[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Gill finks on the war again. Vote Independent?

[David Johnson]

Ricky,

This is very distrurbing info about Gill !

This policy of unconditional support for any and all democratic party 
candidates IS NOT WORKING !

Bill Clinton did more damage to American Workers in his eight years in 
office than 8-years of Ronald Reagan and  4-years of George Herbet Walker 
Bush COMBINED !

Lets take a deep breath and step back from ; emotion, tradition, and fear 
for a moment and ask ourselves.....
" Do we allow the corporate funded and controlled Democratic National 
Committee ( DNC ) lead us around to their agenda OR......
Do WE begin to DEMAND that they do our bidding ?

This is what I propose.

Who of you are willing to telephone the Gill HQ this week and state your 
disapproval of his statement about supporting aggresion against Iran and his 
obvious overall support of the continued policy of corporate imperial 
aggression in the middle east that is draining our economy dry ?

Who will call besides me ?

Will you call Ricky and tell Gill that if he wants our votes and support 
that he had better stand firm against Durbin and DNC pressure and oppose a 
failed policy that is draining our resources to war and starving our public 
sector ?

WIll you do it, or are you going to continue being controlled by the 
corporate DNC and being their appologist ?

David Johnson

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ricky Baldwin" <rbaldwin at seiu73.org>
To: "C. G. Estabrook" <carl at newsfromneptune.com>
Cc: "Corey Mattson" <coreymattson at gmail.com>; <aware at anti-war.net>; 
"occupycu" <occupyCU at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: [OccupyCU] Gill finks on the war again. Vote Independent?


Throwing the baby out with the bath water.

It took us years to get Johnson to that position.  He is not running.  Gill 
is a very good candidate who is anti-war and for Medicare-for-all.  He also 
took exactly the right stance on the regressive gasoline tax, which 
disproportionately impacts lower income groups, while Hartman has taken the 
simplistic position that taxing users will take oil companies down a notch.

Gill's statement on Iran is wrong.  But in reality we are unlikely to find 
positions as a whole from any candidate with a chance to win.  This vote is 
not symbolic.  A few votes may decide who goes to Congress.

Gill is not the perfect, but neither was Carl when he ran against Johnson. 
The rational vote was for Carl then, and it's for Gill now.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID


"C. G. Estabrook" <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:

Corey Mattson of Bloomington-Normal Coalition for Peace and Justice writes, 
"...no one in this congressional district race represents our view of no 
military intervention, no sanctions against Iran ...Shows work needs to be 
done! ...Peace movement work, that is...":

"13th district congressional candidates agree on Iran" 
<http://wglt.org/wireready/news/2012/11/08145_13thDebate2_061447.shtml>.

Democrat David Gill shows once again that if he is sent to Congress from our 
district, he will fail to uphold incumbent Tim Johnson's opposition to the 
ongoing Mideast war.

Although Johnson is a Republican, he voted for the impeachment of President 
Bush for launching the Iraq war; joined other House members (including 
Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul) in suing President Obama for violating the War 
Powers Act; and voted consistently against more money for war in the 
Mideast, after publicly regretting his votes in 2001 and 2002 in favor of 
the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. (He had been urged to change his 
position by the local antiwar movement, the Green party, etc.)

Gill on the other hand has consistently avoided promising that he would vote 
as Johnson has on the war, saying only that he was "against the war." Now he 
does say clearly that he backs the administration's war policy on Iran - 
which we recently heard enunciated by Senator Durbin in Champaign, namely 
that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and must be stopped, by military 
means if necessary. (Obama has been quite consistent on the matter: when he 
was running for the Senate in 2004, the Chicago Tribune wrote, "…the United 
States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production 
sites in Iran, Obama said … ‘having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession 
of nuclear weapons is worse [than] us launching some missile strikes into 
Iran…’ he said.")

In our Congressional district, Independent candidate John Hartman "says even 
if Iran has the ability to launch a nuclear weapon, he believes it would be 
a mistake to move forward at any time with military action: 'I think that 
even bombing their nuclear capabilities would be counterproductive. I think 
it would rile them against us, as well as the Arab world against us.'

This latest indication of Gill's unsoundness on the war - despite his 
apparent support for Medicare for all - has led several of my acquaintances 
to say that they will vote for Hartman, the independent, in protest of the 
'bipartisan' war policy. See Glenn Greenwald, "Obama moves to make the War 
on Terror permanent" 
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/24/obama-terrorism-kill-list>.

--CGE


_______________________________________________
OccupyCU mailing list
OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu