An observation about the so called "divided-dems"

After reading and replying about that pathetic article in the NYT and what Big Ed and J. Klein have said, I think there is a continuing effort to make Kerry look bad and make him look like a divider. Another interesting observation:

1. Even though it's called the Kerry/Feingold amendment, why is Kerry the only one taking the heat, while Feingold (whom I like too) has been spared or ignored? Is JK a threat to him and Hillary or what?

2. Why do people always say he does things for political reasons? (don't know if it could hurt him in 08 if he runs:shrug: ) I appreciate the man for doing things that benefit all of us and the entire country at large. :patriot: What about all the other Dems running? Are they opportunistic too?


As many of you guys have said, the media just doesn't want to get caught looking bad (cause they know they are lying and Bush is going down) so that's why they continue to attack Kerry.


BTW: I liked the notes and LTTE you guys have written. I wish I was good at writing some. :grouphug:

the NYT also said Feingold was more willing to compromise than Kerry therefore Kerry is the bad kid who refuses to play nice with others.

of course if it was the opposite and Kerry was willing to compromise and Feingold not, than we would hear about Feingold stands alone and Kerry is trying to sell out and other things we always hear.

many of these people are just looking to bash Kerry. no matter what he does. if it was Feingold and anyone other than Kerry the same ones attack Kerry now would be demanding "where is Kerry, why isn't he backing this".

there are a lot of phony asses out there who care nothing about the issues .

there are many who view it in terms of 2008 and their support for someone other than Kerry. and they don't want Kerry to get any credit.

and a few other things concerning Reid and his control issues and Hillary, but i don't really want to get into it.

if you watch Kerry, he is diplomatic when he speaks of Dems who are attacking him. he avoids letting the media get away with it by saying there isn't much difference and they agree on more things.

It annoyed the hell out of me. In fact, when they started talking about immigration, I hit delete, and I couldn't listen anymore. Anyone else think immigration is a big yawn? I mean, maybe I would feel more concerned if I lived in a border town, but I feel a little crazy to admit this, but I just don't feel particularly threatened by the Mexican workers who do all the landscaping for our subdivision, and couldn't care less if they're documented or undocumented. As long as they don't want to commit crime or join a terrorist group, I just don't have the time or energy to worry about them.

Okay, back to Kerry and what they said. I was disgusted with them, but then after I thought about it afterwards, I realized they said a couple good things:

1. David Brooks admitted the liberals were right about Vietnam
2. Mark Shields did say that John Kerry was acting the way he was due to a "personal epiphany" -- that was actually nice because at least he didn't say it was because of '08 politics.
3. Mark Shields said how amazing it was that Republicans stood together for a policy 2/3rd of Americans think is wrong.
4. After David Brooks said "cut and run" at least 5 times, Mark Shields pointed out Chuck Hagel's remarks about "focus group buzzwords".

The rest was pretty awful, but I just wanted to focus on the positive things.

my guess is the immigration fear and the arrests of those black "terrorists" is an attempt to keep the white conservative/moderates who are the reason for the chimp's low approvals from turning to the Dems. expect to see more of this type of stuff as we get closer to the elections. remember how the terror alerts suddenly stopped after the elections.

Mark Shields is an ass as he repeated some stupid talking points on Kerry during the election and only AFTER the election did he write that article on Kerry's relationship with some kid which showed a side of Kerry that we love but the whore media didn't report on.

Brooks is right wing chickenhawk ass. all of his shit starts off reasonable then ends with bashing of liberals and supporting the right wing side.

The headlines should be:

GOP stays the course with Bush; Americans, Iraqis demand change!

I wrote about it here last night: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1496848&mesg_id=1496920


The #1 thing people are concerned about is Iraq. Immigration is #2, but it is far, far down the list. I think I heard only 32% feel it's the most important thing--parallels *'s approval ratings so maybe it's the same bunch.

So yeah, I actually do worry about immigration a bit. A good contractor/construction worker earns about $25 an hour around here. Illegal labor knocks that down to $10-13. They'd have no future if they had to depend on those wages. If all the contractors here hired illegals, he'd be in the position of having to lower his own income or hire them too. All I want is that the constant downward pressure on wages stop, for everybody. I think the more legal rights immigrants have, the less likely they are to be exploited, that's why I support citizenship programs. Labor exploitation is a global problem, not a US worker against worker problem.

They just hate "foreigners" and anybody who has trouble speaking English. For the Right, who is pushing this issue, it's about xenophobia. They're so much in bed with corporate America, though, that they're anger at them for hiring illegals is just window dressing.

I agree with you Sandnsea, and support giving them more legal rights, but the Right just wants to deport 11 million people . . .

I'm just saying that there are real wage problems associated with undocumented workers or even a plan that intentionally brings in numbers of documented workers who don't have the knowledge or method to advocate for their own labor rights. I don't see it as an immigration problem, I see it as a global labor problem. When US workers grasp that it's in their interest to stand up for every worker everywhere, they won't be able to play their racial games so easy.

they need to work harder to rip people out of his column and move them into theirs. I think it's mostly non-online people who will vote more for name recognition. That's one reason why people give Hillary Clinton an easy win or they use to give her an easy win.

Go ahead and just write. LTE's can be short like one to two paragraphs. And they just need to speak clearly from the heart. In fact, shorter ones have a better chance of being used.


My letter to Ed was too long, but I had to get it off my chest.