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

[C. G. Estabrook]

I think the proper names may well have attracted votes on the ballot. What 
"killed" it at the meeting is that we didn't get six more people to attend.

I will say that if I'd thought there was any chance it would fail to get a majority 
after reaching 60% to get on the ballot, I'd have suggested we point how silly 
the one negative comment was.  Since we apparently had the votes, I thought it 
was better to let it go.  --CGE  

---- 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: 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
>________________
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss