I don't often share this

[ray of light]

but here's my letter to Ed.

Dear Mr. Shultz or Wendy Shultz,

I am extremely angry and disappointed in Ed's big rant at the Democratic Senators yesterday. Frankly, he couldn't have helped the right-winged pundits anymore had he tried!

Let me explain why....First, the bill by Levin, Reid, Clinton, Feinstein, and Salazar was a hodge podge of mush just set forth to atone the calls for bringing the troops home but the plan itself had no meat and no real actionable accountability for this (lying)President and this (lying) Republican Congress. We've seen the President has no intention of bringing the troops home and the Republicans think that any strategic plan to pull the troops out is to be held out there for political purposes. Hence their incorrect and overused frame "cut and run."

Yet, despite your bashing of John Kerry, John Kerry was right when he called it a "Lie and Die" strategy from the White House and the Republicans. Thus, the Levin-Reid bill was playing exactly into those same incompetent hands that have no intention of bringing the troops home. It's why their measure was nothing more than grandstanding and sitting on the fence.

I researched both bills because at first I thought they were almost the same, and I had notices to call my Senators and ask that they support both bills. Through my research, I discovered exactly what made Kerry'-Feingold's bill better than Levin-Reids bill. The things most valuable in Kerry'-Feingold's bill were:

1. Accountability. The President and his administration would no longer be able to paint half-truths about the progress in the war and would be reporting to Congress how the war was going. For an administration who has had no oversight this was a hugely important facet of this bill. This President and his majority party have run a-muck and can not be trusted! We needed this oversight desperately!!! Furthermore, the very fact that Bush has refused to fire the archetect of their incompetent war, Rummy himself, is all the proof we needed that until there is accountability, we will never see the war run in a competent or honest way and we will never see the troops come home, except as a midterm election year ploy.

2. A Specific time table to get out while at the same time giving a huge lea way for a secret and strategic exit. (As opposed to an article saying, "We are leaving July 7th" , the President would have ample time to secretly pull troops out and to work diplomatically with other countries to use an international approach to ending the war.)

3. Americans want the troops home immediately. They see the war as a failure and they see this President as a liar. So Kerry-Feingold's bill was the policy that most American's support. They no longer trust Bush and they no longer trust Republican policy. This bill was exactly what they wanted!

Yesterday, I was quite upset after listening to you bashing Democrats for not having one specific plan. Then I heard your rant against Kerry and I was more upset that you chose to specifically take sides against Kerry. The more I thought about it, the more angry I became that you even considered the Reid-Feingold measure to be an acceptable plan at all! It's a hodge-podge of nothingness except pure unadulterated politics! The American people don't want that. They wanted a specific plan and Kerry-Feingold put their own names at risk to give the American people a true, specific, highly engineered plan that would pull the troops home in a strategic manner and would hold a crazed political administration and his party accountable for the first time in 6 years!

And Kerry is attacked every time he does something by the right-winged media, and you can vew the NYT's hit piece on Kerry from Monday as proof of this statement as well as view the video of the Today show that broadcasted the same article, the same concerted smear! So I guarentee you Ed that he didn't just say to himself, "Gee...I feel like standing on the backs of the troops for political gain and letting the right-winged media (and apparently the left too) smear the hell out of me, so I think I'll put in a logical, strategic resolution to bring the troops home...I love to get smeared!!!!"

You claimed the dems should have had only one plan. Well, if you want to believe the Republican talking points, I can not stop you. But at the very least, I hope that my information has helped you see that the single plan that Reid, Levin, and Clinton should have gotten the nerve to support should have been the one that was best for the American people. And that one was the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer bill.

Thank you for your time.

Now here's the contact info:

For comments on overall show content:
wendyjoschultz AT yahoo.com

To contact the show's producer:
james AT edschultzshow.com
701-200-9134

E-mail Ed during the show!
[e-mail]

[blm]

1. Levin-Reid-Feinstein. Kerry-Feingold.

Alot of people were saying the Levin-Feingold accidently the last few days.

But the letter itself is outstanding work.

[ray of light]

2. accidentally? I guess it could happen. But I'm cynical these days.

[blm]

3. You had a Reid-Feingold in the last part of your letter

,

[ray of light]

4. Yikes! I see that it was accidental then. Or just too much typing.

It's why I'm trying to not type so much lately.

[blm]

5. heh.... that's what I figured....

I've been typoing up a storm lately.

[karynnj]

7. It's easy to do - I've had to edit myself

I know I know better - but after "Fein" I go on automatic pilot. Even re-reading it, it doesn't look wrong. What I think may be more strategic is the media calling it simply "Kerry". It is true from watching the Senate, Kerry is the more dominant Senator. (Weeks ago, an abnoxious "expert" (I think on Hardball) was saying that the media wanted Feingold as the "anti-war/left/non-Hillary" candidate, because he could be easily stopped. This underestimates Feingold - he clearly has a more substantial resume than media favorite Edwards.)

[karynnj]

6. Inspired by you, my letter

Dear Ed or Wendy Schultz,

Over the last year, I have enjoyed listing to your informative and interesting radio show via the Internet. I have been amazed at how often I agreed with the positions that you have taken. It is refreshing to hear someone speak about each issue, based on its merits, rather than an ideological position. This was why I was so disheartened to hear your show yesterday.

Various pundits have pushed the idea that a party has to have only one position or they are disorganized and not united. They apply this idea only to the Democrats, implicitly implying that the Republicans are in complete accord. Both Senator McCain and Senator Hagel have positions on the war that are significantly at variance with the (unstated) Bush plan. The difference between McCain’s call to greatly increase the number of soldiers and to change their mission is a at least as great as the difference between Kerry/Feingold and Levin’s amendment. Yet not one talking head has called McCain to task for not supporting the CIC of his own party.

Both Democratic plans emphasize the need to change a policy that is not working. Without Kerry, Feingold, there would have been no Levin amendment. The Democratic position would have continued to be (in Nov 2006) that "2006 should be a year of significant transition." In Nov 2005, this was a consensus position, weaker than some would have liked, that then had value as it did move the discussion. To talk about transition in 2006 in the second to last month of 2006 is nuanced beyond belief.

Kerry, Feingold and Harkin each submitted amendments that had substantive ideas on what was needed to succeed. Ideas from these amendments were combined as the Kerry/Feingold amendment. At minimum, these Senators initiated a real discussion of what can and should be done in Iraq. This plan is also consistent with Kerry plans from 2004 onward. The media has said for the last 3 years that the Democrats don’t have a plan – then mocked Kerry for having put up at least 4 plans as circumstances have changed.

Like his earlier plans, Kerry includes a call for a diplomatic summit between all the factions in Iraq, all the neighbors (all of whom are better off without an unstable country on their border) and international organizations developed to foster peace and stability. Unlike Biden, who is pushing a plan for the US to redefine the Iraqi government, this plan facilitates Iraqis making these critical decisions that they will have to live with. Notice that the media is not criticizing Biden for his plan, which he has actively promoted while distorting Kerry/Feingold .

In the Kerry/Feingold amendment, the Senators have a real alternative plan that will not be implemented - because Bush is President, not because it is either impractical or not thought out. It is a plan to succeed as much as McCain's is. It includes long term anti-terrorist forces, intensive diplomacy and it respects the sovereignty of Iraq - which Bush and McCain (permanent bases, wanting control of who's elected and ignoring their desire that we leave) don't.

Both John Kerry and Russ Feingold are speaking from their hearts and are using their collective intelligence to find a path out of the mess we are in. This is clearly not politics for either of them. They have put together a plan that can be thought of as an alternative path.

Senator Warner, in his debate with Kerry in the Senate on Wednesday, said it was well thought out, though he did not agree with it. That debate, which for me suggested what the Senate could be, showed there could be civil discussions of policy recommendations. The great thing about many, intelligent, well meaning people discussing alternatives is that it can lead to solutions none of them came in with. To me this is more productive than the Levin amendment or the earlier Democratic consensus position – both hide disagreement behind vague language. It does lead to consensus, but at the cost of saying almost nothing and offering no real ideas. In contrast, Kerry and Feingold deserve credit for outlining a real substantive plan and putting their ideas out in public.

I hope that you will re-examine what was in the Kerry/Feingold amendment. At any rate, I will continue to listen to your show.



Sincerely,

[ray of light]

10. Your letter is awesome! So much more articulate than mine.

[karynnj]

12. I had the advantage of reading yours first

so I pulled a lot of the threads you were saying - but staying as far away from the wording as I could.

[ProSense]

22. Both letters are fantastic!

Thanks for setting Ed straight!

[_dynamicdems]

8. Excellent letter.

I heard something disturbing on the Young Turks this morning. I'm not certain who was speaking but they were discussing the two amendments. One of the commentators made the allegation that Feingold wanted to compromise with Reid, Levin and Clinton et al, but that Kerry wouldn't let him. I'm not certain who was making this comment, but it is the first time I've heard this, so I'm wondering if it has any basis in truth.

The other commentator said Kerry was right but they both said that Kerry was probably doing this out of ambition. That really annoyed me.

[whometense]

9. I'd guess that idea was lifted

wholesale from that hideous NYTimes article a few days ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/washington/21kerry.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The Democrats' exasperation has increased in the last week, as they postponed a vote on Mr. Kerry's amendment to try to fashion a broader consensus among themselves. Democrats up for re-election asked him not to propose a fixed date. But Mr. Kerry, several Democrats said, was unwilling to budge from that idea, even though his co-sponsor, Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, seemed willing to compromise for the sake of consensus. In the end, Mr. Kerry agreed only to extend his deadline, from Dec. 31 of this year to July 2007.

[ray of light]

11. Also, if it came from that article then they have a troll in their ranks

or some invisible person is making things up.

[_dynamicdems]

15. Probably. Maybe the were interviewing Markos.

Whoever it was, it sounded like they had some real information not that stupid Times hit piece. I've been doing searches for hours for a Feingold quote. GRRRR! Suckered, I was.

[karynnj]

16. That's the problem not - everybody quotes stuff

that had no original souce until it gains validity because people here it from multiple sources.

Here, it almost hurts Feingold more. He is a maverick and was willing to stand alone on the Patriot act and nearly alone on censure. Their personal philosophies are such that Kerry is far more likely to work for compromise than Feingold. (With Kerry they need to decide is he the subborn maverick or the poll driven politician - you would think they would have to choose one.)

[_dynamicdems]

14. These pundits are really annoying. This guy made it sound like there

was something concrete, not this inane speculation. "Seemed willing to compromise" means nothing. I was trying to find a quote from Feingold, but you're probably right that it stemmed from this nonsense.

[ginnyinWI]

18. and in my local paper

it's been "The Feingold Plan" all week! :( Well at least they are covering it. They mention Kerry's name sometimes, but don't quote him. And Boxer is also non-existant. It's Russ, Russ, Russ, 24-7,

[karynnj]

20. That most be change for people in WI:

They hear Feingold locally and Kerry on national news.

[karynnj]

13. That's from the snarky NYT article that said

that that was the rumor. (Note that if Feingold wanted to do something, Kerry has zero leverage to stop him.) Also remember that the Dkos reply from Feingold emphasized that he was the first to demand a withdrawal date and it was the key point in his plan and is essential to the plan - oddly, the Kerry plan could drop the withdrawal date requirement and still be coherent - in fact it would be close to his Oct 2005 plan.

If he's right, does it matter that he's ambitious? (Why is it a positive to be ambitious and strive to be the best in every other field and even for other politicians, but not for Kerry.) Where it would be wrong is when for the sake of ambition someone does something wrong. (Though the media actually admired Clinton when he allowed the execution of the the mentally challanged man for politic credits.)

[_dynamicdems]

17. I'm very relieved that's all it is because

I really like having JK and RF on the same team.

I'm sick of hearing that everything Kerry does, is done to position himself for 2008. In all honesty, many of his decisions could actually hurt his chances, but he still plows ahead because he always does what he feels is right regardless of the consequences. Not that he's not politically astute (he is), but if it comes to a choice between what is better for his career and what is right by his conscience, Senator always chooses conscience.

And he listens. A couple of months ago I posted about a Web site where these military moms had targeted Senator Kerry in hopes he would help stop the war. Their letters were heartbreaking and you know he listened to them. To make his call for a timed withdrawal sound like a political decision when people are dying needlessly is really low.

Yes he has ambitions: he wants to make things better for all of us. I whole-heartedly support his ambitions.

[ray of light]

19. to claim that his actions are politically motivated

is like the pot calling the kettle black. Each and everyone of those people are there and want to serve again. The key point is deciding if you believe his decisions are made based on facts and integrity. If so, then you support the person, and if not then you look to someone new.

Example: Joe Leiberman says he's a democrat but look at his actions. His moderate stance has always won him both sides, but now that he's being told to vote where his heart is, you see he's really a Republican. Why the change? Higher aspirations? Who knows.

But it's one example of how we need to point to the fact that the left is not out of the mainstream! We are the mainstream! but the further right the neocon party takes us, it simply gives a false front of the left seeming to be extreme.

Frankly, I'm a rather 'moderate' person and probably am more Republican in thinking than Republicans are. But I'm not a Republican. I'm not an independent. I'm a democrat because I'm your average human being. And yes, I'm left-liberal-progressive...all of that but I am the mainstream!

[nolies32fouettes]

21. ray of light, great letter...and I owe you one for making me call

Sen. Reid's office. (More on that later!)

[jillan]

23. Good for you!

We don't get him in Phx anymore, but one time when I emailed him, I got a response the
next day.

Sometimes I think Ed is lazy and doesn't do his homework. Then he wakes up.

He used to be an attack dog against Kerry..comments like "Kerry in 2008? I'm not going thru that again." But then he woke up, and started praising Kerry...until this.

He seems to fall for the spin, and works thru it on the air, rather than someone like Randi that controls the spin.

Glad you let him have it.

Excellent letters - high five!