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

[Karen Medina]

>     But what we wanted

I would rank our referendum-making goals as:
1st -- Let the people say where they stand.
2nd -- Let those who represent us know what their constituents say (this would include our mayor, city council members, and local police -- all of which seem to think they already know)

Somewhere mingled in here are the "education of the public" on the issues, educating the public as to what important people already have taken a stand, ... 

But a referendum is more directly for the 1st and 2nd goals up above.

The education of the public can be done in several other ways.

-karen medina

---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>  
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Tuesday, Annual Township Meeting, April 8, 2008 - arrive early  
>To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>Cc: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>, Karen Medina <kmedina at uiuc.edu>, peace-discuss at anti-war.net
>
>   But what "we" wanted to point out (Johnson's coming
>   around to our point of view and against Bush's, and
>   naming names) was what killed its getting on the
>   ballot. "We" will know better next time, won't "we?"
>   (Not sure whether using the job titles instead of
>   proper names would have made a difference, but I'm
>   not willing to risk another defeat to find out --
>   I'd say next time let's keep it simple and just make
>   it an anti-torture referendum. Hindsight.)
>    --Jenifer
>
>   "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>     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
>     >
>
>   __________________________________________________
>   Do You Yahoo!?
>   Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
>   protection around
>   http://mail.yahoo.com