As many of you know, CUUE's big effort for the Spring of 2006 was to pass a troop withdrawal referendum in Evansville, and WE DID IT, along with many other Wisconsin communities.

So, it's really disheartening to see the Republican-controlled House and Senate advocating essentially the opposite; under cover of night (again) Republicans took out a provision of the new "emergency spending bill" (which will spend almost another $100 billion) that "would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country", according to Reuters News Agency. Bush'll sign this; that's for sure, and without any extra-legal signing statements too, I bet.

What's worse is that the Bush administration is contemplating keeping a garrison of 50,000 troops in Iraq, indefinitely.

See this website to get the full impact of this revelation.

http://watchingthewatchers.org/story/2006/6/13/172647/118

I almost can't breathe, contemplating the audacity of our duplicitous elected officials.

Things have been quiet for a while, but CUUE is going to a Parade! Our annual appearance in Evansville's Fourth of July Parade, with a live Statue of Liberty, passing out candy for the kids, and a special Statement of Advocacy for to hand out to adults. Here it is:
-------
Citizens United of Union/Evansville, Inc.strongly believes in five principles that support this BIG IDEA: “WE’RE IN THIS TOGETHER”. [editor's note: acronym is WITT!]

We oppose a “You’re on your own” (YOYO) approach to government,
and we advocate for:

1. Government that Works for Everyone
• honest government at every level
• fair elections at every level
• fair taxes at every level
• protection for consumers, for workers, for the environment

2. Opportunity for Everyone
• a living wage
• support for public education
• support for unions
• support for small business

3. Security for Everyone
• saving Social Security
• universal health care
• real homeland security
• family leave
• international cooperation

4. Individual Freedom
• equal rights for everyone
• privacy for everyone
• freedom of expression for everyone
• rejection of discriminatory amendments to Wisconsin & US Constitutions
• reproductive rights and medical privacy for everyone

5. Progress Toward a Better Future
• investment in medical research
• investment in infrastructure
• sustainable growth
• energy independence
------
Comments welcome!

Analysis

Ten days after our ballot initiative won in Evansville, it's worth looking back to try to understand the results. The competing statements were on the upper right-hand side of the ballot, with ours first, perhaps because it was submitted to Council first. Or perhaps the position was decided by a coin flip; I don't know.

First, let's look at those who voted FOR each of the competing referenda. 444 Evansville voters wanted to "immediately begin an orderly and rapid withdrawal of troops". 386 voters wanted "not to quit this fight until unquestioned victory is clearly won.". So 444-386; out of 830 affirmative votes on the two initiatives, 53.5% favored an immediate withdrawal.

On the negative side, 425 voted against withdrawal; 397 voted against not quitting. Our initiative won and theirs lost, but both margins were close.

There were a total of 985 ballots cast overall for the 4/4/2006 election. 869 tackled the question of withdrawal, leaving 116 who chose not to vote in the issue. 783 tackled the question of not quitting, so 202 chose not to vote on not quitting. Did more people ignore the second question than the first, just because of the positioning? Or did some voters not realize they could/should vote on both?

So it seems to me that quite a few people favor a middle-ground, somewhere between the positions taken by the two initiatives. I heard some commentary that the word "immediate" in our initiative gave pause to people who would have otherwise voted in favor of withdrawal. Likewise, Ron Gay has said that he lost votes because of his language praising our "honorable" president. At least one person told me that the logical thing to do was vote against BOTH initiatives, since both were too extreme.

It's clear that our initiative, the mostly emotional reaction against it (as evidenced by the forum presentations), plus the generally positive votes in municipalities around the state, indicates that CUUE (and other like-minded people around the state) were able to mobilize more people in favor of immediate withdrawal than the administration-supporters were.

Let's keep that in mind as we come up to the fall 2006 election. If we work hard at the local level in our communities, the causes CUUE supports can win at the ballot box, and we'll be on the way to changing the direction America is heading. The moderates and liberals are the majority in this country; all we have to do is make the issues clear, and the votes will come.

IT'S SPREADING!

Here's a report of two townships in Illinois acting to put troop withdrawal initiatives on their November ballots.

Here's the URL, in case the link above doesn't work; you can copy and paste....

http://www.daily-chronicle.com/articles/2006/04/13/news/news01.txt


The language in DeKalb Twp is identical to the language Evansville adopted on April 4th.

Here are the statewide results of the Troop Withdrawal Referendum:

Thirty-two Wisconsin communities voted on referendums to urge the federal government to withdraw troops from Iraq. One community -- Evansville -- also has a referendum about keeping the troops there "until unquestioned victory is clearly won."

- YES - NO -
-- 52% - 48% -- Algoma (100% reporting)
-- 53% - 47% -- Amery (100% reporting)
-- 52% - 48% -- Baraboo (100% reporting)
-- 52% - 48% -- Casco (100% reporting)
-- 82% - 18% -- Couderay (100% reporting)
-- 65% - 35% -- Town of Draper (100% reporting)
-- 52% - 48% -- Town of Edgewater (100% reporting)
-- 47% - 53% -- Egg Harbor (100% reporting)
-- 54% - 46% -- Ephraim (100% reporting)
-- 51% - 49% -- Evansville (100% reporting)
-- 49% - 51% -- Evansville (100% reporting) -- Referendum in support of keeping troops in Iraq "until unquestioned victory is clearly won."
-- 53% - 47% -- Exeland (100% reporting)
-- 49% - 51% -- Forestville (100% reporting)
-- 53% - 47% -- Frederic (100% reporting)
-- 47% - 53% -- Hayward (100% reporting)
-- 43% - 57% -- Kewaunee (100% reporting)
-- 53% - 47% -- Ladysmith (100% reporting)
-- 51% - 49% -- Luxemburg (100% reporting)
-- 55% - 45% -- La Crosse (100% reporting)
-- 68% - 32% -- Madison (100% reporting)
-- 59% - 41% -- Monona (100% reporting)
-- 53% - 47% -- Mt. Horeb (100% reporting)
-- 48% - 52% -- Newport (100% reporting)
-- 61% - 39% -- Town of Ojibwa (100% reporting)
-- 43% - 57% -- Osceola (100% reporting)
-- 54% - 46% -- Perry (100% reporting)
-- 70% - 30% -- Shorewood (100% reporting)
-- 49% - 51% -- Sister Bay (100% reporting)
-- 58% - 42% -- Sturgeon Bay (100% reporting)
-- 65% - 35% -- Vermont (100% reporting)
-- 25% - 77% -- Watertown (100% reporting)
-- 54% - 46% -- Whitefish Bay (100% reporting)
-- 65% - 35% -- Winter (100% reporting)


So, of the 32 communities, the referenda failed in only 7! Plus the Evansville counter-referendum failed.

Not Putting Money Where Mouth Is....

Peter Baker writes in the 4/5/06 Washington Post: "While President Bush vows to transform Iraq into a beacon of Democracy in the Middle East, his administration has been scaling back funding for the main organizations trying to carry out his vision..."

Read more here:

WE WON! THEY DIDN'T!

Not as wide a margin, as I would have hoped, but we won:

Resolution #1: 444 YES, 425 NO.
Resolution #2: 386 YES, 397 NO.

Analysis anyone?

RINGERS?

I posted the four questions (see next post, if you want to see them again) for the panelists on the Troop Withdrawal Forum on the Evansville Observer two days ago. In response, an anonymous comment was posted. Here it is:

“I thought the questions suprisingly are very fair. The question that I have is why does CUUE bring in "ringers" to the forum and not answer the questions themselves. The 2 gentelman coming in probably have rehersed these questions for months now?”


CUUE's response to this question has two parts.

First, let's define "ringer". One dictionary says: "a player fraudulently entered or substituted for another in a competition." A second dictionary says: "one who enters a competition under false representations as to his identity, past performances, etc.". It's clear that CUUE's panelists do not fit these definitions. We have publicly announced the names, affiliations, and background of both Will Williams and David Giffey. So, CUUE denies the contention made by "anonymous". Further, the four questions were delivered to all four panelists last week; no one has been rehearsing answers for months.

Second, let's examine CUUE's purpose in holding this forum. That purpose is to present the best possible information to the voters of Evansville, to assist them in deciding which way to vote on the two referenda. We never intended to hold a "rally" to thump the drum for our referendum, as has been suggested by some. From the beginning, we intended a fair, honest, open discussion, however suprising that may seem to "anonymous". Mr. Gay and Mr. Ryerson were invited to participate in the forum precisely to lend balance. When the invitation was extended to them, CUUE asked if they wanted to have other people present arguments for the referendum they proposed. They chose not to.

CUUE debated the advisability of having Evansville residents present the case for bringing the troops home. In the end, CUUE decided to hold true to its purpose -- to present the best possible case for voting YES for Resolution #1. Where some may see a "ringer", CUUE sees expertise, well announced in advance. The panelists we invited are experts, and we're proud of that. Will and David have thought seriously about the issues involved for a long time, and we’re pleased to have the benefit of their intelligence and perspective.

CUUE intends to make the best possible case for voting for Troop Withdrawal. Evansville's voters, as the jury in this contentious issue, are entitled to no less. We believe the facts & reasoning to be presented by Williams and Giffey, and the results of the administration's policies, will support voting YES on Resolution #1 and NO on Resolution #2. No doubt, Mr. Gay and Mr. Ryerson will also support their position with facts, reasoning and results.

Written questions may also be posed by audience members in the second half of the forum. The moderator will choose from them and ask them of the panelists. She will choose the questions to avoid redundancy with what has already been said and to give each side an equal number of opportunities to respond. No panelist can know these questions in advance.

This forum is primarily aimed at those voters who are as yet undecided. Many Evansville voters have decided already how they'll vote. Such voters are welcome to attend and hopefully to appreciate the arguments on both sides. Maybe some minds will be changed. If some do, CUUE hopes they will vote YES on Resolution #1.

CUUE hopes that all those who come to the forum will vote on April 4th, based on which arguments make the most sense to them. CUUE has worked hard to make this possible.

Panelists Will Respond to Questions at the CUUE Forum on Troop Withdrawal

March 29th at 7 PM. Eager Free Public Library, Lower Level. Evansville, Wisconsin

Come hear answers to these questions. Questions from the audience will also be taken.

1. For the Ron Gay side: Given the history of the Iraq war and the American resources brought to bear on that war so far, why do you think the military can or cannot win "unquestioned victory" against "the forces of terror"? What will this "unquestioned victory" look like? (3 minutes for Gay side = 3 minutes, 1 minute rebuttal)

2. For CUUE side: The US Government is building a permanent embassy compound in Iraq, estimated to cost about $600 million, with walls 15 feet thick and likely to be the biggest, most fortified diplomatic compound in the world. It is also building at least four “enduring” military bases constructed to be permanent facilities. These bases are capable of housing tens of thousands of troops and the equipment needed to maintain such a presence. So, what would a “withdrawal of all military personnel” look like? Would it allow us to maintain any military presence in Iraq? Why or why not given the investment we’ve made in Iraq, both human and material? (3 minutes for CUUE side = 3 minutes, 1 minute rebuttal).

3. For both: It has been said by those opposed to the "Troops Home Now" referendum that a U.S. withdrawal would result in a bloodbath in Iraq. Those opposed to the "Not Quit Until Victory" referendum question the damage done to the Iraqi people through military action when the American military aims at military targets but incidentally injures and kills civilians. First, tell us the benefits and damage you anticipate to the Iraqi people if your referendum were to be followed, and then make the moral case that your solution is the better option. (2 minutes each side)

4. For both: Explain the consequences for Iraq and the region, and for the U.S., if your referendum were to be enacted. (2 minutes each side)