<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Mort seems more interested in my being "enamored" with Tim Johnson - whom I ran against for Congress in 2002 - than he is in David Gill's tergiversations on war policy. (David began by being an enthusiast for the war views of Rory Stewart, theorist of intervention and now Conservative MP, whom he heard on a Bill Moyers show.) <div><br></div><div>It seems to me that voters should be interested in the contrast between David's ambiguities and Tim's straightforward votes against the war. Don't we deplore campaigns that are run on personalities rather than issues? "Candidates are marketed like toothpaste," it's been said.</div><div><br></div><div>And weren't some of us recently fooled by a Democratic "peace candidate"? (Didn't he get a Peace Prize?)<div><div><div><br></div><div>But to dispel Mort's fantasies, here's a letter of mine about Tim's views that appeared in the N-G four months ago:</div><div><br></div><div>*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>*<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>*<br>To the editor of the News-Gazette:<br><br>The two most important things the federal government does is kill people and transfer wealth from the majority to the rich.<br><br>The Obama administration has proved itself even more brutal and efficient at those tasks than its predecessor. It has expanded six wars in the Mideast and has conducted a good-cop/bad-cop charade on government spending with the Republicans to attack social supports. And the beneficiaries of Obama's policies are the tiny American economic elite, whose wealth has increased at an accelerating rate, even after the financial crisis of 2007-2009.<br><br>Our local member of Congress, Timothy Johnson, after voting for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, has announced publicly that he was wrong - and now votes consistently against any more money for war in the Mideast. And he has now commendably voted against Obama's mendacious debt deal.<br><br>Unfortunately, Johnson seems often to do the right deed for the wrong reason. He has for example repeated the debt and deficit malarkey peddled by both parties. The deficit is a chimera used to scare Americans into accepting the government's austerity program. Wealth is so concentrated in America that an emergency tax of 15% on investable assets over $1 million would make the deficit disappear - and 99% of American would not be subject to the tax.<br><br>Nevertheless Johnson has voted correctly - against both the wars and the debt deal. He should be supported for re-election against opponents who would not clearly do the same.<br><br>Sincerely,<br><br>C. G. Estabrook<br></div><div><br></div><div>August 8, 2011</div><div><br></div><div>On Nov 7, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Brussel, Morton K wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "> <div>Good remarks Karen.</div> <div><br> </div> Carl has been pursuing a vendetta against David Gill while enamored with Tim Johnson for years, now, it seems, and for reasons not always transparent. It seems that Carl interprets Gill's beliefs/positions in biased ways. For example, I've heard Gill in person declare that he was against our wars and foreign policies, including Israel-Palestine, and also against bloated military budgets. And, of course, he has advocated a single payer health insurance system, which Johnson opposes. Gill has attempted to answer Carl's attacks upon him, but his answers have never been accepted as forthright enough for Carl. <div><br> </div> <div>Yes, Gill will be sorely tested if elected. Congress seems to corrupt those who enter its precincts: Politicians like to retain power and this too often compromises the common welfare. Would Gill have the fortitude to stand against the Democratic leadership? We won't know until he's there, but he's seemed to me a progressive candidate. </div> <div><br> </div> <div>We have much more data on Tim Johnson, and as Carl says, it is not <i>all</i> bad. </div> <div><br> </div> <div>My 2¢. --mkb</div> <div><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>