[Peace-discuss] House Votes Today on Afghan, Pakistan Wars

[C. G. Estabrook]

Bob seems to me to be quite right here.

The only point on which I might differ slightly is Bob's comment that "Running
for office can be a real a pain in the butt, and it's a bad thing for such an
important position like Member of Congress to be uncontested, even if the
prospects for electoral victory are imperceptible."

My experience of running for Congress in the 15th IL CD (in 2002) was a bit
different. First of all, it was a lot of fun: the candidates nights were a sort
of viva voce peace-discuss list, and real issues (sometimes) got discussed.

Second, Congressional elections are largely uncontested even when there
are two (or more) candidates, in that the differences between the candidates
rarely represent alternate policy choices for the USG.  Obama's campaign
strategy was a model: be a blank slate on which voters can write what they want,
because there should be no real choices in elections. (In America, policy
largely is insulted from politics.)  The Green party motto in 2002, in contrast,
was "A choice for a change," because we tried to set out where we differed from
the Republican-Democratic consensus.

In the 15th CD today, remarkably enough, Tim Johnson threatens to give voters a
choice on the war; David Gill responds by a coy refusal to admit his position.

In 2002, the Democrats weren't even going to run a candidate against Tim
Johnson.  But they hastily picked a place-holder when it appeared that, without
a Democratic candidate, the Green party might gain the third or more of the vote
then Democrats normally take.


On 7/28/10 8:20 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
> If folks want to support David Gill because they like his positions on other
> issues better than Rep. Johnson's, that is one thing; with that position I
> have no argument.
>
> But anti-war folks ought to acknowledge clearly that by deeds, Rep. Johnson
> is now one of the most anti-war members of Congress, certainly one of the
> most anti-war Republicans.
>
> As Carl pointed out, Rep. Johnson voted yesterday for the
> Kucinich-Paul-Filner resolution demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops from
> Pakistan. As you can see from the roll call, the vote on this resolution was
> 38 - 372: 32 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted yes; less than 10% of the
> House were in support.
>
> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll473.xml
>
> A key task of anti-war activists is to produce more such people, so we ought
> to celebrate whatever we did to help create this one. I think it might be a
> stretch to say we "pressured" Johnson to turn against the war, since
> electorally he is Representative-for-Life, unless he is "caught in bed with
> a dead girl or a live boy," in Edwin Edwards' immortal phrase.
>
> But I think we had a significant effect in helping to change his mind; in
> particular, I think the anti-war referenda had an effect in showing local
> support for the anti-war position. As Ricky and I have recounted before, we
> were at Brookens in 2006 watching the tallies in favor of the referendum on
> withdrawal from Iraq when we saw Tim give his victory speech, in which he
> said, as I remember, something along the lines of "the American people have
> spoken" (referring also to the national results, in which Democrats retook
> the House) and it's time to turn around our policy in Iraq.
>
> I'm glad that David Gill is running. Running for office can be a real a pain
> in the butt, and it's a bad thing for such an important position like Member
> of Congress to be uncontested, even if the prospects for electoral victory
> are imperceptible. So I appreciate his willingness to do this, and to try to
> run a real campaign.
>
> But while I have not followed the recent conversations with Gill about war
> and peace issues in detail, it seemed to me in the past that he was parsing
> his statements politically in a way that was both unsatisfying from an
> anti-war perspective and mysterious in terms of strategy. I could understand
> parsing statements this way if one had a real chance of winning in a
> conservative district. But in this district, with no chance of winning, why
> not just tell the truth? It's not going to have any significant negative
> impact on the electoral result, and one of the key purposes of running,
> especially when there is no prospect of electoral victory, is to have a
> media platform for telling the truth.
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:16 AM, C. G. Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu>
> wrote:
>> It's not enough to have a Congressional representative vote to defund the
>> war - we have to be sure he's doing it for the right reason?
>>
>> The House votes no more money for war - and we have to plumb the souls of
>> the no voters before we approve?
>>
>> And while we're probing souls, what do we say about that of a candidate who
>> arrogantly refuses to tell us how he'll vote? He's supposed to do that so
>> we can decide whether to vote for him or not.  Instead, he's marketing
>> himself like toothpaste. (I admit that's what Obama did.)
>>
>> And we are spending far too much time on this.  David Gill has no chance of
>> being elected.  It's a gerrymandered Republican district (as he points out)
>> in a year when there will be a substantial vote against the administration
>> and the Democrats.  Under those circumstances, he can't expect even to do
>> as well as his 2-1 losses before. Does he think he'll get Tea-party
>> support? There isn't even a strong enough pro-war sentiment in the district
>> for his attempt to stay to the right of Johnson on the war to garner him
>> many votes.
>>
>> Let's get back to an issue more serious than David Gill's bashfulness about
>> his views on killing people - like dirty T-shirts...  --CGE
>>
>>
>> On 7/28/10 4:40 AM, Stuart Levy wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:08:04AM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea how you voted, but I'll leave it to the candid member of
>>>> AWARE to say whether you "defended Obama" by objecting vigorously to my
>>>> news summaries that criticized his candidacy and pointed out his
>>>> obfuscation of his position on the war.  I recall that you exploded at
>>>>  one TV taping when I guyed you a bit for offering a "commercial for
>>>> Obama."
>>>>
>>>> I know that our present system is a parody of democracy, but in
>>>> principle we're supposed to vote for legislative candidates who will
>>>> vote correctly on the issues. There is no issue more important than
>>>> the war this year, and it seems that, unusually enough, we have a
>>>> choice: an incumbent who is consistently voting against the war, as he
>>>> promised to do; and an opponent who refuses to make a similar promise.
>>>> The choice isn't hard for anyone opposed to the war.
>>>
>>> Well... as I mentioned in David Gill's facebook thread, we still don't
>>> know why Tim Johnson has flipped on the wars (even though I called him
>>> this week to confirm that I'm glad he did).  And as I said there, one
>>> can imagine several plausible reasons -- including that this war is now
>>> being promoted by a President of the opposite party, which could change
>>> in a couple years.  If a President Palin attacks Venezuela, what would
>>> Johnson think of that?  Given that uncertainty, I don't think the choice
>>> is as clear as you say.
>>>
>>> It'll mean more if we can see that Gill is taking a position which is
>>> opposed to the President of his own party.  He's done that on health
>>> care, as far as I can see.  And Gill commented, just last night, after
>>> conferring with Progressive Dems. of America, that he will now issue a
>>> position on (I think) war funding, which he had not done before. I look
>>> forward to reading it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 7/27/10 10:40 PM, Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a blatant lie to say that I defended Obama, and this statement
>>>>>  reveals a kind of turpitude that I should not have expected.
>>>>> Furthermore, you know that I didn't vote Democratic (for Obama), so
>>>>> your second sentence is simply disingenuous obfuscation.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might remember that in the previous election, Gill was against
>>>>> the Iraq war;  Johnson supported it and the policies of Bush. My
>>>>> contacts with Gill, although limited,  were encouraging: He
>>>>> explicitly stated his opposition to our wars and occupations and to
>>>>> U.S. militarism in general (Is Johnson voting for cutting the
>>>>> military budget—and by how much if at all?. How has he voted on that
>>>>> budget?).  Whether Gill would vote the way I prefer if in Congress is
>>>>> unanswerable now, but his stances in the past were far superior to
>>>>> those of Johnson, not only on the issues of militarism, terrorism,
>>>>> national "security", and war and peace, but on many other
>>>>> progressive issues as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your manichean approach to these candidates is unworthy if not
>>>>> unusual.
>>>>>
>>>>> --mkb
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. I am sending this to Gill to see if and how he responds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 27, 2010, at 9:52 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is unworthy of you, Mort. It's also stupid to stay with a
>>>>>> candidate just because he's a Democrat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have a Congressional representative (whom I ran against in
>>>>>> 2002) who voted for the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion
>>>>>> of Iraq.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He now says he was wrong to do so.  More importantly, he has
>>>>>> promised to vote against any more funding for the Mideast war -
>>>>>> and he has consistently voted that way.  Isn't that what we've
>>>>>> been trying to get Congress members to do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His rather desperate opponent refuses to make a similar promise.
>>>>>> (Since Gill has little chance anyway - look at the returns for the
>>>>>> last 3 or 4 elections in the 15th CD - he wouldn't want to offend
>>>>>> anyone who's either for or against the war.) He asks us to vote
>>>>>> for him (because he's a Democrat) and then he'll decide later how
>>>>>> much blood he wants on his hands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Haven't you been lied to enough?  Of course, I do remember your
>>>>>> defending Obama in similar terms.  How do you think that's worked
>>>>>> out?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How long will they be able to seduce and abandon you?  --CGE
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/27/10 9:25 PM, Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plugging for Tim Johnson is becoming tedious. So is denigrating
>>>>>>> David Gill.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll bet on Gill's humane qualities any day over Johnson's. I
>>>>>>> suspect that there's more behind your campaign for Johnson than
>>>>>>> just his (recent opportunistic?) war issues  He goes to church
>>>>>>> and he's against abortion . Does he still believe in the war on
>>>>>>> terror, which at least until recently he supported? Forget about
>>>>>>> public health and other issues such as taxes and the economy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --mkb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 2010, at 8:05 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rep.Johnson voted for the Kucinich-Paul resolution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His arrogant Democratic opponent, David Gill, seems to want us
>>>>>>>> to vote for him without telling us how he would vote on war
>>>>>>>> funding. Would he have voted for the Kucinich-Paul resolution?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given the consistent lying from Democrats about what they'd do
>>>>>>>> in regard to the war, I can see no reason for people opposed
>>>>>>>> to the war to vote for them in November. Certainly not for
>>>>>>>> David Gill, when he will not even echo Tim Johnson's promise to
>>>>>>>> vote against money for war in the Mideast. --CGE
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/27/10 11:53 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [Note that while we can be pretty confident that Rep.
>>>>>>>>> Johnson will vote no on the war money, we have no such
>>>>>>>>> assurance, as far as I am aware, that he will support the
>>>>>>>>> Kucinich-Paul measure calling for the withdrawal of U.S.
>>>>>>>>> forces from Pakistan; another reason to call, using the
>>>>>>>>> toll-free number provided below.]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote this
>>>>>>>>> afternoon on the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This morning, the Senate version of the Afghanistan war
>>>>>>>>> supplemental was brought up in the House under "suspension"
>>>>>>>>> rules, which require a 2/3 majority to pass. This expedited
>>>>>>>>> procedure is generally used for measures considered
>>>>>>>>> "uncontroversial," which is odd, to say the least, since the
>>>>>>>>> war in Afghanistan is anything but uncontroversial, with the
>>>>>>>>> most recent evidence being the release by Wikileaks of
>>>>>>>>> secret documents on the war, which the New York Times
>>>>>>>>> reported "offers an unvarnished, ground-level picture of the
>>>>>>>>> war in Afghanistan that is in many respects more grim than
>>>>>>>>> the official portrayal." [...] If 90% of the Members who
>>>>>>>>> voted for the McGovern-Obey-Jones amendment on July 1 vote no
>>>>>>>>> this afternoon on the war supplemental, the measure will
>>>>>>>>> fail. [...] Also on the House calendar today is H.Con.Res.
>>>>>>>>> 301, a "privileged resolution" introduced by Reps. Dennis
>>>>>>>>> Kucinich, Bob Filner, and Ron Paul, which invokes the War
>>>>>>>>> Powers Act to force a debate and vote on the deployment of
>>>>>>>>> U.S. forces in Pakistan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As Representative Kucinich points out, what U.S. forces are
>>>>>>>>> doing in Pakistan has never been authorized by Congress. The
>>>>>>>>> 2001 authorization of military force targeted those who
>>>>>>>>> planned and carried out the September 11 attacks and those
>>>>>>>>> who harbored them. It was not a blank check to attack anyone
>>>>>>>>> we don't like, or anyone our friends don't like. U.S. forces
>>>>>>>>> in Pakistan are targeting people who did not, as far as we
>>>>>>>>> know, plan or participate in the September 11 attacks, and
>>>>>>>>> against whom no evidence has been presented that they harbor
>>>>>>>>> those who did. Whether one thinks the enterprise worthy or
>>>>>>>>> not, U.S. participation in a war against the internal foes of
>>>>>>>>> Pakistan has never been authorized by Congress. There's
>>>>>>>>> nothing in the 2001 authorization of military force about a
>>>>>>>>> barter agreement in which we attack people in Pakistan that
>>>>>>>>> the Pakistani government doesn't like in exchange for
>>>>>>>>> permission to attack people in Pakistan that we don't like.