[Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election

Tue Oct 9 18:55:31 UTC 2018

OK, let's bet.

I bet you dinner that if Betsy wins, she will support legislation to end
unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen.

Do we have a bet?

===

Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM David Johnson via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> Bob,
>
>
>
> We are 4-weeks away from election day and a lot can happen between now and
> then.
>
> I said a “ minor miracle “ would be the only way she will win, and that
> could happen. But I seriously doubt she will win.
>
>
>
> My point was that it will make no difference if Davis or Londrigan are
> elected. Both will continue the same pro-war policies of their corporate
> masters and neither will be persuaded otherwise by their constituents.
>
>
>
> David johnson
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:44 PM
> *To:* David Johnson
> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the
> coming election
>
>
>
> I wouldn't be so sure that Betsy will not beat Rodney. A recent poll has
> her down by one point, within the poll's margin of error. My point was, if
> Betsy is coming close to beating Rodney, then Dems already have the House.
> Therefore, keeping Dems from taking the House is not a reason to vote for
> Rodney. It will not have that effect.
>
>
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>
> (202) 448-2898 x1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:35 PM David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks to Bob Naiman and Carl for their views and analysis.
>
>
>
> Here is my take on the subject for what it is worth –
>
>
>
> I do NOT think it would be better if the Republicans maintain control of
> the House and / or Senate, but at the same time I see no evidence that if
> the Democrats would take control that things would improve.
>
> A recent military expenditure increase bill in the Senate was supported by
> ALL of the Democrats.
>
> The only ones to vote against it were six Republicans and Bernie Sanders (
> who is an independent ).
>
> In the House 91 % of Democrats supported it.
>
>
>
> The assumption that Democrats will automatically be better than
> Republicans on the issues of war and foreign policy has no basis in fact.
> Especially when you consider that there are an unprecedented number of
> Democratic candidates running for election ( all backed by the DNC during
> the primaries ) who are former military and / or intelligence operatives
> from various agencies. In addition the DNC has done everything in their
> power ( very successfully so with only a few exceptions  ) to prevent any
> and all anti-war / anti-corporate Dem primary candidates from winning. In
> addition refusing to budge on more ; democracy, transparency, and
> accountability within the Democratic party. Which means DNC backed
> candidates will NOT listen to their constituent’s wishes ( especially in
> regards to foreign policy and corporate power ) and instead will toe the
> DNC party line because the DNC wants to keep their corporate donors happy.
> The corporate donor class is the constituency ( special interest ) who the
> DNC fears, NOT the voters. Who they perceive to be sheep who will continue
> to vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, in the tried and true
> tactic of “ triangulation “ that was perfected by the Clintons. However
> people are catching on to this and are angry, which is why close to 48 % of
> eligible voters chose  neither Clinton or Trump either by not voting at all
> or voting for 3rd party candidates in the last Presidential election. And
> why many voters selected Trump as a way of “ sending a message “and
> “disrupting the system “. As fucked up as that strategy was, it is
> understandable to a certain degree why some people did that considering the
> betrayal they experienced from 2008 t0 2016 by the Democrats and the lack
> of other options.
>
>
>
> This reality is especially relevant in regards to issues of war and peace.
> The war profiteer industry in the U.S. is along with the financial sector
> the largest and most powerful special interest in the country that not only
> has it’s own industry lobbyists but also the support of very wealthy and
> influential lobbyists who represent AIPAC and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
> Both of whom have not only interfered in our political / election process
> for decades, but also have used their vast financial resources to buy the
> good graces of the corporate media.
>
>
>
> This dynamic will only change when we begin to understand and act
> accordingly that it doesn’t matter the political party but the individual
> candidate who is running, rather an anti-war / anti corporate Dem, or an
> anti-war Republican, or ant-war / anti-corporate ; Green, Independent,
> Socialist, etc..
>
> The “ Any Blue Will Do “ mindset is WHY we are in the horrible condition
> we are in. And Rodney Davis is DEFINTELY no Tim Johnson, as Bob accurately
> stated, and he will continue the pro-war policies of the majority in the
> Republican party.
>
>
>
> In terms of the Illinois 13th Congressional district – Betsy Londrigan
> will NOT win against Davis ( as Bob pointed out the odds to attest to that
> fact ). The candidate that could of beat Davis ( who came within .05 % of
> beating Davis in the one time he ran as Dem in the 13th in a three way
> race ) and who also had the best platform all around including an anti-war
> platform was Dr. David Gill. Who the Unions and the academic “
> intelligentsia “ in Urbana and elsewhere in the 13th refused to support,
> and when asked why individually had no clear answer except that they wanted
> someone “ fresh and new “. ???
>
> Wow ! … Did they think they were buying the latest fashion trend clothing
> instead of voting for someone who supported 95 % of the issues they claim
> they support ?
>
>
>
> Betsy Londrigan if by some minor miracle would win would follow the
> instructions and orders of Durbin and the DNC to a tee, if for no other
> reason because those were her backers / sponsors in the Dem primary.
>
> I saw her twice during the debates and she is a hard core neo-liberal,
> ESPECIALLY in regards to foreign policy.
>
>
>
> So with these facts in mind I am voting for ; “ None of the Above “ in the
> 13th Congressional race.
>
> We should NOT vote for anyone who will not only NOT represent our
> interests, but will actively work against our interests. To do otherwise
> makes no logical sense.
>
> Nor does it make any logical sense to vote for Davis as a means of
> punishing the Democrats when Rodney Davis has a clear track record of
> voting in favor of war.
>
>
>
> David Johnson
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Naiman via Peace
> *Sent:* Monday, October 08, 2018 10:05 PM
> *To:* C. G. Estabrook
> *Cc:* Peace Discuss; peace
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the
> coming election
>
>
>
> Here's another way of looking at it.
>
>
>
> I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if Democrats take the
> House. I think the world would be better off on net. I think that it would
> help us end the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of human
> beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can end the war if we can get
> a vote in the House. So far the House Republican leadership has blocked a
> vote in the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as possible, but if
> Dems win the House, then I'm confident that we'll get a vote in January if
> not before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue. I don't contest
> at all that the anti-Russia thing embraced by many Democrats is quite
> bothersome. But, Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat on
> the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may pursue destructive policies
> towards Russia and we should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about
> to invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has those means to
> defend itself, which it will continue to do. Yemeni children have none of
> these things to defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the Yemeni
> children should be a higher priority for our defense. Plus, while Trump has
> advocated, justly in my view, for better relations with Russia, his actual
> policies have in some respects been more aggressive than Obama. Obama
> rebuffed neocon pressure to arm Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not
> to gainsay that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did good
> things. Just that it's not one-zero.
>
>
>
> But regardless of all that, the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever
> happens with Betsy vs. Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's
> a competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's not a district
> Democrats need to win in order to take the House. According to 538, Dems
> have a 5 in 7 or 3 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you
> count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1
> in 4, depending on how you count. These are estimates, of course, but it
> shows where an educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that Dems
> will take the House than it is that Betsy will beat Rodney. If Betsy vs
> Rodney is close - if our votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the
> House anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then Rodney is
> probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a good chance that Dems will take
> the House but we'll still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater
> potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney than whether Dems
> take the House.
>
>
>
> So I think there's a strong case that we should focus more on whether
> we're represented by Betsy or Rodney, over which we have more control, than
> over whether Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much less
> influence, and which is not likely to be influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney.
>
>
>
> And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd be much better off,
> from an anti-war point of view, being represented by Betsy than by Rodney.
> Not because Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war things; she
> wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some important things which are in
> contest. She'd be good on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on all
> war and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've tried ever since
> Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to do things, even bipartisan things,
> simple things, defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero, nothing,
> zip, nada, he never did anything. He's completely hopeless on war and peace
> issues, as far as I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican leadership
> in the House. Tim Johnson was much better, night and day, reachable, we
> brought him around. Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and peace. With
> Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a chance to move her on
> other things, to participate in national efforts to move Congress by moving
> our Rep. With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just doesn't give a
> damn what people in Champaign-Urbana think about anything, he's made that
> perfectly clear many times, we are not his base, he does not care at all
> what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to.
>
>
>
> So I would urge people to think most about what we an do with respect to
> the matter at hand that will contribute the most to allowing us to
> participate meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress towards less
> war in the future. And I think it's pretty clear that means focusing on
> whether we want to be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether we
> want Dems or Rs to control the House.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
> How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war
> provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in
> the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative
> to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.
>
> Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They
> generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by
> all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that
> have produced more war and accelerating inequality.
>
> Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for
> the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference,
> because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual
> members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are
> the more pro-war today:
>
> (1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war
> CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
> (2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump doesn't
> depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that characterized
> the Obama-Clinton administrations; and
> (3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war
> votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).
>
> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the
> greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.
>
> I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney
> Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of
> Representatives.
>
> —CGE
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/d99aa8ad/attachment-0001.html>