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

[Jenifer Cartwright]

Hindsight. As Karen said, it was a learning experience.

"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:  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 
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Tuesday, Annual Township Meeting, April 8, 2008 
- arrive early 
>To: "C. G. Estabrook" 
>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" 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" /* 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



 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080410/429d6c7b/attachment.htm