Dan Kervick's picture

    Open Letter to President Obama

    By Dan Kervick on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 8:26pm |

    Dear President Obama,

    My letter is short. 

    Just take one or two hours out of your life and read these messages:

     

    http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

     

    Then change.  Change the path you have been following.  Change the priorities you have set and the allies you have been cultivating.   Make a new covenant with the American people.  Please be the leader America needs and deserves.

    America's heart is broken.

    Yours truly,

     

    Dan Kervick

    Bow, New Hampshire

    Comments

    Ha, I lived in Manchester for several years.


    by Donal on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:04pm

    Thanks for sharing, Dan.  If these aren't eye-openers, I don't know what will be. 

    Heartbreaking.


    by Ramona on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:49pm

    America's heart is broken.

    So is it's spirit,  for without the spirit the body dies

     

    I like this idea.

    Lots and lots of pictures to tell the story.

    Put a face with the problem.  

     

    Is the message right though?

    Saying "I am the 99%" rather than "I am a member/part of the the 99%"

    The hand is not greater than the foot or the kidneys, all of them are members of the body.

    Take care of ALL your members;  if one is diseased or under stress (heart) it can still kill the body.


    by Resistance on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 6:06am

    Dear President Obama,

    We don't need any more words, really. We don't need promises, either.

    Before you say anything else designed to prove what a great leader you are, do one little thing first: Call the Wall Street Bankers, and the corporations, and the lobbyists, and all the rest of the bagmen and oligarchs you rely upon to fund your election campaign and those of all your supposedly progressive colleagues. Tell each and every one of them to take their quid pro quo's and go fuck themselves.

    Then, put your faith in democracy and let's start a new day in America in which the 99% have a voice in their own governance. 

    In the meantime, don't even think of co-opting the occupy wall street crowd for your purposes. It ain't going to work.

    Your choice, Mr. President. No more trying to have it both ways. Which side are you on?

    - Jeff Pieterick

    Waterloo, WI


    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 10:13am

    Tell each and every one of them to take their quid pro quo's and go fuck themselves.

     

    An example of that ugly quid pro quo in action, SJ, is what happened to Elizabeth Warren:

     

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/11/elizabeth-warren-201111

     

    Of course, the administration's loss will be Massachusetts's gain.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 1:39pm

    Excellent, well written article

    Primary Obama, we have found our leader.

    Elizabeth Warren, America needs you.  

    Thanks for the link to this excellent and well written article

    Excerpts from the article “At the end of his remarks, Obama turned to Warren and kissed her on the cheek. She smiled gamely, though if there are kisses a woman can do without, this was one of them. A Judas kiss, some would say. But if so, the betrayal was not just of Elizabeth Warren. In his remarks, Obama would hint at what had happened to Warren, commenting that she had faced “very tough opposition” and had taken “a fair amount of heat.”……that Elizabeth Warren could be publicly kneecapped and an agency devoted to protecting American consumers could come under such intense attack is, ultimately, the story about who holds power in America today………

    Talk to most bank executives and they’ll still place the blame for the 2008 financial crisis on “irresponsible consumers” who took out mortgages they couldn’t afford; dishonest mortgage brokers; and—at the top of the list—the government, which used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to finance mortgage lending to “people who shouldn’t own homes,”….. Warren puts it, “that Wall Street made tens of billions of dollars” from it. In short, there is no remorse, let alone a sense of obligation, because bank executives generally do not believe they were the cause of the financial collapse….interviews with bankers, the attitude instead was that “shit happens.” The state of denial has been massive

    Obama the parrot of the banker class, says the same thing.  


    by Resistance on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 2:14pm

    I think we need to get her in the Senate first.  If we do, she can be the 2016 nominee.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 2:41pm

    Is there a chance it will corrupt her? Make her more timid?

    As I recall Obama, didn't have much more for credentials.

    Voting present and this told us what?  


    by Resistance on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 2:53pm

    If being in the Senate corrupts her, would we want her in the White House?

    As for her credentials with respect to nationally held office, she'll be in the same spot as Obama in 2016 if she gets elected to the Senate.

    Voting present in Illinois was a strategic approach that those whose agenda we support wanted him to pursue. It was not the same as voting present in the US Senate.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 3:45pm

    As SJ so aptly pointed out. Quid Pro Quo.

    Imagine Senator Warren wanting to bring forth legislation, "Ms Warren, you know you're the freshman Senator right? You know how this works right? You play ball with us and we'll think about your causes; comprende"

    Now one doesn't have to be corrupted; to understand how the game is played.

    I see know reason to believe that our leaders must be either, a lawyer or a politician.

    Wouldn't it be refreshing, to actually have a citizen advocate, taken from the ranks of those, who haven't had to crawl in the mud, with the rest of the pigs? To attain the highest office, in  service to the people and not having played the Washington Seniority games?  

    I'm not looking to reward Obama, for failing do do what he had to do.

    He had the bully pulpit and if it meant he stood up and said, "I'm not interested in a second term. Folks this is what the last hard fought election was about, my constituents; those who voted for me, knew the contrast and they weren't looking for compromise.

    They had enough of Republican, my way or the highway, they voted and said "No, it's going to be our way or the highway, in retaliation for the last 8 years. Screw you Republicans.

    Instead, why did we become the patsies? 

    Instead we got the great compromiser?  The adult in the room, or the coward?

    Warren in 2012; .......2016 is too far away because it also protects Obama.


    by Resistance on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 6:16pm

    .......2016 is too far away because it also protects Obama.

    This has echoes of Rush Limbaugh. I'm not willing to sacrifice our country in order to punish Obama. We're not going to get Warren in 2012, but I'd love to see her in 2016.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 6:50pm

    You're concerned that Obama would be punished?

    How about those he sacrificed, on the altar of compromise?

    We wouldn't be having the protests, if he'd have done more than lip service.

    As Richard pointed out the other day; we know the republicans are asses, but whose are friends? 

    IMHO; Independents are going to swing towards Romney.

    When the opportunity to strike the republicans hard, before the mid terms, Obama hesitated, he wanted to be the President of ALL the people, forgetting all the people didn't want him in the first place.

    Kissing up to the Republicans and kicking his progressive base to the curb.

    Remember a successful politician/leader,  is one who sees the marching crowds and jumps out in front with his baton, and pretends to lead.

    Obama sit down, your 15 minutes are up.


    by Resistance on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 10:43pm

    You're concerned that Obama would be punished?

    No, read what I wrote again.

    My concern is for my country. I wouldn't mind seeing Obama punished, but I don't want it so bad that I'm willing to sacrifice my country for it. On the other hand, it seems that you are so mad at Obama, you need him to suffer even if it means getting a Republican elected and hurting the rest of us in the process. That's what I was comparing to Limbaugh, who famously hates Obama so much he wants our country to fail.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 8:26am

    I don't need to see Obama punished, I just don't have to put him back into a position where the country has to suffer, under his ineffective leadership.

    Obama reminds me of the Civil War General, G. McClellan  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._McClellan

    "Early in the war, McClellan played an important role in raising a well-trained and organized army for the Union. Although McClellan was meticulous in his planning and preparations, these characteristics may have hampered his ability to challenge aggressive opponents in a fast-moving battlefield environment. He chronically overestimated the strength of enemy units and was reluctant to apply principles of mass, frequently leaving large portions of his army unengaged at decisive points.......His performance at the bloody Battle of Antietam blunted Lee's invasion of Maryland, but allowed Lee to eke out a precarious tactical draw and avoid destruction..."

    The Civil War dragged on another anguishing 4 years and many were sacrificed; because McClellan hesitated. Instead of striking the foe, he sought to compromise. 

    Obama's inauguration should have warned us;, he didn't understand the enemy. Obama couldn't be the president of ALL the people; the Republicans hated him.

    Obama seeking compromise and bi- partisanship, was all the hesitation the republicans needed.

    To cover over his timidity,Obama said we need to move forward and not look back.

    Never realizing, the Republicans having escaped a finishing defeat; they regrouped and outflanked us. Winning a decisive counter offensive at the midterm election.

    Lincoln replaced McClellan; the American people need to replace Obama.

    It appears you want to sacrifice the country, because of your infatuation with Obama.  


    by R (not verified) on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 8:17am

    But in this case, you'd probably end up replacing McClellan with Stonewall Jackson - still fighting for the Confederacy.


    by Donal on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 8:30am

    One could wish, they would send in Warren to do a Sherman's March, to overrun the deeply entrenched bulwarks, of the banker class. 


    by Resistance on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 8:39pm

    It appears you want to sacrifice the country, because of your infatuation with Obama.

    On the contrary, if you can give me a viable ​(and better) alternative, I'm all ears. Warren isn't viable in 2012, if for no other reason than that she won't run in 2012. Without the alternative vote, no third party is viable in 2012 (and there's no way we're getting the alternative vote by 2012). The only realistic alternative I see is a Republican president. Maybe you think that's no worse (if so, that's ignoring significant territory where it would be worse), but do you honestly think it'd be better?


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 8:50am

    Well she has admitted to throwing rocks at people she doesn't like ... she just never said if she hit anyone and if it was hard enough to hurt like hell. But she's not afraid to take a stand and throw the first punch to defend her principles... something Obama lacks. That's a refreshing difference people will consider in a politician, especially if she decides to go for 2016 ... she has the compassion for the public and is willing to take Wall Street on and dress them down if given the authority. I'll be watching her closely once she's in the Senate ... she's smart enough to outwit everyone in the chamber once the playing field is level and I'll bet she's smart enough to find the weasel room necessary to side-step Senate decorum so she can step up to the podium and fire a few broadsides at them ... I just wonder which GOPer will break all decorum and physically hit her for her audacity at challenging them.

    NOTE : before the southern states left the Union, there was an incident in the Senate where Representative Preston Brooks entered the Senate chamber and savagely beat Senator Charles Sumner into unconsciousness )


    by Beetlejuice on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 3:35pm

    Gosh, I was about to suggest that Obama do everything he can TO co-opt OWS! Aside from the fact that it's the right thing to do, Obama might just need the campaign contributions of the other 99%.

    'Cause here's what I think--if, as seems certain, Romney gets the nod, every single one of those bagmen and oligarchs will write a giant check to...Mitt Romney. Oh, they'll write a CYA check to Obama, sure, but it'll be clear that Obama is not the prom date of choice. Romney, on the other hand, is pure Lucrescenti, and once the big-money Republicans are finished with the Tea Party (which will be soon) you'll see the full power of the right's effort to freeze Obama out in a very humiliating way.

    It's kind of the same play they pulled in the leadup to the Iraq war: put Dems in a position where they have to say that getting rid of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (or fixing the deficit, or promoting business, or supporting "Christianity") is a primary goal, then leave 'em in the dust by galloping in that direction. Mitt will position himself as the non-black Obama with all the business sense, a sanctioned religion, and none of that annoying progressive baggage--the candidate nobody loves but everyone can vote for, cause he seems willing to do what Obama himself said he wanted to do, but didn't.......


    by erica20 on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 6:38pm

    Obama might just need the campaign contributions of the other 99%.

    If he can just get their votes, he won't need their contributions! wink


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 6:52pm

    Well now, that's just crazy talk....

     

    I have always maintained that unlike Republican votes, Democratic votes aren't worth buying--they're too expensive, and that by and large they have to be earned: a message that has fallen on deaf ears so far.

    But now that the Koch brothers are poised to drop 200 million to secure the next election, maybe finally Dems will be priced out of the vote-buying business entirely. Which, ironically, might be a very good thing.


    by erica20 on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 7:20pm

    Can we at least admit that a number of the 99% who bother to vote make their decision based on the 15 second ads they see in between their favorite tv shows. 

    Another slant: mudslinging in politics survives because it is effective.  Which in part explains why, given that we have 99% of the population, we can only seem to find maybe one or two Mr Smiths per election cycle.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 9:01pm

    Back to bed trope. 


    by kyle flynn on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 9:24pm

    oops sorry - brought some reality into the discussion. my bad.  off to bed for me.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 11:41pm

    It was just theory, AT, surely you can appreciate that! cheeky

    In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

    Of course contributions make a difference. But, in theory, if 99% of the people voted for Obama, then it wouldn't matter if they made a contribution.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 6:43am

    Mitt will position himself as the non-black Obama with all the business sense, a sanctioned religion, and none of that annoying progressive baggage--the candidate nobody loves but everyone can vote for, cause he seems willing to do what Obama himself said he wanted to do, but didn't.......

    Which was...?


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 11:04am

    Fix the deficit, promote business, support "Christianity."

    It's a ploy--get the Democrats off balance and onto a message that's more right wing/less based in reality than the Democratic base would support (bleeding off progressive support) then gallop to the right (with the chosen candidate) and leave the Democrats with very little support.

     


    by erica20 on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 2:28pm

    Without the support from christian conservatives and other such religious GOPer offal, Romney doesn't stand a chance of winning in 2012. Mormonism is too ingrained in their perception as a cult that doesn't meet their criteria as christian. While they definitely won't vote for Obama, they most probably would stay at home instead of going to the polls and voting. Remember, it has been the chrisitan coalition that has put the GOPer's in the running since the days of Ronnie Raygun. Without them, a GOP candidate has a about as much of a chance of getting elected President as a run-of-the-mill street whore has a chance of going to heaven.

    In fact, the GOPer's would be better off if Obama was elected for a second term. Since he easily capitulates everytime the GOPers throw down the gauntlet, all they need to do is win enough seats in both House and Senate to override a Presidential veto and ram thru whatever they please. And I'll bet that's what Christie is waiting for.


    by Beetlejuice on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 3:11pm

    Let the Bard of Montreal tell the story:

    http://youtu.be/-JwmIBSMzSM

     

    "Democracy"

    It's coming through a hole in the air,
    from those nights in Tiananmen Square.
    It's coming from the feel
    that this ain't exactly real,
    or it's real, but it ain't exactly there.
    From the wars against disorder,
    from the sirens night and day,
    from the fires of the homeless,
    from the ashes of the gay:
    Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
    It's coming through a crack in the wall;
    on a visionary flood of alcohol;
    from the staggering account
    of the Sermon on the Mount
    which I don't pretend to understand at all.
    It's coming from the silence
    on the dock of the bay,
    from the brave, the bold, the battered
    heart of Chevrolet:
    Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

    It's coming from the sorrow in the street,
    the holy places where the races meet;
    from the homicidal bitchin'
    that goes down in every kitchen
    to determine who will serve and who will eat.
    From the wells of disappointment
    where the women kneel to pray
    for the grace of God in the desert here
    and the desert far away:
    Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

    Sail on, sail on
    O mighty Ship of State!
    To the Shores of Need
    Past the Reefs of Greed
    Through the Squalls of Hate
    Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on.

    It's coming to America first,
    the cradle of the best and of the worst.
    It's here they got the range
    and the machinery for change
    and it's here they got the spiritual thirst.
    It's here the family's broken
    and it's here the lonely say
    that the heart has got to open
    in a fundamental way:
    Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

    It's coming from the women and the men.
    O baby, we'll be making love again.
    We'll be going down so deep
    the river's going to weep,
    and the mountain's going to shout Amen!
    It's coming like the tidal flood
    beneath the lunar sway,
    imperial, mysterious,
    in amorous array:
    Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

    Sail on, sail on ...

    I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
    I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
    And I'm neither left or right
    I'm just staying home tonight,
    getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
    But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
    that Time cannot decay,
    I'm junk but I'm still holding up
    this little wild bouquet:
    Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 11:17pm

    Latest Comments