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

Mon Nov 5 13:05:11 UTC 2012

Hi from BloNo---
Dr. Gill saw our Facebook discussion thread, where I posted the information
that his position on Iran is identical to that of his Republican
challenger. It should be noted that I did not lambast Gill, nor say
anything about voting for any particular candidate. The point was twofold
--- get the information out on Gill's wrong position and say why that
position is wrong. But one attitude within our peace group, as evidenced
somewhat by a response from one of my friends in BNCPJ, is that we circle
the wagons and avoid any criticism of Democratic Party politicians in an
election season. This is what I assume David Johnson means by unconditional
support and why so many involved in BNCPJ during the Bush presidency
stopped being involved in the lead-up to the 2008 election. Being anti-war
means criticizing policies supported by the Democratic Party. In short, the
whole point of getting this info out is not electoral, but the importance
of elevating social movements above political party loyalties.

On Gill, I like Dr. Gill's support for single-payer, and on this topic and
the war, he has been a speaker for BNCPJ panels and educationals for years.
I like him as a person. But his positions on foreign policy, his support
for the extrajudicial killing of Bin Laden, his willingness to limit his
politics to Democratic Party prerogatives BEFORE assuming office, are all
reasons why I won't publicy support a Democratic Party politician no matter
how "progressive".  People do what they want in the polls; what matters is
who we publicly support. If elected, Gill is going to face immense
pressures to accept the party line within the party, and without much
pressure from people on the left, he will most likely succumb. He has, I
believe, BEFORE the election, on a number of issues. (When I lived in
Minnesota, Keith Ellison, who was much more of a "movement candidate," gave
in to pressure from Pelosi on the issue of war funding, and he had a much
more liberal base.)

--- Corey

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Ricky Baldwin <rbaldwin at seiu73.org> wrote:

> Whose unconditional support for any and all Democratic candidates were you
> thinking of, David?
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
>
>
> David Johnson <dlj725 at hughes.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20121105/9af5f8b7/attachment.html>