I sent this into my local newspaper today. Any thoughts?



Dear Mister President,

I know that you are a man whose attention is pulled in as many directions as there are minutes in the day, and that you might never have leisure enough to answer the letter of one concerned citizen amongst all of the concerns of the citizenry. I however find myself availed of nothing but time, and I choose to use the freedom of my indolence to tell you my concern, and to pose you a question that I believe needs to be asked of you and no other.

I believe myself to be a man of intense patriotism. I also view myself humbly, from a distance, to be a man gifted with the ability to recognize my lot in life. I have no great wealth to speak of, holding neither title nor land, and I do not delude myself into thinking that the power of one man can make a difference in our age of empires and idealism. In point of fact, the only authority I still hold sacred is the truth as spoken by a believer to a non-believer.

I believe in democracy. I believe in the checks and balances of a government charged with the defense and prosperity of both it's people and it's ethical responsibility. I believe in the rule of law, and in the peoples sway over the system that supports them. Most importantly, I believe in the duty and capabilities of the elected President of the United States. I am a true believer mister President, and this is the truth I choose to speak to you.

You have mismanaged your post mister president, and betrayed those that allowed you to keep it in trust.

On Liberty Island in New York City stands the single greatest symbol of our country. A symbol that for decades promised to accept the embattled people of a broken world to her bosom and to give them a fresh start amongst the free people of the new world. The statue still stands as a beacon of hope to the world after all of these years. But the promise made by our beacon remains unfulfilled and betrayed. Our people are still hungry Mister President, and our people are still poor. America is the land of the free, but that still is no such thing as a free lunch in our brave new world.

The president of the united states should be a man dedicated to the advancement of all mankind, not just the defense of his constituency. He should be a man whose every action serves to bring the people of the world one step closer to a peaceful resolution.

A president doesn't negotiate with foreign nations simply so those rival nations continue to ignore the glaring flaws in America today, he talks with his people in order to find and solve the problems of an imperfect system. A president should be a man that an ordinary citizen such as myself shouldn't have to convince himself or herself to trust. A president should be a man of the people, not a man of his party. A president should not turn to strength of arms to mask a difference of religion. A true president would never send his countries sons and daughters across the world to die.

I believe that I'd vote for a president like that. And I believe the rest of the country might as well.

You are not a true president, mister president, and I don't believe that a man like you ever really could be. So my question to you is this:

Do you truly believe yourself to be the caliber of man fit to sit the oval office? Or are you simply trying desperately not to screw up so badly that your successor won't be able to recover the country after you're gone?


Like I previously stated, I don't expect you to answer this letter amongst all of the others you probably receive on a daily basis. If I were a man as busy as you must surely be, I wouldn't answer one letter amongst the flood either.

So I did not send the letter to you mister president.

I sent this letter to my local newspaper. The press has long been the institution of the people, and I truly believe that the people have a right to hear your reply. So I hope that my local newspaper prints my letter, and I hope that other newspapers in other cities catch wind of it and print it as well. I hope beyond hope that every newspaper in the country prints this letter, mister president.

Maybe, if we all ask our questions at once, you'll finally take the time to answer.


Urgently awaiting word,
A concerned citizen.

Erm.

it wont get printed

Blah blah blah. Sorry, I already heard this in an Oscar speech, Green Day song, and open mic poem. Your letter wont do or change a damn thing, and all it will do is make pansy liberals feel good about themselves. If they even put it in the paper. You didn't make enough accusations or bland generalizations about Iraq to warrant syndication. It's too long for print, anyway.

Meh. Needs more vitriol and obscenity.

unless its a terrible paper

Exactly. We should have never gotten involved in WWII. I'm sure Germany would have made the world a better place.

A strange thing to say about what is, as far as I know, the first nation in history to have fat poor people.

All of that same old dribble so he could simply answer yes to the first question and no to the second?

I think I might cry.

Here's my opinion: the first three paragraphs are printworthy. The rest are not because they are magisterially vitriolic.

This is a democratic republic. The problems with this country is not that we have a bad leader, but that the American are to selfish dumb and lazy to make the m selves informed enough to elect a true leader. Bad leaders exist because the American people want them, that's just how the system works. Honestly we're so short sighted and whiny I almost don't care that the whole thing is going to come crashing down. It'll be almost worth it to see all the selfish slobs reap what they've sown.

I mean, no one will even look at the hideous spending situation the government has gotten its self into because none of the solutions would be popular with the public, who would, of course, not elect any one who did.

So in conclusion, beating a dead horse in a local newspaper is just another way of ignoring the real problems.

While the rest of the letter was the same boring stuff we've heard for the last five years, this was pretty funny.


Do you live in some sheltered rich neighborhood? Have you ever seen poor people? Are you totally out of touch with reality? This is probably the best fed nation in the history of the world. Poor people have to worry about high cholesterol, not starvation.

Despite Obe's generic conservative arrogance, I agree about the ridiculous lack of responsibility people have.

You mistake arrogance for cynicism. Most of the conservatives are jerks too. Hence the problem.

I wish you wouldn't lambast the entire American citizenry for our poor leadership. A much bigger problem is the robust system designed to ensure only a few specific candidates may win the presidency.

Your concerns and mine are closely related, really. The problem is our vote is much less powerful than we have been led to believe. A candidate that might make a real difference doesn't have much of a chance of becoming a powerful American leader because he is never on the ballot or in the debate.

Whoever wields the power to choose who attends debates, gets press time, and appears on ballots wields a power ten orders of magnitude more powerful than your vote or mine.

Funny thing is that conservatives have far more ligitimate reasons to be upset with Bush. The liberals that are angry are always mad anyway.

You're mistaking an effect for a cause. The reason that that system has come about is because the voters are uninformed and selfish. They only care about fighting blindly for their party because that way they don't have to do any work thinking for themselves, they don't REALLY care about the direction the country is going. I guarantee you that if everyone actually bothered to take some time to inform them selves of the state of the nation, the two party system that has become so unassailable would crumble instantly, because the whole thing depends on telling selfish people what they want to hear and sweeping tough decisions under the rug until they reach critical mass twenty years down the road.

The reason that the media has so much power is because the public gets it's opinions from knee jerk reactions manipulated by TV talk show hosts and empty political speeches.

I agree with some of that, Obi, and Wookiee brings up a good point. However, everyone has wildly different political views, Obi. I think most people really do care about this country. They have much different ideas about what would improve the country; different than yours. That doesn't mean they are apathetic.

The part of the voting system that affects the outcome the most is where the rubber hits the road — the ballot. Why do so many people think they must vote for someone who's on the ballot? Truth is, they don't. They simply feel compelled to because those people have a lot of money and they are who have been selected by some invisible force to become president.

Tell me — what exactly is so radical about simply dismissing the ballot? You come, you write down the name of someone who you'd like to see as president, then wait for the results. If that person does not want to be president, go down the line until someone does. That's a real election.

You see, the effort that produces the most value is to change the election system — not the people. Wasting your time trying to "inform the public" or something equally nebulous will do nothing.

Obi makes more good points. Please stop, we can't agree. Etc etc, political boundaries, no one will understand, star crossed lovers, etc etc.

I've put some thought into the merits of a two party system versus some other systems in other countries. I have come to the opinion that a two party system really is superior if only for this one reason: Even with a two party system it is possible, unlikely (unlikely as the 2000 race), but possible that the winner of the presidential election does not win with a plurality, let alone a majority, of the votes. With a multi-party system it's highly probable that the winner will have received a minority of the total vote.

With regards to the voters, I don't think most voters align their votes so that their party gains power. I think they vote for who they perceive to be in their own personal best interest. That perception is usually flawed.

Wookie, I find it highly suspect that having a majority actually makes a difference. The only reason you get a majority in a two-party system is because people are compelled to vote for one of two people. Of course you're going to get a majority in that case; that has no bearing on whether or not such a system is desirable! If you give people more choices, there will be no majority because there is a wider selection. More choices and freedom is a good thing in my book.

Again, the only reason the supposedly-desirable effect of a majority is acheived in a two-party system is because you're basically forcing people to choose between the lesser of two evils. That is in no way preferable to having a candidate win with, say, 15% of the vote. And before you say, "Yes it is!", know that the people who voted in the "majority" would have voted for someone else who they thought was a better candidate had they thought that candidate had a chance of winning.

Freelancer, I understand what you're saying but my thoughts are that a system with more than two parties you end up with a group elected by a minority of voters having a plurality in the congress or a being elected to the presidency. I just don't see that as preferable but I can see how some might.

Fair enough.

My mom, life long conservative, calls Bush "King George", "The Anti-Christ", "Emperor Bush" (although I think I gave that one to her).

I kind of share the same setiments. I'm none to pleased with him.

We don't even have a year left.

Just shut up, sit down, and wait to vote. Who cares at this point.


That's a self-centered piece of **** idea. No offense to you, but honestly, EVERYONE has a reason to be pissed off with him, everyone anywhere. Saying "blah blah has more reason to be angry than blah blah with Bush" is such an immature, high school ideal.

He's ****ed over pretty much everyone in the world one way or another--it doesn't matter who political alignment, ethnicity, or nationality you are--you still have a reason, and plenty of it, to be angry with him.

Is it a positive for one party to win a majority when neither party really deserves one? I'd much rather the Republicans and Democrats were limited to the influence granted to them by the people who really support their platforms, without the additional weight of the people who voted for one party or another as a "lesser evil" choice.

Hi, Mystic0.

You realize of course that politicians live in a different world? Black to you is white to them. Letters like this make you look like an uneducated fool.

Or a college student. One of the two.

But it isn't. Bush is not popular for a number of reason, some legit and others not. Most people disagree with him on the war. The left because they never like war and the right because they don't like how it was managed. But there's no common ground there. The right is relatively "happy" with war. As long as it is for a good reason. Other than the war he has championed almost everything his opposition does. Teddy Kenedy's No Child Left Behind, amnesty for illegals, campaign finance reform, etc. Conservatives are the least vocal of his critics because they keep giving him the benefit of the doubt but they are not happy. The libs are never happy and your "average Joe" always *****es about the gobment (intentional typo) anyway.

The conservatives may have had "more of a reason to be angry" after the first term, after the second, the conservatives have the least amount of room to complain.

[Edit - Wookie, I notice you only discuss the "left" and "right," what about individuals who fall beyond just "left" and "right"?]

People don't like the Bush Administration. WE GET IT ALREADY.

Politics are for losers and gay old men.

I'm pretty sure that the "age of empires and idealism" was several generations ago. Ours age is one of corporations and disillusionment. If not disillusionment, naive protest such as this.



I'm going to reformulate this sentence to get at its lack of coherent meaning:

You believe in the checks & balances of the government. You perceive this government as charged with the defense of its people and the defense of its "ethical responsibility." You also perceive this government as charged with the prosperity of its people and the prosperity of its "ethical responsibility."

What is this "ethical responsibility" of which you speak? Also, do you really think, in a world of scarce resources, the government is charged with or ought to be charged with the prosperity of its citizenry, not just their sustainment? The panglobal outlook you seem to express elsewhere seems to contradict this, at least if you view the issue of poverty from a zero-sum game perspective (as I do).



:/ All this "mister President" this and "mister President" that makes you sound like a Sheehan-esque indignant mother huffing and puffing outside the White House. Your rhetoric seems to be covering up a lack of a focused argument, a flaw that your argument seems to share with that of the very politician you criticize.



I hope you're aware that the French built and donated the Statue to us...



The standard of living for the poor in America is leaps and bounds greater than that virtually anywhere in the third world. That's why illegal immigrants, for instance, are willing to risk their lives to go from the poverty level in their country to the poverty level in ours. Also, the mixed metaphors and tacked-together buzzphrases in the second sentence of this excerpt destroy its argument entirely. I suggest you read "Politics and the English Language."



What does this even mean? You're saying that the President of a single nation (the USA) should be dedicated to the "advancement" of all people everywhere, not just the nation he has been mandated to lead (the USA). But who defines what "advancement" really is? Aren't you in fact advocating pseudoimperialism and normative influence over other sovereign nations? Doesn't this disgust you? And what is the "peaceful resolution" that the you think the people of the world should be moving towards, anyway? This strikes me as a euphemism along the lines of a "final solution."



There's not really anything he can do about it now... If the President said, "oh... wow. I was so wrong. I have done terrible things and am unfit to lead the nation further. I hereby resign." he would sully the office of President, further deteriorate the image of the US abroad, and guess who would succeed him into office for the remainder of his term: Vice President Cheney.



You just seem like another of the countless masses who derive some perverse sense of self-righteousness out of asking for "answers" and then either aren't happy with them when you receive answers, search for "answers" that further your agenda, or don't even pay attention to the answers that are out there.

I'm afraid that you're just another bratty voice in a cacophonic chorus of peer voices. You're appealing to the President to "realize" some epic ineptitude of his like a little child telling mommy that she knows nothing and that the child knows better.

I can tell you now that this letter will not be published beyond a microlocal level, if even there. Don't let this dishearten you: you clearly have a passionate desire for something better, even if you are misguided as to how to achieve this goal or what a "better" world would really entail. You should channel these energies in other directions that would be beneficial to a general cause through specific actions (helping Oxfam or the Red Cross, doing local volunteer work, or even just donating money). Either that or accept life as absurd.

Dear Mr. President,
There are too many states. Please remove three. PS I am not a crackpot.

Sincerely,
Grampa Simpson

To Our President

I know you're really busy. I'm not, so hear me out.

I love my country. I also know my place. I don't have much, and I don't think one can make much of a difference on his own.

I like responsibility from our leaders, especially from the president. I really dig this **** so bear with me.

You've done a bad job.

The statue of liberty is cool, I hear she puts out too. I'm getting hungry and poor writing this by the way.

I wish Jesus was our president.

Try to get everyone to help us out. I'm not sure I trust you. You sent soldiers to risk their lives, how dare you?

I'm gonna vote for someone else. Do you really think you're good at this presidency thing?

(There, now it doesn't annoy me as much.)

haha well said, Kroko

@OP- I actually like your letter, despite my silly other post. It seems like I'm one of the few, but I do believe that doing something, even if it is almost sure not to have an effect by itself, is important because it could inspire someone else to do something. Which could inspire a few other people to do something, and so on.

The thread about emailing/calling your Senator about the Internet Radio act, for example. People were saying that there's no point, because senator's are just paid off by companies for their votes. While this may be partially true, I can't just stand idly by and give up because ut's "not worth it."

Ours has become a country sick of fighting. We fought about slavery. We fought about women's rights. We fought about universal suffrage. We fought over Vietnam. Over Civil Rights. Over Nixon. Et cetra. Et cetra. Et cetra.

I think by now, the people who still want to fight about things are in the minority. The tired majorities say pretty much what you've found said in this thread.
"Why are you trying? It won't make a difference."
"No one will print that."
"Too long, didn't read."

People will unite and "fight" so long as all they have to do is put a tacky bumper sticker with a witty slogan on their car, but that's about all the fight left in people.

So I don't care what you're fighting for. Humanitarian aid in Uganda. Impeachment of George Bush. Election of Ron Paul. Third party political parties. Even fighting to get Mystery Sscience Theatre 3000 back on the air, if that's what you really believe.

Just don't give up.

so... are you mad because you didn't get a free lunch then? personally I'm of the mind that a lunch (literal or metaphorical) should never be free. it doesn't have to be so expensive that only the super rich can afford it, but free? no.

also.

are you upset with the existence of war? if this is the case then im sorry but sometimes war IS necessary. now if your just upset about this war you should perhaps give a few real reasons why, reasons beyond "omg! blood for oil! our chillins are being sent to their doom against their will!"

don't get me wrong though, i think this administration has botched things up too

What does it mean when someone writes a fairly well written letter critical and insulting of the president and virtually all of the post in this thread is critical of it? Wow.



Because in America that is basically it. Most people don't meet every criteria to be on either side but they fit enough of them to put them clearly on one side or the other. The only exception is the great number of so-called moderates. Most "moderates" simply have no core beliefs to guide their political decisions and can't really be considered a group of their own.

What about libertarians or totalitarians? One is socially liberal while economically conservative while the other is the opposite. How would either of those fit in just "left" or "right"?