Enough with the 'Bash other Dems' stuff. The enemy is the Rethugs

[TayTay]

Okay, incoming folks: Welcome to the Kerry Froum. Remember to check your luggage securely in the overhead compartment and keep your hands and feet in the ride at all time. (This can be bumpy and dangerous terrain, be careful here.)

Folks who have set up condos here in the Kerry forum: One of the principal things we discuss all the time is how much we hate the nasty attitudes on DU. We also discuss how twisted the media is and how they wait to play 'gotcha' games on Democrats. That doesn't just happen to Sen. Kerry, it happens to all Dems.

Ahm, I don't want to go through the rest of the fall with nasty misunderstandings and e-mails that are responding to MSM pieces that don't reflect how the Dem involved actually feel anyway. (All Dems are targets of the MSM. All Dems. The MSM misquotes everyone and swipes quotes only to reposition them out of context all the time. This is done for Kerry. It is done for ALL DEMS. We should know better.)

I do not want a flame war in the group that pits Dems against each other. I want to be able to give Gen. Clark, Elizabeth and John Edwards, Sen. Clinton and any other good Dem kudos for fighting for us to take over the Senate/House and commend them for their time, effort and good work on behalf of, God, America at this point.

This week sucks beyond the telling for anyone who cares about America and our system of fairness and laws. We are all on edge across the liberal blogs. Please don't let this turn into a cannabalistic exercise in beating our own because we can, instead of focusing on the real bad guys, the Rethugs.

Ahm, we might have grudges, we might be anticipating what will or will not happen next year, we might feel we are on 'the right side.' But it is needlessly divisive and wrong to do this. The enemy is the Rethugs and the good Democrats who are fighting this fight are my friends. Let the primaries take care of themselves next year, not now. It's too important.

Thanks!

Your Friendly neighborhoood JK Forum Mom

[TayTay]

1. Just check in and let's air whatever grievances we have

in a 'safe thread' and make some headway here. Ground rules: no attacks, state your grievances. Discuss without resort to hearsay, name calling or undue blame.

We have elections to win this fall, let's figure out what the hell the nastiness is all about and bring it out into the open.

Talk to me.

Remember, diplomacy is a good thing. It might actually clear the air and clean out some of the misunderstandings and bad feelings that stink up DU from time to time. We need each other in the Dem Party, we have to talk to each other. We should do so with open minds and without snark from time to time.

[blm]

6. I give the Edwards' leeway - but Clinton STRATEGISTS are going to get back

what they dish out from me - they lie, I civilly state the truth back at the lie.

Carville, Begala, Schwartz, and Wolfson will get corrected every time one of their spins pops up into my view.

I generally give all candidates and lawmakers alot of room.

[TayTay]

9. You mean you fight back with the facts?

Ahm, that is eactly what we mean.

Other people are going to cite 'their facts' in and we will cite 'our facts,' especially after the November elections. That is fair, that should be discussed. There are drive-bys that go on and politics is, after all, the roughest game of all.

However, we should be careful lest we become what we ourselves so dislike. It is hypocritical to say that the media is slanted against Dems, then cite a slanted article that did a drive-by on another Dem.

We will all fight or else we wouldn't be on political boards. But be careful lest you 'become the thing you hate.' That helps no one and only comes back to bite you in the arse later on.

[blm]

11. That was exactly the point I made on the Edwards' thread.

I understood from the getgo it was almost a certainty that the reporter sensationalized the outcome.

[TayTay]

14. I saw that you did.

It was something I did not do and I regret that. (Have I mentioned what a no good week this has been and how emotions are tempers are razor thin right now. It doens't take much to push people, me among them, into saying things that don't really mean and rushing to respond to things that aren't necessarily true.)

If the possibles for next year turn into candidates at the end of this year, we will have fights with people. That is inevitable. But we also need to keep in mind that the fights will be 'on the merits' and about things near and dear to our hearts as Democrats. (Hell as Americans at this point.) I don't want to damage any arguments I make later on by messing up before the fight even begins. That is a danger.

[beachmom]

2. You're absolutely right, especially since John Edwards took

the time to come to Virginia for a rally with Jim Webb AND a fundraiser event. I should check any envious feelings at the door, when he comes to our state to help us out.

I think we all had an immediate reaction. I was mad, but then strangely got bored with that thread on GD. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that a torture bill was being rammed through Congress.

Agreed. It should be about 2006.

[Democrafty]

16. Speaking for myself,

I am STILL crushed by what EE said. Not because of anything having to do with JK, but because the lives of a lot of people I know are lesser because of places like Target.

There is a logic in American politics that people like JK are part of the problem, and places like Target are some kind of solution, and I'm personally disappointed any time I see someone who's been sensitive to issues of work and poverty apply that logic to anything.

Of course, all this reinforces the need to follow issues instead of candidates - I want to be very clear that it doesn't matter to me WHO made these statements. They'd bother me coming from my own mother.

[TayTay]

17. That is legitimate on the face

That part of the argument goes to worker fairness and to a host of other issues, incluidng health care, the right to form unions and so forth.

That is an argument on the merits. We should be talking about arguments on the merit. That is what Dems do best.

But I am still not going to hack anyone up into little pieces before Nov. And I don't actually want to hack anyone into pieces after Nov 7th either, though arguments will come. I just want some discussion of what we are doing and how we do it.

[Democrafty]

21. Well, that's the big challenge, isn't it?

The problem with arguing things on the internet is that it can be a real project to convince anyone that you actually care about an issue, and don't just get off on being hostile.

Hacking anybody to pieces is the antithesis of what I try to do at welovejohnkerry.com, and I don't plan to hack anybody up here.

[TayTay]

22. LOL! Obviously not.

I don't think there is a human being alive who could accuse you of that. (LOL! It's ludicrious and your website is anything but a slander site.)

But there are those on the web who write things like the fact that one Senator is PATHETIC, based on the actions of another Senator all together. That is a hack job.

[Democrafty]

25. Sorry, didn't mean to get defensive.

But my major complaint about DU, and many internet forums, is that they do become places where people decide to indulge themselves in the kind of bad behavior you can get away with when real names and faces aren't present in the debate.

I have to say that when I/we behave well (and I think most of us do), we're behaving well in a place where politeness is not necessarily de rigueur, and there's very little we can do to ensure that the points we are trying to make are not read as vicious attacks. That's why I chimed in above - I can see where I may have looked like a jerk in this situation. I would have been a total jerk if I were basing arguments on anything other than my own current work experience. But the line gets blurry when we try to combat some of the negativity that occurs. Sometimes it's tough to know how to react in the face of a true hack job - sort of like how I can never remember what you're supposed to do to avoid being attacked by a bear.

As far as what we're trying to do here, I don't know. I wish I did. I am learning a lot about debate, real debate and false debate, from watching Senator Kerry, and I am trying to only get involved in real debates. And to stay as positive as I can about what I can/should try to accomplish as a citizen.

[karynnj]

3. Beautifully said

It is hard not to append an attack to a defense, but thinking about it is hypocritical for me to add these attacks, even in posts noting that I respect enormously that the Senator doesn't do this. (Yesterday, his defense of Clinton was better than anything I've heard from anyone - including Hillary.)

[wisteria]

5. I must have missed that. It isn't the Imus show you are speaking about is

it? If he said something elsewhere, can you let me know where it was?

[karynnj]

7. Yes - I was referring to the Imus show

I thought he gave a very nice answer, calmly stepping back to give the historical picture. Considering the length of time that would be allowed in that forum, it contained a lot of facts and it was honest.

[wisteria]

4. Well, I agree, to a point.

I was hard on Clinton the other day. And I won't take it back. She was not, IMO speaking for all of us, but for herself.The primaries have already begun as far as the Clinton's are concerned. I take it personally when she is out there claiming Dem's need to fight back like her and hubby. We all know the truth and those that haven't caught on should be made aware of their tactics. This is what the Clinton's do-take credit for other's achievements.I thought we had learned something from the last two elections, we can not let anything go unanswered or unchallenged. I was just doing my duty as I see it- whether she is a Dem or not. My goal is to support our party and our candidates, but once in a while, some people need to be smacked down.
That said, I have been forced to reevaluate my reaction to some anti-Kerry posts. Another poster here has shamed me into realizing that in some cases, it is better to consider the source first, investigate and count to ten, before posting something I might regret later. Yes, I have been known to jump the gun and react before thinking. I will strive to be a better poster and a better person by following my three guidelines before posting.
Thanks TayTay for reminding me that we are all Dem's and we are in this together.

[karynnj]

12. I think there's a difference between disagreeing with Hillary and

stating that at this time it would be better if the issues disscussed were torture, NIE and Afghanistan and bashing her in general.Disagreeing with a politician has to be allowed.

I actually didn't see that much that any of us said on the EE thread that went as far as bashing. It seemed most were either countering the idea that Kerry throughout his years in congress was an elite snob living off his millions and unconnected with people who have needs, expressing surprise and sadness that she would say what Time quoted her as saying, or pointing out that the Edwards were likely rich (or at least upper middle class) before they left their 20s - certainly before they had children. They were at least solid middle class in NC even when they started out in 1976 making a combined amount of $28,000.

More importantly, we were civil enough that the always courteous (and welcome) Benny05 came over, not to call us on our comments, but to suggest that the reporter may have had an agenda.

[Mass]

8. There is a difference between bashing Democrats and having a sincere

disagreement, and quite often, people do not see the limit between the two when you disagree with somebody they like.

I am, for example,very disappointed by the fact that the Democrats in the Senate did not try to block the Detainee Bill. I think it is a bad decision ethically and politically (remember 2002). May be it is bashing Democrats to say that, but I don't feel like stopping saying that.

However, right now is not the time to point that Edwards does not have enough experience, Kerry does not connect, or about Monica... This said, when we rarely start the attacks and I can understand that people react when their favorite is attacked harshly for no good and urgent reasons.

[TayTay]

10. We have been having a very lively discussion on this subject

for weeks and I happen to think it was, in some ways, much more informative than anything I have read in a lot of the blogs. We must continue to do that.

[karynnj]

13. I am also disappointed that the Senate seems to not

even tried to block the detainee bill. I think it may be one of the few times you can even use the word "morally" wrong. I also fail to see that a strong stand couldn't be popular - and if it isn't how do we change the country if we accept our own leaders not having the courage to speak out. I noticed that Senator Kennedy put this up yesterday.

"September 27, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


Washington, DC: Tomorrow, Senator Kennedy plans to offer an amendment to the military tribunal bill, co-sponsored by Senator Feinstein, that is designed to protect Americans who are protecting our country abroad. The measure requires the State Department to notify other signatories to the Geneva Conventions that if Americans are subjected to extreme measures, such as waterboarding or induced hypothermia, we will take action through war crimes prosecutions or other means.

“Support for this amendment is support for Americans who put their lives at risk overseas to serve this nation,” Senator Kennedy said. “Because the administration continues to evade the question of what practices it believes are prohibited by Article 3 when used on detainees in our custody, they have put Americans abroad at risk of abusive treatment if they are in the custody of others. This amendment says loudly and clearly that if our people are subjected to such abuses, we will respond.”

The amendment lists practices that the United States has already renounced by prohibiting them in the Army Field Manual. It states that the United States considers those practices to be punishable violations of Common Article 3 if they are committed against Americans. While our troops in uniform are protected under other provisions of the Geneva conventions, America has CIA agents, special forces members who operate out of uniform, and DOD contractors who need the protection of common article 3."




http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press_release.cfm?id=7b273d6c-e65d-4c2e-97ef-609c335de961

What was also dissapointing is that this issue is hardly addressed on DU - unless I missed something, I only saw one (counter-productive but understandable thread, bemoaning having to vote for a Democrat who voted for Torture.

[wisteria]

15. Senator Kennedy feels strongly enough about this whole subject to try and

do what he can to protect our soldiers. That is more than the Republicans are doing. I think they are willing to sacrifice our soldiers to fan the fires of their demented crusade.
Reid,and the strategists have most likely told the others that this will not gain us any points in November and may actually bring out some Repubs. I am not saying this is a correct assessment, I am just saying that this subject has not caused the outrage it should have among the public. This lack of interest is even seen here at DU. Torture apparently is though of as something that happens to someone else and since it doesn't affect people in a direct way, they can easily ignore it. This was not given the fair media attention it deserved and it is being rammed through for political gains. This will come back to haunt the Democrats who vote for it, and the Republican's victory on this will be short lived. When people come to realize the ramifications of this and the power it allots to Bush, people are going to ask how anyone could have allowed this to become law. The Republicans will be punished for this outrageous bill that lowers us to the level of thugs, terrorists and evil dictators.

[ProSense]

20. Kennedy's statement is great! This morning I sent

the NYT editorial to Reid with a note.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2850546&mesg_id=2850546

[Blaukraut]

18. Yeah, it's been a crummy week

Yesterday was an especially heinous day, it seems. Something was in the air, in the water that set everyone on edge.
As to attacking other Dems, no it's not productive. Yesterday's EE flack was a good example of how things can get comletely out of hand.
Now, the only thing I did in that thread in GD was DEFEND Kerry and Teresa, not attack Elizabeth Edwards. However, things got ugly when I got personally attacked for defending Teresa (and actually saying something nice about EE) and I naturally fought back, but still managed to remain civil about it. That's how I intend to maintain my conduct. I stick to the issues, defending and clarifying misconceptions, no attacking of other Dems unless they say/do something really assinine.
But when someone attacks me personally, I WILL fight back and alert on them.

[benny05]

19. Repeating what JRE Said Before Going to Uganda Today

In its zeal to score a political victory before Congress adjourns for the midterm elections, the Bush administration and the Republican leadership are playing politics with our national security by pushing through a deeply-flawed bill that would undermine our long term ability to win the war on terror.

Congress clearly must address the issue of the interrogation and judicial review of terrorism suspects and detainees. But Congress must do so in a manner that upholds the legal ideals and moral principles that for more than two centuries have made the United States a beacon to the entire world.

President Bush is now proposing legislation which will repudiate the writ of habeas corpus and grant him the power to imprison whomever he pleases for as long as he pleases without trial, charge, or judicial review. This bill signals to the rest of the world that the United States government condones torture.

To win the war on terror, we must preserve our moral authority to lead the world. If we are to succeed in spreading democracy abroad, we must defend the fundamental principles of democracy at home.

The Senate should reject this proposed legislation, and address the issue of terrorist detainees in a manner worthy of our people, our heritage, and our values.


---

I agree with him. I bet you do too.

[FrenchieCat]

23. Thanks for the thread, TayTay!

For the record, I wish that Senator Kerry was our President today because I know then that I would sleep a whole lot better at night.

But I will get this off my chest: I think it sucks when folks lump a bunch of people together, attack them as a "unit", and call it a day. I would hope that people would want to judge folks individually rather than smooching them all together (including some that don't belong). Frankly, it's what Republicans do to Democrats, and we shouldn't do it to each other.

I very much resented Benny's comment from yesterday in which he insinuated that "Clarkies jumped in" on that EE thread. It was a remark that wasn't necessary based on the topic, in particular as he/she was working the thread to soothe things over. Why detract from one's message of reconciliation by trashing a third party who's not there to respond? It really just wasn't required...that's all.

When I went back to look at names of posters in that 350+ posts threads, I actually didn't see many Clarkies at all, and I didn't see any who were being so outrageous in their comments that they should be singled out. There were a few trouble makers there, sure.... but they were not Clarkies that I know of....and see, that's the problem--that there are those who make assumptions because it is convenient in assigning boogeyman status to an entire group.

There are great many Kerry supporters that I like and/or respect quite a bit (JR17, blm, and quite a few others), but certainly there are a few that I don't get along with very well (who shall remain nameless).....but I don't lump everyone together just because they happen to support the same politician, and then make a jugement about them.....which is why I very much resented the fact that this was done Clarkies here last night. I'm not saying that everyone here is "guilty" of doing this, but stereotyping should be frowned up, IMO....and commented on when it does shows up, even if it's from one who belongs to our respective group.

In reference to criticizing any of our Democratic Leaders, I think that it is an OK thing to do as long as it is done in a constructive manner, and has rational basis to it, and is based on an individual's actions rather than making it personal. If someone votes for something I don't like, I don't neccessarily feel that this is a "bad" person, but if the vote was bad in my opinion, then I, like anyone else should have the right to say so. None of our pols are perfect, and certainly they have all contributed overwhelmingly to the greater good....and in the end, that's got to count for more than just a little something.

I am in agreement that the primaries for '08 are a long ways away, and until then, I personally will attempt to carry myself in a manner that reflects who I am.....not as who all Clarkies are.....cause they are just like any other group and shouldn't be treated differently. Even during the primaries, I will attempt not to sink low....because that's not something I need to make a point.

So I ask that in the future, folks attempt not to see two Clarkies in a thread and summarize that "those Clarkies are at it again"....cause it's just not fair! And I certainly will practice what I preach.

[benny05]

28. John Lennon

I am he and we all together..

FC, I am woman, hear me roar. You should treat me as Elisa.

I don't know your gender, all I know is that you are a Clark supporter, and don't come out unless some John Edwards supporter has something to say.

[Mass]

29. This is unfair! FrenchieCat has been participating in many threads

that have nothing to do with Edwards, and I do not remember him as a rabid anti-Edwards poster.

[benny05]

31. I am declaring my gender

Is Frenchie Cat?

[karynnj]

32. Frenchie cat is female

I agree with Mass - she's on many many threads - Clark ones and issue oriented ones.

[benny05]

33. OK

But FC has attacked Edwards time and time again. It's OK she does, but she never posts anything against anyone but JRE.

[TayTay]

36. Benny, This is not the place

I did apologize for what I thought was an error on my part yesterday on the media stories on Elizabeth Edwards. I like Mrs. Edwards a lot and I should have stopped and thought a bit more before I posted something based on news stories that I know for a fact can be twisted all out of context.

This is not the place to fight with FrenchieCat about other slights. I know that is harsh and that you feel you have grievances. So does FrenchieCat. However, I can only put my own house in order, not anyone else's. I can only pledge to live up to my principles and try and remember them before I type anything in anger. (Especially in a week as stressful as this one.)

I like you and welcome you to this group. But this has to stop. This is not the place for that argument to go on.

[benny05]

37. Thanks ,Tay Tay

You are correct that this is not for me and FC to spar.

JK was fightin' for us today...and I loved it.

[TayTay]

38. Thank you Benny

Peace to you.

and peace and thanks to FrenchieCat for coming here as well. We have to talk sometimes so we can figure out what is going on and what the grievances are. Ahm, let's just say I'm big on, ahm, diplomacy and leave it at that. (LOL for the JK regulars, who have heard that word a lot.)

Peace!

[FrenchieCat]

40. Again, TayTay...Thanks for the forum so that we could

kinda "unload"! LOL!
PS. I thank those good Kerry supporters who responded to Benny in my stead (as I was unavailable), and yes, my profile states that I am Female (hear me roar!), and my journal shows a big giant pic of me (I ain't half bad for my age) and I wish the best to all of us....cause we all need as much positivity as possible in this time in our history!

Have a great weekend to each and everyone! :hi:

[rockymountaindem]

24. No, not this time

I'm not willing to overlook the Democrats who voted for the torture thing, nor is it ok that we aren't even trying to fillabuster. This is one time that I can't find any kind of saving grace for the Democrats or some kind of silver lining. I guess if you live in a toss-up district you might as well vote for the Republican so as to avoid the glimmer of hope that you might not get screwed later on. Or waterboarded in this case.

[beachmom]

26. Yes, I agree. I think the more trivial stuff, Tay Tay has a point.

But on the torture bill, I am very angry with Democrats in the Senate. Yes, I'll still support getting more of them elected. No, I will not be leaving the Democratic Party. But they do share in the blame for this bill, by not fighting by EVERY MEANS POSSIBLE. We need to act as if we're in charge and stand up for what is right. And not be afraid anymore.

But as Markos said yesterday, we're in this game for the long term, with the expressed goal of not only having more Dems elected to Congress, but more progressive Dems with core moral values.

[MBS]

30. no one who voted for torture today . .

should be overlooked. All 51 should be on a Dishonor roll. And all those 49 who voted to retain Habeas Corpus -- especially those who spoke up on the floor of the Senate, like Dodd, Leahy, and Kerry-- should be thanked. Keep fighting.

[karynnj]

34. Rockymountain

I now feel as you did this morning - this morning I read it thinking of people like a clearly devastated Ford supporter in TN on another thread and realized how that would suck. I am still realing because my Senators BOTH voted for this. I will still go out canvassing and calling for Menendez, but I don't feel the same. I really really never even thought that Lautenberg, who is a Jewish WWII vet.

I really feel for the Senators, like Kerry, Kennedy and Leahy. From their speeches, this was not political for them. It likely has to hurt seeing people they respected and liked vote for torture.

[Island Blue]

27. Tay Tay - I hope you don't mind

me joining you in the use of the distress flag avatar. Excellent idea - it's quite appropriate.

[TayTay]

35. It's up at least until Nov 7th.

I understand that this is the signal for distress and an emergency. Well, it is. American law and values were just the victim of a drive-by shooting from the Rethuglican Congress and it's enablers and is currently in the hospital in intensive care. Patient needs a blood transfusion from all those who care in order for healing and the return to normalcy to come about.

[rox63]

41. I have also joined you in giving the distress signal

Because yesterday was a real blow to the heart and soul of our nation.

[TayTay]

42. I think it's appropriate

My Constitution and the very values it represents are under attack. If that doesn't warrant sending out the distress signal, I don't know what does.

Thanks!

[benny05]

39. Here's something positive that reminds me a bit of JK

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SAfFK0qfgAM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SAfFK0qfgAM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>