Letter to St. Pete Times for your review. Suggestions?

This deranged letter appeared this morning. It needs a reply. Here's mine.

What would Lamont liberals fight for?

I would like to ask one question of the Ned Lamont wing of the Democratic Party: Is there something, or anyone, that you would put your life and family at risk to fight against (other than the Bush presidency)?

Is your personal comfort and secular orthodoxy so controlling that you cannot see that there are groups with whom you cannot negotiate to your advantage, cannot appease? I have made the uncomfortable choice that we must identify and fight Islamic haters where they are and not in our country. Is this so hard to understand?

This wing of the Democratic Party must make the Jewish liberals nervous. Do you think the Lamont wing will support Israel in its struggles to maintain its nationhood? (If you, do read the blogs. Their anti-Zionist content is scary.)

This election will give us a dramatic look at how far the American dream has fallen. Are we so in love with our comfort that we will surrender to Islamic haters?


Here's my reply:

Re: What would Lamont liberals fight for?


I'll tell you what "Lamont liberals" would fight for. Many of us, just like the general population, are veterans of Vietnam, Korea, and WWII. We would stand up to fight anyone attacking our country in a heartbeat. We supported our invasion of Afghanistan, because the were harboring people who attacked our country. By the way, where's Osama?

We do not support the invasion of a small country that was no threat to us, and just happened to be sitting on an ocean of oil. We do not support the creation of an entire new generation of terrorists, because in the process of taking their oil, we've destroyed their homes and families.

We also would fight for democracy in our country. Fair elections, affordable healthcare, good public education, and sane insurance and utility rates.

These anti-war "Lamont Democrats", make up over 60% of the American citizenry, and nearly 90% of all Democrats.

Let's face it. Joe Lieberman lost the primary, because he lost touch with his constituents. They didn't want their Senator providing cover for every brain dead, neo-con foreign policy misadventure, Federalist Society judicial hack, and anti- working family piece of legislation rolling out of the Bush White House, under the mis-labeled banner of bipartisanship. If they wanted a Republican, they would have elected a real one.

you also say.....Lieberman should hear the voice of the people..they voted.and have spoken...this is a Democracy that Lieberman says we need in Iraq.....so why is he deterring Democracy here in the US.....
If he would have fought half as much when Florida was in dispute.then he could spiel off............

And I get the St Pete times...will be looking for your letter

...and I'll be looking for your well-written response.

Ever notice that a lot of the idiot right-wing bullshit letters come from Palm Harbor?
(not that palm harbor is full of idiots but....)

great letter, OP!

Sticking to the "what would you fight for" theme seems best. The letter writer obviously is full of religious bias and religious-created hatred as well, and there ain't never much point in going there, once they're over that line where they act like Jesus Hates Every One Who Don't Look Like Jesus.

This kind of refundiepug isn't going to accept the simple math that 60% of anything is a majority if that 60% doesn't agree with what their church and BBQ buddies teach them.

Make sure you add a "y" to "they" in this sentence.

because the were harboring people who attacked our country.

is a little wordy. Could you maybe change it to "They didn't want their Senator providing "bi-partisan" cover for every brain dead, neo-con foreign policy misadventure, Ferderalist Socisty judicial hack, and anti-working family piece of legislation rolling out of the Bush White House. If they wanted....

Or some such. Just a thought but totally ignore if you don't agree.

So I re-worded it a little bit, and made more sentences out of it.

They set a word limit for LTTE's, and sometimes it's hard to stay in those constraints.

Thanks

though. Thanks for taking the time to respond to that Ahole.

Which is systematically being dismantled by Republicans as we speak. We are strong advocates for Law and Order just not military expansionism and occupation especially of countries that have done no harm to America. If these neocons think we won't fight just have one step up in front of me..We fight for right not just for a political party..

I saw the one you're responding to in the Times this morning. Your response is intelligent and well-reasoned-- a nice answer to a moron. Thanks.

We *all* need to be writing these letters.

I would agree with SataUvaca that it might be a good idea to stick with
the "what would you fight for" theme. You might also consider adding how
many "D"'s are vets, and how few "R"'s are.

I would also suggest, from my point of view, dropping the "braindead"
bits. I fully empathize with your rage, and definitely share that
tremendous frustration. However, as you may have seen here on DU, once
you get into that kind of name-calling, the listening stops. I think you
have made a very good point in the first part of the letter, and you want
them to keep listening to you: now and with future letters. You probably
aren't going to affect that brain dead writer, anyway, it's the others who are reading your words who might be swayed by it. And, those who are capable of being swayed it would be a shame to turn off by unfortunate words. As Martin Luther King said, our mission is to convert our "enemies" to being our friends. That is done with peaceful words.

I see that as one important function of DU -- use this space to vent your
rage, and clear your system, so that you don't have to use those words on
those who so richly deserve it, but who would definitely stop listening
once those words hit their brains.

Thanks again for your efforts!!