.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How about we talk about a more exciting race?

[Beet]

Peter Schiff has identified the primary problem with the economy as too much borrowing and not enough savings or productive capacity, and a resulting asset bubble. Let's see... the asset bubble was bid up under Bush and Greenspan, both Republicans. The debt was funded to large extent by free trade policies which put dollars in foreign hands, and this in turn weakened our productive capacity. The debt bubble began to explode at precisely the early 1980s... the first Reagan revolution.

Now Schiff is calling for another "Reagan revolution" of smaller government and he wants to run for office as a Republican. So the same people who got us into this mess, are the ones Schiff is saying let's return to power. Once in Congress, Schiff would soon find that his fellow Republicans are not so amenable to his extremist ideas.

What's needed is for the United States to rebuild and redirect resources to the real economy while at the same time keeping people employed and able to pay for needed goods like education, housing and health care. No- government policies will not work for those purposes.

Edit:

"Then when Roosevelt came in, he actually campaigned against the interventionist actions of Hoover, but then repeated it, and did it even worse with the New Deal, and they created that Great Depression." - Peter Schiff

Roosevelt created the Great Depression? Ok..

[Sam Spade]

Peter Schiff has identified the primary problem with the economy as too much borrowing and not enough savings or productive capacity, and a resulting asset bubble. Let's see... the asset bubble was bid up under Bush and Greenspan, both Republicans. The debt was funded to large extent by free trade policies which put dollars in foreign hands, and this in turn weakened our productive capacity. The debt bubble began to explode at precisely the early 1980s... the first Reagan revolution.

Now Schiff is calling for another "Reagan revolution" of smaller government and he wants to run for office as a Republican. So the same people who got us into this mess, are the ones Schiff is saying let's return to power. Once in Congress, Schiff would soon find that his fellow Republicans are not so amenable to his extremist ideas.

What's needed is for the United States to rebuild and redirect resources to the real economy while at the same time keeping people employed and able to pay for needed goods like education, housing and health care. No- government policies will not work for those purposes.

You're probably right, Beet, but your assumption that Schiff's promises and your ideals are antithetical may not necessarily hold in the near future.  The inklings of some type of new theory where these ideals hold may be out there - the connection points are not, yet.

Also, trying to keep the debt bubble inflated while also trying "to rebuild and redirect resources to the real economy" AND "keeping people employed and able to pay for needed goods like education, housing and health care" ensures that 1) TSHTF even worse and 2) when TSHTF, the Feds will lack the resources (due to crushing debt burdens - maybe default is an option) to provide the bare necessities for many.

Keep in mind that I am not necessarily opposed to #2 or #3, but it must be kept reasonable cost-wise.

[Beet]

Peter Schiff has identified the primary problem with the economy as too much borrowing and not enough savings or productive capacity, and a resulting asset bubble. Let's see... the asset bubble was bid up under Bush and Greenspan, both Republicans. The debt was funded to large extent by free trade policies which put dollars in foreign hands, and this in turn weakened our productive capacity. The debt bubble began to explode at precisely the early 1980s... the first Reagan revolution.

Now Schiff is calling for another "Reagan revolution" of smaller government and he wants to run for office as a Republican. So the same people who got us into this mess, are the ones Schiff is saying let's return to power. Once in Congress, Schiff would soon find that his fellow Republicans are not so amenable to his extremist ideas.

What's needed is for the United States to rebuild and redirect resources to the real economy while at the same time keeping people employed and able to pay for needed goods like education, housing and health care. No- government policies will not work for those purposes.

You're probably right, Beet, but your assumption that Schiff's promises and your ideals are antithetical may not necessarily hold in the near future.  The inklings of some type of new theory where these ideals hold may be out there - the connection points are not, yet.

Also, trying to keep the debt bubble inflated while also trying "to rebuild and redirect resources to the real economy" AND "keeping people employed and able to pay for needed goods like education, housing and health care" ensures that 1) TSHTF even worse and 2) when TSHTF, the Feds will lack the resources (due to crushing debt burdens - maybe default is an option) to provide the bare necessities for many.

Keep in mind that I am not necessarily opposed to #2 or #3, but it must be kept reasonable cost-wise.

Well, I don't support keeping the debt bubble inflated; it is true that the government is, in the short term, attempting some propping up of asset prices in housing, by preventing foreclosures, and also keeping other parts of the economy in business by trying to prop up the banks and getting lending going. But these efforts are just an attempt to control the rate of letting the air out of the balloon.

I remain agnostic on TSHTF. Suppose that consumption drops, the trade deficit drops, and production slowly goes toward more productive purposes. Isn't it possible that the economy could slowly return to equilibrium state without some sort of panicky run on dollar-denominated assets?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Republicans can never play in Connecticut!  Democrats can never win in Alaska and Wyoming!

Doesn't insisting that politics is black-and-white get boring after a while?

If you think people were upset in 2008, wait until you see what people will be like after 2 more years of a crappy economy.