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

Wed Oct 10 00:31:15 UTC 2018

Excellent choice. Looking forward to our dinner, win or lose. :)

===

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

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:56 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> Bacaro.
>
>
> On Oct 9, 2018, at 6:12 PM, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
> wrote:
>
> Game on. Name your restaurant.
>
> ===
>
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> (202) 448-2898 x1
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:10 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
>> I differ from David’s cogent analysis only in regard to the last
>> sentence.
>>
>> Overall it would seem to make a difference how large is the vote for the
>> war party - of which the DNC is an important constituent.
>>
>> Running up the vote for the party whose ostensible header has called for
>> withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria (for all that his weaknesses makes
>> those calls inconsequential) may be the marginally better thing to do.
>>
>> But these are prudential judgements. I think I’ll take Bob’s bet. —CGE
>>
>>
>> On Oct 9, 2018, at 1:35 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss <
>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.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
>> <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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20181009/10568406/attachment-0001.html>