Day 351- Celery

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Mike Huckabee Extended Interview
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Dear Mr. President,

Watching The Daily Show last night, I felt like cheering when Mike Huckabee suggested that Democrats were making health benefits for 9/11 first responders a political battle and Jon Stewart retorted "honestly, to their discredit, they haven't." Stewart goes on to compare the situation to the Democrats being handed a feast of a political win on a silver platter and refusing it in order to sit in a corner and eat celery. His entire show seemed to beg the question "hey, where's your outrage now?" of every 9/11-invoking Republican, FOX news pundit and mosque-protesting bigot. Because honoring those who died on (and continue to die from) 9/11 is about more than keeping Islamic community centers outside of a 10-block radius of ground zero. Mr. Stewart, after the rally to restore sanity, forcefully reminded Rachel Maddow that unlike pundits representing real news networks, he doesn't have any skin in the game, he doesn't play so much as shout drunkenly from the stands. I think yesterday's show demonstrated rather clearly why that isn't always true. It must be frustrating to watch a comedian out-articulate you with a message that Democrats ought to have been owning since the Republican filibuster began.

Another silver platter story arrived in the form of the Republican opposition to the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010. House Republicans voted against the bill (even some who co-sponsored it) citing fiscal concerns and bizarre fears that such legislation could increase abortions. I just want to tear my hair out at the horrifying logic being used to justify this. Where is the family-values outrage now?

(See that Cat? See the Cradle? )

I understand the desire to live in merry bipartisan bliss, especially now that every one is in the spirit of the holidays. But Jon Stewart is right. Enough celery! Democrats ought to be finding every TV camera they can and repeating some version of the same line about honoring 9/11's heroes and protecting vulnerable children from exploitation in the name of marriage. The race for 2012 starts any day now (if not yesterday) and voters across the country need to know that voting Republican is tantamount to saying it's OK to let 9/11 first responders suffer and struggle and die, that it's OK to quibble about the global gag rule while 12-year old girls are forced to marry men old enough to be their grandfathers.

Put down the celery Mr. President, it's time for a more satisfying entree.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 343- Tax cuts, bandwagons and war drums

Dear Mr. President,

OK, I get it already. Lots of prominent leaders across the political spectrum have come out in support of your tax cut compromise with the Republicans. I mean lots. And releasing their endorsements one at a time in separate press releases was pretty funny. Gail Collins pointed out that liberal Democrats have been asking you to get mad for a while, and now we're complaining that you finally got mad- at us. And you have every right to be mad, I suppose, as none of us were mad enough to show up on election day and give you a congress that might have your back (though, to be entirely fair, you might have found better ways to spend the primary season than propping up every tired blue-dog with a pulse.) For all of my suggestions that you either refuse tax cuts for the rich or refuse tax cuts for all of us, I wasn't the one responsible for negotiating the compromise (and I won't be the one responsible for negotiating the next 2 years worth of legislation through congress.) You made a call and now you're standing by it.

Collins, in her opinion piece, laments those on the left still landing hard from their fall off of the Obama bandwagon, while smugly declaring her own fall is off of the "line in the sand bandwagon". I suppose I might also be accused of letting my loyalty to you as a person & my membership in the cult of personality surrounding you conflict with my true bleeding-heart liberalism. As many who supported you in 2008 walk away, disappointed, decrying the whole bandwagon mentality, I wish I could join them. Maybe it's a mark of an inferior mind to need a higher authority to place my faith in, but I haven't still haven't heard a better alternative. Should the anti-bandwagon crowd offer me another leader, or convince me that we don't need one, maybe that will change. For now, while I often think that you're wrong, but I'd never trust myself to do your job better.

In all of the outrage about tax rates and the inexplicable failing of the cloture motion to repeal DADT, I was getting more fed up with congress than with you. To add to all of this, the House has passed legislation preventing any Guantanamo Bay detainees from being brought to domestic prisons. Today has not done much for my rapidly dwindling faith in the American people and those we elect to represent us.

My own time has been selfishly consumed with a struggle to finish my final papers for class, study for my exams, and maintain something that resembles sanity closely enough to keep my boss from worrying about me. I can't fix the economy, I can't get basic equality for gay and lesbian Americans and I can't close down Guantanamo bay. I jumped on your bandwagon in the first place because you said that you could. And while my frustration might be more deserved by several members of congress and those who didn't find the time to vote in the midterm elections, unfortunately you're the one I picked for a pen pal. We can't possibly be losing the fight on this many fronts at once.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

PS

The only thing that's bolstered my spirits today is the news that Suheir Hammad, one of my favorite poets, will be speaking at a TED conference soon. They published the text of her poem "What I will" and I thought I'd send it along to you.


What I Will
by Suheir Hammad

I will not
dance to your war
drum. I will
not lend my soul nor
my bones to your war
drum. I will
not dance to your
beating. I know that beat.
It is lifeless. I know
intimately that skin
you are hitting. It
was alive once
hunted stolen
stretched. I will
not dance to your drummed
up war. I will not pop
spin beak for you. I
will not hate for you or
even hate you. I will
not kill for you. Especially
I will not die
for you. I will not mourn
the dead with murder nor
suicide. I will not side
with you nor dance to bombs
because everyone else is
dancing. Everyone can be
wrong. Life is a right not
collateral or casual. I
will not forget where
I come from. I
will craft my own drum. Gather my beloved
near and our chanting
will be dancing. Our
humming will be drumming. I
will not be played. I
will not lend my name
nor my rhythm to your
beat. I will dance
and resist and dance and
persist and dance. This heartbeat is louder than
death. Your war drum ain’t
louder than this breath.

Day 340- A bad compromise

Dear Mr. President,

I'm sure you'll be getting no small amount of hell from the left over the tax-cuts-for-unemployment deal you made today with Republican leadership. I won't add to it. Not because I don't think this was a show of weakness, a terrible decision given the economic climate and a bad political move to boot, but because I wasn't in the room.

I actually wasn't in any number of rooms, as I'm sure this negotiation took place over many days on many levels in many, many rooms. I don't know what was said, what was offered and what was threatened. I can say I'd have done it differently, but I don't know, for sure, that my solution would have worked any better than yours.

I won't add to the criticism, I will say only this; I am disappointed. I feel let down, I feel ignored, I feel as though you caved in to demands you might have stood up to. I, and other liberals who voted for you, are owed an explanation. Who are we to hold accountable? What blue-dog democrats backed down? What possible justification do so-called fiscally responsible Republicans have for this massive increase to the deficit? Where were we beaten and where were we just too afraid to fight back?

It's been a long week for me, already, and it's only just Monday. Taking a break from finals week madness, I tried to follow some of the reactions to this deal. The usual name calling is all around, as is plenty of voter's remorse and more than one "I told you so" from fellow liberals. One comment came from a man whose unemployment insurance is going to be extended because of this deal, and all he had to offer was gratitude.

Maybe it's because I'm tired, maybe it's because I can accept the limits of my own knowledge, or maybe it was the gratitude of this man, but I just can't share in the fury on the left tonight. It was a bad deal, a bad day. All I can do is tell myself that tomorrow will be better.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 316-Really bad advice

Dear Mr. President,

Today I saw an op-ed in the Washington Post by two men who claim to be Democrats who don't think you should run for re-election in 2012. (I say "claim to be" because there is some question about their actual party affiliation.) I should probably remind every one that I'm not a professional political operative. I don't exactly have the resumé to argue with these hacks. But I think this is just about the worst advice I've heard any one offer you in a while.

I don't think that removing yourself now from the 2012 campaign would, as these pundits suggest, force the republicans in congress to make concessions. I think that backing down now would be the ultimate sign of defeat. Republicans would sieze the opportunity to legislate like they controlled all three branches of government. And I don't say this as a political expert (which I am not) but as a girl who has only gone on first dates for basically an entire year (which I am.) I go on first dates, and sometimes guys just aren't into me, and sometimes I'm just not into them, and sometimes circumstances just aren't right for the two of us. But this doesn't mean I give up entirely on the prospect of dating or ever finding some one to love me. Some of your decisions haven't been popular, some of what the country thinks it wants (social services funded by magic instead of taxes!) isn't what you're able or willing to give and some of your problems are just circumstance.

Running in 2012 demonstrates that you're not looking to escape because it's hard. It is what separates you from Sarah Palin (besides, of course, your grasp of the English language, basic knowledge of geography, economics and history.) To give up would be to tell voters, for sure, that Democrats aren't cut out for leading the country during challenging times. I have no idea who these strategists are or why they are so deluded as to think that appeasing the unreasonable demands of republican leaders is the best way to secure bipartisan cooperation, but I sincerely hope they are not people who get taken seriously in any official capacity.

Mr. President, I have disagreed with many of your decisions as President. I have my issues with your policy compromises and many of your centrist ideas. But I would rather see you in office in 2012 than any Republican. I want to see you listen ultimately to your own values and instincts and not to opinion polls and political pundits, to govern ambitiously and unapologetically, and with the courage of your convictions. ( I would also like you to be able to govern for a while longer without having to worry about reelection, but that ship sailed.)

You've got my vote in 2012, sir. Of the two of us, you're probably the more likely to make the most of a second date.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 310- Another poker metaphor

I got a message this week I can't respond to. For all of my internal conflict over the decision to respond or not to, I know the right thing to do. But, in another life, with a different past, I know what I would say. And so, what I cannot say elsewhere I will say here.

Dear Mr. President,

On the day after election day, I started to hear a phrase tossed around to explain the disappointment with your Presidency and the Democrats' abysmal midterm performance. "Playing the cards they were dealt", the refrain insisted, indicating that a bad economy, high unemployment, or any number of political cards were the reason Democrats lost. As a poker player this metaphor rang falsely from the moment I heard it.

Because any card player worth their weight knows you don't play the cards you're dealt; you play the man across the table.

When Democrats lost this election it didn't feel, to me, like a problem with our cards versus theirs. Our positions, our issues, our records were better. We just got outplayed. Now, hearing, already, about compromises on the Bush tax cuts feel like the same tired tactics that have failed all legislative session long. Republicans are excellent poker players. They indicate a willingness to compromise, Democrats foolishly believe them and make concessions (and often lose the support of their base in the process,) and Republicans hold the line until they get what they want or no one gets anything at all. You'll push the definition of middle class to $500k a year or $1 million a year, and Republicans will ask for more. In the end, if you're very, very lucky, you'll get tax cuts renewed only on those making less than $5 million a year, but in all likelihood, they will be completely renewed.

Out-playing the Republicans now that they control the House means ignoring the cards we've been dealt. Ask for a bill renewing the tax cuts only for those making $250k or less or threaten to let them all expire. And veto anything in the middle. Raise or fold. Do not check. Do not call. Raise or fold. Forget about the polls, the media narrative, the conventional wisdom, and whatever other cards you think you've been dealt. Look at the man across the table. The question is not "is his hand stronger?" The question is always "can I convince him that his hand is weaker?"

Maybe gambling is not the most noble profession. And you might make the argument that governing is not a game, that people's lives and livelihoods are at stake. Ask any poker player going all-in with this week's grocery money- higher stakes require you to play well, not to play cautiously. The stakes are high. Forget the cards you were dealt and your moral objections to the way the game is played. Look at the (in this case, very orange) man across the table.

Mr. President, I think that your noble belief in bipartisanship is admirable. But I think it has to be on your terms. I also suspect you're a much better politician than you're willing to let on. You're facing two years of bleeding political capitol every round you lose until election day, or going all-in right now with these tax cuts.

The lesson here is that no one can control the cards they're dealt. Poker is, superficially, a game of luck. The reason that some people win the world series and others lose their lunch money is that good players learn to leverage what they can control; their own reactions, perceptions, confrontation. Good players know the cards change but the man across the table stays the same.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 293- Hypothetical questions

Dear Mr. President,

You're speaking at my school tomorrow. I don't think you'll be taking any questions from the audience, and, if you are, it is unlikely that I'll be lucky enough to ask one. Still, I thought it might be useful to pose a few, even if they are about as practical as shouting into the darkness and waiting for a response more coherent than another spinning echo.

Mr. President, you say that the Republican partisan minority is holding up the legislative process through the filibuster, when not a single filibuster has been staged during the legislative session. Why have you not directed Democratic leadership to force the Republicans to follow through on their threats and given the American people a clear demonstration of who is responsible for the hold ups?

Mr. President, your political opponents seem determined to paint you as anti-Israeli no matter what you do. If nothing will please them, why not take an actual stand against the brutality and injustice perpetrated by the Netanyahu government? You could increase our credibility as an honest broker in the peace talks and make a stand against human right violations, a seeming win-win, considering the political capital is going to be spent either way. So why not change the tactic that hasn't worked for any past American President trying to help create peace?

Mr. President, you've made the convincing argument that allowing Republican's control of the legislative branch will return our country to the disastrous policies of the bush era. While this "lesser of two evils" tactic might convince a few independents, why have you risked alienating the liberal base of the democratic party by dismissing our legitimate complaints about policy compromises that represent real hardship for real people as "griping and groaning"?

Mr. President, when Republicans lost control of congress and the White House in 2006 and 2008, the party soul-searching that followed led to a dramatic return to the angriest voices of their far-right base, the Tea Party. If liberal Democrats want our elected officials to stand up for our beliefs and interests, will it take the same kind of losses in November and in 2012?

Mr. President, the wars in Iraq, (in all but name,) and Afghanistan continue. Guantanamo bay remains open. How can America lead the world toward peace and a greater respect for human rights while we continue these immoral (and, I would argue, strategically failed) efforts?

Mr. President, at a town hall meeting not long ago, you were told by a woman that she was tired of trying to defend you to those who had lost their faith in you. I, too, am tired of being disappointed and tired of being ignored. I believe that your job is more difficult than any one in this room can possibly fathom, and I am certain you are even more tired and even less prone to complain about it. I will continue defending you, sir, I have not lost my faith. Thank you for all that you've done for our country, and please, don't confuse my constant (and continuing) criticism of your policy for cynicism, apathy, or betrayal. I still have hope that you can do better, that you have the right idea, and that you need a supportive, open-minded and informed electorate. So I guess I don't have a questions as much as I want to say that as disappointed as I am in you, I'm way more disappointed in the rest of us.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 168- Michele Bachman, Hugo Chavez and Joe Barton

Q Michele Bachmann called the fund a redistribution of wealth fund. On FOX they’re calling it “Chavez-like” as in Venezuela Chavez. Can you speak --

MR. GIBBS: Not the boxer?

Q Not the boxer. (Laughter.) Can you speak to the larger theme here of Republican and conservative opposition to this as yet another Obama socialistic, big-government initiative?

MR. GIBBS: I mean, I don’t -- it’s hard to tell what planet these people live on. It’s hard to understand -- it’s hard to understand their viewpoint, but it may explain their votes on financial regulation; it explains how they view whether or not the banks ought to be able to write their own rules and play the game the way they played it in -- several years ago that caused our economy to crash. It’s understanding how we got an MMS that was handing out drugs in favor of drilling permits.


White House Press briefing 6/17/2010

Dear Mr. President,

I'm not often surprised by the Republicans. Normally, comparing your policies to Hugo Chavez's socialism, or kissing up to BP executives, seems like par for their particular course. But this is a national tragedy. I thought that the party of "America First" would be able to put aside their allegiance to their big donors for five minutes and recognize that an egregious crime has been committed against America and the American people and the company responsible needs to pay for the cost of cleaning it up and the livelihoods its negligence has ruined.

I suppose you have to admire their commitment to the "disagree with anything a Democrat says" strateg; such fidelity isn't often found in career politicians. Though I suppose, at this point in her career, Michele Bachmann is safe in the knowledge that her supporters don't expect a great deal of rational, or even logical thought. Still, this seems like a risky political move for any one trying to appoint themselves or their party as the standard bearer for the populist anger in this country. I'm dumbfounded. Maybe the rest of the country isn't as angry as I and most of the people I've encountered are; maybe the citizens of Texas and Minnesota who vote for Bachmann and Barton are huge supporters of BP and think that they shouldn't have to pay for this disaster. I've met my share of Minnesotans and more than a few Texans, however, and they don't seem like stupid people.

Anyway, Mr. President, I hope the next time a column is published about your lack of aggression or emotion, your inability to effectively "declare war" on BP, we all take a deep breath and remember that the legislative branch is still the most powerful, it's still run by people like Michele Bachmann and Joe Barton, still funded by BP and other corporate interests and we still have no one to blame for that but ourselves.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 64

Dear Mr. President,

Michael Moore has written you a letter, asking to be installed in the place of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. When you picked Mr. Emanuel, back in 2008, I remember thinking, "Wow, he couldn't have picked any one more upsetting to Republicans in this country." (It was an admiring thought, not a critical one.) Clearly, I was just asking to be proven wrong.

Mr. Moore is a difficult character for me to embrace. I appreciate his issue-based crusades, his willingness to attack, rather than just play cautious defense. He gave a speech at my school, Willamette University, in 2004 shortly before Bush was re-elected. I recall being buoyed a bit, by his pugnacity, even as it made me uncomfortable. His methods are not always easy to agree with, his tactics often heavy handed and tending toward the ridiculous. But he does force the debate to take place on his terms, something I wish a few more of us on the left were capable of doing.

I can't decide if the rumblings about problems with the White House senior staff are just liberals who can't appreciate the difficulties of governing a country compared to the outsider's struggle just to be heard, or if they have a legitimate point. I think that shouting and grandstanding may help us, when we're in the minority, when we have no reasoned, legislative way to advance our agenda, but as the majority party, it doesn't sit well.

Back in 2008, I had hoped that your appointment of Mr. Emanuel, who is known for his pro-Israel views, would allow you the political cover to take truly drastic steps in repairing our credibility and effectiveness as a mediator with the Palestinians. Sadly, this has not come to pass. That being said, I haven't been disappointed in Mr. Emanuel's performance as Chief of Staff. If one accepts Mr. Moore's premise (and I don't) that your agenda has been completely held up by a lack of assertiveness on the part of the White House, I suppose that could be a good reason to look for a new COS. But I think, ultimately, that the responsibility has to be with you, sir, and not Mr. Emanuel. If a new COS will help advance our agenda, will wake up congressional Democrats and will give the impression of timely and substantial progress, than I support replacing him. (Though, hopefully, not with Michael Moore.) In the end, however, I think we both know that Mr. Emanuel is not the problem. Congress is the problem. Right now, Republicans have the same advantage over Democrats that the insurgents in Iraq had over coalition forces; we have to win, and they just have to keep from losing. I don't relish comparing governing to warfare; I would rather believe that we work with the Republicans, not against them, but their fierce partisanship, their pervasive obstinacy has made this an apt metaphor.

Read the letter from Mr. Moore with a grain of salt. He makes some valid points, which are worth considering, but he is wrong, I think, both about the lack of momentum and its supposed source. He won't be the last to call for a change in the senior staff, to be certain. I never thought I'd be defending Rahm Emanuel, Mr. President, but I think that your Chief of Staff is serving you well in what we all ought to understand is a long, difficult struggle.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 60

Dear Mr. President,

Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona demonstrated rather clearly today why I've lost any faith I might have had in the Republicans' ability to work with Democrats. Senator Kyl, during debate about extending unemployment benefits, insisted that unemployment is a disincentive for some to finding work. How out of touch does a person have to be to think that the unemployment and COBRA benefits are enough to live off of? Or, for that matter, to believe that Americans are content to make enough to survive, willing to accept poverty if it means avoiding work?

How is this man qualified to represent American voters, when he clearly thinks so little of them? I've known several people on unemployment, Mr. President, and they hated every day of it. They worked hard to get back to work. They were grateful to be able to survive, to pay rent and buy groceries while they were between jobs, but they certainly did not hesitate to take jobs when they found them. How does Senator Kyl have so little faith in Americans?

I hope that these Republican senators opposing the extension of unemployment benefits are made to understand the consequences of their appalling cynicism. I hope that they are flooded with letters and phone calls. Most of all, I hope that the next time they are up for reelection, their constituents decide to give them a first-hand taste of the realities of unemployment.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 56- high-five for health care!

Dear Mr. President,

I think the bipartisan summit went amazingly well. I hope that you are able to get enough votes to pass the reform, but if you can't, I think using reconciliation is a necessary and acceptable step. Republicans will cry that you're circumventing the appropriate process, using the majority rule to deprive them of their voice- but too bad for them. There is no reason they should need 41 votes for their legislative method (do nothing) and we should need 60 for ours. I'm sorry that their refusal to participate in governing has rendered them irrelevant, but the American people can't afford to wait any longer. If they wanted to participate in shaping the substance of the bill, they should have done so by today. That clearly hasn't happened, and so it's time to push the reform through by whatever means necessary.

I thought your manner today was entirely appropriate and effective. I am so proud to have voted for you, and I thank you for all of your service to the American people. Today's letter is short because I feel you said exactly what I wanted you to, exactly what the situation called for.

Way to go, sir, way to go.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 54- We missed you on whitehouse.gov last week

Damn, that's right, you wasn't there.


Dear Mr. President,

Every time I see that Dan Pfeiffer has posted another entry on the White House blog, my day gets better. Your Communications Director is hilarious. I've never read a government official who uses sarcasm so effectively. Rahm Emanuel may have inspired some pretty hilarious SNL skits, but I think Mr. Pfeiffer is truly the master of writing press releases that make me go "oh, snap!" Today was no exception. In a blog entry that's almost as pithy as a Timbaland song, Mr. Pfeiffer called out congressional Republicans for failing to propose an alternate plan.

This is exactly what we should be hearing. Republicans have had months to propose solutions and they have yet to post alternative legislation. I fear Thursday will be another round of sound-bite attacks without any substance to back them up, and I hope that you and the congressional Democrats don't allow them to get away with it. For the first time in the long history of the health care debate, I feel that we are close to getting reform passed, and I don't care how snarky we have to be to get it done- we're right, they're empty-handed with alternatives, and the status quo is unacceptable.

I've been trying to imagine if I can fairly compare your staff with that of President Bush's White House. None of them struck me as particularly funny. Maybe President Bush took care of the levity himself, with the nick names and the casual rejection of proper grammar? I'm not sure. I'm way too partisan to be an honest judge, anyway. That being said, I think the perception that your staff seems to do what they do so effectively, and with even a bit of fun, reflects well on your administration.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 19- Health care with no Coakley

Dear Mr. President,

Were we even using that super-majority? Clearly, it makes the jobs of all democrats more difficult, but this is not the end of the world. I think it's time we take a few tips from our political opponents.

First of all, we've got to work on party unity. I'm not saying Democrats have to agree on everything, or that we all must speak with one voice, but what good are those blue dogs doing us? You want to see the American people get behind you? Take a shot at every do-nothing seat-warmer in congress showing up only to collect on donations from lobbyists. Make it clear that no seat is safe from a strong primary challenge. You lead this party sir, so ask the DNC why we're wasting money re-electing these old-timers who don't stand with us when it counts. If I'm donating to the DNC I sure as hell don't want it to go to campaigning for the bought and paid for representatives of the insurance company lobbies. The American people may be capricious, but we respect bold action and nothing would help fix the way our government runs like a wake-up call to congress. I hate to say it, but, when it comes to Health Care, you're with us, or you're against us.

Second, we've got to sell our issues better. Part of this is your responsibility- when you say you're changing business as usual, you have to actually do it. Compromise for the sake of practicality is good, but the reform bill isn't even recognizable. Part of this is just the way this has been explained. "Public option"? What does that even mean? Are we that terrible at naming things? How about, instead of constantly playing softball defense, we come out and call the opponents of reform out for being corrupt? For valuing money and power over the basic obligations we have to one another as a society. Why don't democrats stand together and say that they're willing to show the world they work for the people of this country, not the corporations? We're not on the defensive. We're in the right. Health care reform is about doing the right thing, and we're not going to answer to those who still haven't come around on that.

Sir, we sent you to the White House because we believed in your vision of an American government that could be bold, transparent and represent the values of the people. If the congress we elected to execute your agenda isn't getting the job done, then nominate some new blood this year. We elected you for 4 years, not 1, not 2, not until your unfavorable poll numbers outweigh your favorable ones. You've got an 18-vote majority in the senate, a country that is crying out for real reform, and 3 years to get it done. Please, don't let this election become a referendum on anything other than the need for a more aggressive party strategy.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey