[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Re: Local rep. right about war...
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
Thu Sep 29 19:48:10 CDT 2011
As to being a single-issue voter, Mike, I suppose it's clear that the
two most important things the federal government does - in order - are
(1) kill people and (2) transfer wealth from the majority to the rich.
The Obama administration has proved itself even more brutal and
efficient at those tasks than its predecessor. It has expanded six
wars in the Mideast and has conducted a good-cop/bad-cop charade on
government spending with the Republicans to attack social supports.
And the beneficiaries of Obama's policies are the tiny American
economic elite, whose wealth has increased at an accelerating rate,
even after the financial crisis of 2007-2009.
But our Republican member of Congress, after voting for the invasions
of Afghanistan and Iraq, announced publicly that he was wrong - and
now votes consistently against any more money for killing people in
the Mideast. And he commendably voted against Obama's mendacious debt
deal.
Surely, in what purports to be a representative democracy, it's more
important to get the right (non-lethal) vote than a delegate with a
pure motive, if we have to choose. Tim may indeed often do the right
deed for the wrong reason. He has for example repeated the debt and
deficit malarkey peddled by both parties. I'd certainly prefer a
Congressman who knew that the deficit is a chimera used to scare
Americans into accepting the government's austerity program. (Wealth
is so concentrated in America that an emergency tax of 15% on
investible assets over $1 million would make the deficit disappear -
and 99% of American would not be subject to the tax.) But none of his
potential opponents know that, either.
Nevertheless Johnson has voted correctly - against both the wars and
the debt deal. He should be supported for re-election against any
opponent who would not clearly do the same.
Regards, CGE
On Sep 29, 2011, at 7:26 PM, Mike Lehman wrote:
> Carl,
> Always room for repentance and the embrace of new values, I suppose.
> But I'm not a priest and to me this smacks more of Tim's usual pre-
> election maneuvering to triangulate middle-of-the-road voters into
> his corner than an epiphany.
>
> And Tim should be worried. Wasn't Congress recently getting an
> approval rating of something like 12%? That'll put religion in
> almost any Congresscritter. So far, I've seen nothing that suggests
> Tim should be returned to DC any more than any of the rest of them.
> Better to wipe the slate clean and start over. It would be hard to
> do worse -- and their replacements couldn't be more venal than the
> present gang.
>
> And Tim, if you take him at his word (a few years back), is way
> overdue to come home anyway, right?
>
> But that's just a single issue -- and I'm not a single issue voter.
> On almost every other issue of importance to me, Tim comes up FAIL
> Not necessarily an endorsement of whoever his opponent might be,
> Tim's got an uphill battle in convincing me he'd be on my side more
> than anyone else. And that's just if we get trapped in the usual
> "less evil of two evils" choice. If I can't hold my nose and vote --
> I just don't. Damned if I'm granting my consent to the likes of most
> Illinois politicians.
>
> You're not suggesting I compromise my values to hold my nose to vote
> "Tim for Peace," because it would be a slightly smaller compromise
> on that than on everything else about him, are you? If so, I'm
> really worried that the quality of our local curmudgeons is being
> compromised by some warped desire to pick a winner, rather than hold
> a principled, moral position.
> Mike Lehman
>
> On 9/29/2011 1:40 PM, C. G. ESTABROOK wrote:
>
>> We don't know about the state of his soul, Mike - his sincerity or
>> commitment - but we do know that for some time now he's said he was
>> wrong to vote for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and - even
>> more importantly - has consistently voted against more money for
>> war in the Mideast. He even joined Reps. Kucinich & Paul et al. in
>> a suit against the illegal attack on Libya.
>>
>> Aren't we trying to get the members of this government, whatever
>> their moral purity, to put an end to this criminal war? Vietnam
>> ended, not because we elected angels, but because the same people
>> who'd been there all along were forced to end it.
>>
>> When I ran against Tim on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, I
>> condemned his apparent willingness to support it. During the
>> campaign, I met privately with Tim & his people (at his invitation)
>> to try to dissuade him from voting for the "Authorization for the
>> Use of Military Force against Iraq." But the administration
>> apparently sold him the yellow-cake story ("secret information"), &
>> he voted for the AUMF.
>>
>> His subsequent declaration that he shouldn't have done so - and
>> even more his consistent votes against the Bush/Obama war in the
>> Mideast - shouldn't be set aside. Are we going to vote for
>> Democrats who "support the president" as he continues to expand the
>> drone attacks, the "special operations," the killing across SW Asia
>> and Africa?
>>
>> Regards, CGE
>>
>> On Sep 29, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Mike Lehman wrote:
>>
>>> Carl,
>>> 35 years of experience with the duplicitous Tim - always railing
>>> against things he's in fact supported at various more politically
>>> convenient times -- doesn't convince me he has much sincerity or
>>> commitment to his new, now seemingly dovish position.
>>> Mike Lehman
>>>
>>> On 9/29/2011 10:37 AM, C. G. ESTABROOK wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's an astonishing statement, Mike. Here we spend ten years
>>>> trying to convince the government to cease its criminal wars, and
>>>> when a congressman - no better than he should be - comes around
>>>> to the correct point view, we dismiss it...?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 29, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Mike Lehman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A stopped clock is right twice a day. That hardly rates a
>>>>> headline -- or a Subject line -- in my book.
>>>>> Mike Lehman
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/29/2011 10:06 AM, C. G. ESTABROOK wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently similar in this regard to his potential Democratic
>>>>>> opponents (whom he also resembles in talking nonsense about the
>>>>>> deficit).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2011, at 8:56 AM, David Green wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And also unwilling to consider the implications re Israel/
>>>>>>> Palestine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: C. G. ESTABROOK <cge at shout.net>
>>>>>>> To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net
>>>>>>> Cc: sf-core <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 8:51 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Local rep. right about war...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...but wrong about Social Security, Medicare, and the
>>>>>>> deficit... --CGE]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Johnson stance on war draws support
>>>>>>> Wed, 09/28/2011 - 9:03pm | Tom Kacich
>>>>>>> DECATUR -- About two years after he first called for the
>>>>>>> withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. Rep.
>>>>>>> Tim Johnson, R-Urbana, now appears to be gaining the support
>>>>>>> of his constituents.
>>>>>>> Speaking to about 100 people -- nearly all white and
>>>>>>> conservative -- at the Decatur Public Library, Johnson
>>>>>>> received a burst of applause Wednesday evening when he again
>>>>>>> called for an end to U.S. military involvement in the Middle
>>>>>>> East.
>>>>>>> Johnson also suggested gradually raising the retirement age to
>>>>>>> strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and said he was
>>>>>>> willing to look at revenue measures, not just budget cuts, to
>>>>>>> reduce the federal deficit.
>>>>>>> The six-term congressman criticized Democrats for not being
>>>>>>> willing to make cuts in federal spending and hit Republicans
>>>>>>> for supporting only "cuts in non-defense discretionary
>>>>>>> spending."
>>>>>>> "That is not acceptable, ladies and gentlemen," said Johnson.
>>>>>>> "I understand there are people in here who are going to
>>>>>>> vehemently disagree with me and who believe that every war is
>>>>>>> a good war. The reality
>>>>>>> is that
>>>>>>> by the time we will have completed our quote-unquote mission
>>>>>>> -- and I don't know what the mission is, ladies and gentlemen
>>>>>>> -- we will have spent close to 4 trillion dollars in those wars.
>>>>>>> "We cannot exclude defense from the cuts in dealing with our
>>>>>>> national debt."
>>>>>>> Johnson said he doesn't believe his constituents "are one iota
>>>>>>> safer because we're losing thousands of American men and
>>>>>>> women, and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in
>>>>>>> Afghanistan and Libya and Iraq."
>>>>>>> "I have consistently voted in appropriation after
>>>>>>> appropriation and bill after bill to get out of Iraq and
>>>>>>> Afghanistan and Libya," he said. It was at that point and
>>>>>>> during other statements about defense spending that Johnson
>>>>>>> received his only sustained applause during the meeting.
>>>>>>> "We can't afford it in our men and women's lives, we can't
>>>>>>> afford it in our infrastructure, and we can't afford it
>>>>>>> fiscally," he said of the wars.
>>>>>>> Following the meeting, Johnson said he was surprised by the
>>>>>>> response.
>>>>>>> "But generally in the public and even among the conservative
>>>>>>> base, people are starting to say, why are we here? Why are we
>>>>>>> spending the money? Why are we allowing men and women to be
>>>>>>> killed for a mission we cannot define? I think it's critical
>>>>>>> to our economic and moral future that we get out tomorrow, and
>>>>>>> that we don't engage in some new stupid war the next time. I'm
>>>>>>> just quoting the president."
>>>>>>> On other issues, Johnson said:
>>>>>>> -- He thinks Social Security and Medicare can be strengthened
>>>>>>> by gradually raising the retirement age.
>>>>>>> "To prevent the system from going bankrupt, there have to be
>>>>>>> modest changes for new workers in the system," he said. "For
>>>>>>> people who are entering the system tweaking the age of
>>>>>>> retirement, when it has stayed the same for decades, makes
>>>>>>> economic sense. Relatively small changes in the retirement age
>>>>>>> have a dramatic effect on the fiscal soundness of Social
>>>>>>> Security. I'm not suggesting we move the age to 75, but moving
>>>>>>> it to 67 1/2 over a phased-in period makes economic sense and
>>>>>>> moral sense."
>>>>>>> He also said he wouldn't rule out the need for higher
>>>>>>> contributions into the system.
>>>>>>> "I'm not ruling anything out but what I'm ruling in is the
>>>>>>> fact that we have to make common-sense, fair changes to
>>>>>>> preserve the safety net," he said. "If we don't do that
>>>>>>> there's going to be no Social Security, no Medicare for the
>>>>>>> future."
>>>>>>> -- He is not ruling out the need for revenue measures to cut
>>>>>>> into the federal budget deficit.
>>>>>>> "The revenue side of the equation has to be examined. There
>>>>>>> are a number of tax loopholes that exist now, some tax breaks
>>>>>>> that are being phased out that I support phasing out and
>>>>>>> others that I don't. I think we need to look at the whole
>>>>>>> picture. I don't think you can responsibly look at the debt
>>>>>>> crisis we face without looking at every aspect of ways to
>>>>>>> solve it."
>>>>>>> http://www.news-gazette.com/news/politics-and-government/2011-09-28/johnson-stance-war-draws-support.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New
> Topic
> Messages in this topic (1)
> RECENT ACTIVITY:
> Visit Your Group
> MARKETPLACE
> Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're
> on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
> .
>
> __,_._,___
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110929/ea332f4e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list