[Peace-discuss] Tuesday, Annual Township Meeting, April 8, 2008 - arrive early

[C. G. Estabrook]

But what we wanted to point out was that our Congressional representative had 
come round to our point of view.  The principal reason Johnson did that was that 
he knew it was the majority opinion of his constituents (despite what local 
media imply).

This was in fact the weakest and gentlest of the anti-war referenda we've 
proposed.  Withdrawal, impeachment and habeas corpus for prisoners -- what we 
proposed and passed before -- are all things our congressman and senators ran 
from.  But all three supported the vetoed anti-torture bill.  The referendum 
would have simply advised them that the voters supported what they'd done.

And what can you mean about "questioning the legality" of the whereas-clause? 
It merely specifies the occasion for the referendum question:

*WHEREAS our representative to the federal congress has voted in favor
	of a an anti-torture bill (vetoed by the chief magistrate),
  SHALL he and our senators be urged to renew their efforts to pass such a bill?*

	--CGE

Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Carl,
> A couple of people told me that Johnson wasn't running again, which I 
> hadn't heard prior and which surprised me at the time, but which I had 
> no reason to doubt. But either way, it was my impression that folks 
> didn't think the referendum was the place to educate voters -- quite the 
> opposite, in fact, even questioning its legality -- and that does seem 
> to account for the difference when the final vote came around. I agree 
> w/ Karen that changing the wording to remove those would have been 
> advisable, if it had been permitted at the 11th hour, and we'll 
> certainly know better next time. Yes, definitely a learning experience.
>  
> Interesting and amazing that */Champaign/* had NO problems w/ 
> transparency, while */Urbana/* didn't want it!
>  --Jenifer 
> 
> */"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
> 
>     This smacks a bit of the usual liberal nonsense that we shouldn't
>     tell the
>     ignorant proles what we really think. The ignorance on display is
>     that "neither
>     Bush nor Johnson would be running in November" -- of course Johnson
>     is running,
>     and McCain has embraced Bush's policies, even on torture, which he
>     formerly
>     forswore.
> 
>     I think there's also some ignorance here about what our congressional
>     representative's position on the issue actually is -- which the
>     proposed
>     referendum meant gently to dispel...
> 
>     Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>      >
>      > ... The torture thing initially got 3/5 of those voting, which
>     allowed it to
>      > be discussed further, then failed to get even the simple majority
>     needed for
>      > placement on the ballot (go figure) and therefore will NOT appear
>     as a
>      > referendum item in November (it probably would have made it on if
>     Bush and
>      > Johnson hadn't been named specifically -- Jim Phillips said it
>     was too much
>      > like polliticking, even tho' neither Bush nor Johnson would be
>     running in
>      > November -- and that may have moved some to change their final
>     vote)...
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>