[Peace-discussion] Fwd: [Ufpj-legislative] Iraq Legislative Update
John Walsh
jvwalshmd@gmail.com
Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:35:50 -0500
------=_Part_20941_28907552.1200418551094
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Here is a part of discussion that is going on - very belatedly- within UFPJ=
.Do
you not thing that the GP should be pushing the filibuster idea really hard
as a way to expose the Dems phony antiwar stance? And it may help.
See below. I think the GP should put out a call far and wide to get more
signatures on WWW.FilibusterForPeace.org
john walsh (MA delegate)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Walsh <jvwalshmd@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2008 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Ufpj-legislative] Iraq Legislative Update
To: david@davidswanson.org
Cc: Kevin Martin <kmartin@peace-action.org>, UFPJ legislative discussion
list <ufpj-legislative@lists.mayfirst.org>
With all due respect to Kevin Martin and others, there are some FACTS
here;First,
when we first launched the filibuster effort and asked UFPJ to push for it,
we were in FACT told that the UFPJ's "friends on the Hill" counseled agains=
t
it. From that time on it went nowhere. That is an unpleasant fact.
Second, the question of whether it will succeed is an open one. Once it is
in play there will be ENORMOUS pressure on the Dem candidates to back it.
And on others too. The Dems have been saying they do not have the votes t=
o
do anything. Joe Lieberman is the road block. Of course that is a lie -
which shows once again that they are not really interested in ending the
war.
Third, by not putting pressure on the Dems, UFPJ is protecting them and
helping to gull the public. That is a FACT. Is that what the leaders of
UFPJ want? I cannot read minds. I am sure that is NOT what Kevin and Sue
want. But about others I am not so sure. After all, the "line" of the
"C"PUSA remnants is to get the Dems elected as part of the "anti-monopoly
coalition," a term that has been around since the 1930s!!
Fourth in the current discussion, I note that there is little reference to
WWW.FilibusterForPeace.org. That site was started by two Greens (Kevin and
myself, real Greens not DemoGreens) and one Libertarian who was the Lt.
Gubernatorial Libertarian candidate in MA in 2002. I do not know why our
site has been neglected - but notice that there were no Dems involved.
So by all means, let us keep the discussion civil but let us not sweep
inconvenient facts under the rug.
Best,
john walsh (MA delegate)
On Jan 15, 2008 12:01 PM, David Swanson < david@davidswanson.org> wrote:
> I agree with all the let's be civil and not make paranoid accusations
> stuff.
>
> I agree that a filibuster is an uphill fight.
>
> I do not agree that we should push the bills coming out of the
> progressive caucus (I have seen them), because pushing pointless futile
> bills makes the filibuster fight that much more uphill, by promoting the
> idea of passing bills and avoiding the subject of blocking bills.
>
> A preemptive announcement of intent to filibuster any more occupation
> funding would not constitute opposition to a particular bill from
> Reid. That's why we should proactively push for it now.
>
> If we don't get there, we've "built momentum" for the next Congress on
> behalf of the peace movement, rather than just for the Democrats on
> behalf of the Democrats.
>
> If you want a Senator to understand that they have a fighting chance,
> commission a poll something like:
>
> Many Senators and Congress Members have expressed opposition to the
> occupation of Iraq. How serious do you believe they are?
> Very
> Somewhat
> Not serious
> They're lying
>
> Assuming that the Pentagon has sufficient funding to bring all U.S. troop=
s
> safely home, would you support the Senate or the House of Representatives
> refusing to provide any more funding to extend the occupation of Iraq?
> Yes
> No
>
> Using a tool called the filibuster, any 41 senators could block further
> funding for the occupation of Iraq. Would you approve of such an action?
> Yes
> No
>
> If one senator was the first to propose a filibuster of any bills to fund
> the occupation of Iraq, how would you view that senator?
> As a hero.
> As a good public servant.
> As someone unfit for office.
> As a traitor.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kevin Martin wrote:
> > Friends,
> >
> > As one who has pushed the filibuster idea in various fora, I'd caution
> against anyone thinking that legislative tactic (or any other) is the mag=
ic
> bullet (sorry for the violent reference) to ending the occupation, and in
> our extreme frustration with the Dems' spinelessness, let's not attack ea=
ch
> other or charge that UFPJ or others are blocking a filibuster or any othe=
r
> particular legislative strategy. I find Mr. Jereski's charge that the
> leadership of UFPJ and other national peace groups is somehow blocking th=
e
> will of our members in order to prolong the war for the benefit of politi=
cal
> parties to be totally obnoxious. If it came from exasperation with the wa=
r
> and congress's refusal to do its job and end it, I share it, but it reall=
y
> is a scurrilous attack, I would humbly suggest a retraction is in order.
> >
> > On the substance of the filibuster, one needs to understand that we
> start with the reality that the funding bill coming to the Senate would h=
ave
> at least the tacit support of the Dem "leadership" (this is obvious - it
> would not be coming to the floor otherwise, and I'm stating this as a mat=
ter
> of fact, not "protecting the Dems" here), so a filibusterer, assuming it'=
s a
> Dem, would indeed be bucking the party (which some may well be open to
> doing, but sadly not very many). So let's say we do indeed have a senator
> willing to lead a filibuster to stop funding the next time it comes up. H=
e
> or she would look at previous votes around funding and conclude she/he wo=
uld
> not have anywhere near 40 colleagues willing to join in stopping funding =
the
> war (the "I'll get slammed for abandoning the troops" garbage still has
> depressingly powerful sway over many allegedly anti-war members of congre=
ss,
> so they keep voting for funding). So, assuming he or she is not into lost
> causes/publicity stunts, the filibuster doesn't happen. The point is the
> particular vehicle of the filibuster has no "magic" of its own, we alread=
y
> know we don't have 41 senate votes to stop funding for the war, regardles=
s
> of the bill or parliamentary tactic, so let's stop charging some folks of
> perfidy for "blocking the filibuster strategy". Not that we should give u=
p
> on a filibuster, just stop assigning it magic it doesn't have and those i=
n
> the movement who don't drop everything in order to pursue it blame they
> don't deserve.
> >
> > Soon, there will likely be a comprehensive "end the occupation bill" in
> the House, and we should push for a companion in the Senate. Neither will
> likely pass, any more than a filibuster to stop funding the war would
> succeed. Nor will the Dem "leadership" likely just say, "enough's enough,
> we're not even going to vote on Bush's funding request, war's over, troop=
s
> are coming home." In theory they could do any or all of these things, but
> they ain't gonna anytime soon. This doesn't mean we shouldn't push as har=
d
> as we can for any and all of these things, but to lash out at each other =
in
> our frustration or accuse some of blocking "the best strategy for ending =
the
> occupation" and thereby sow division in the movement is the best gift we
> could give the war machine.
> >
> > Kevin M.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ufpj-legislative-bounces+kmartin=3D
> peace-action.org@lists.mayfirst.org on behalf of Kevin Zeese
> > Sent: Tue 1/15/2008 10:31 AM
> > To: david@davidswanson.org; 'sue udry'
> > Cc: 'UFPJ legislative discussion list'
> > Subject: Re: [Ufpj-legislative] Iraq Legislative Update
> >
> >
> >
> > Well said David. I've been pushing for the filibuster strategy
> for quite some time and hoped that UFPJ would take it on. As the coaliti=
on
> of peace groups its leadership/involvement is needed. The Congress has
> gotten very good at ignoring us. We need to up the ante and not just kee=
p
> treading water.
> >
> >
> >
> > The key to the filibuster has always been to find one member of
> the Senate who will say "there needs to be 60 votes to continue funding t=
his
> occupation." With all the media saying the surge is working our task has
> gotten more difficult. Frankly, I don't believe the media on this any mo=
re
> than I believed them when they were cheerleading for the war and claiming
> their were weapons of mass destruction and Saddam was a danger. And, I
> expect we will see soon how the surge in fact has not worked. That it is=
a
> charade. The person who seems to have the analysis closest to how I see =
it
> is Ron Paul who essentially says violence is down because we have lost pa=
rt
> of the country and empowered the Shia and Sunni private military forces
> because we could not beat them. How this empowerment will play out in th=
e
> coming months will be interesting to see.
> >
> >
> >
> > But even though our task is more difficult we should still be
> pushing. Perhaps we as a movement should focus on the most likely senato=
r
> to lead such an effort and put all the pressure on him or her for a certa=
in
> amount of time. If that person does not step up then go to the next choi=
ce.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > KZ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >
> > From: ufpj-legislative-bounces+kzeese=3Dearthlink.net@lists.mayfi=
rst.org
> [mailto:ufpj-legislative-bounces+kzeese=3Dearthlink.net@lists.mayfirst.or=
g]
> On Behalf Of David Swanson
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:07 AM
> > To: sue udry
> > Cc: UFPJ legislative discussion list
> > Subject: Re: [Ufpj-legislative] Iraq Legislative Update
> >
> >
> >
> > It does not amount to the same thing. It amounts to ending the
> funding of the occupation of Iraq. If you've decided that's not possible=
,
> why are you working for a peace organization?
> >
> > We should focus on the most likely senator(s) to do what Dodd did
> on spying: start a filibuster. Nobody accused Dodd of "going against his
> party" because the public was on his side. The first senator to step up =
on
> the occupation funding filibuster will be an instant hero.
> >
> > Whoever you think is most likely, is who we should focus on first=
.
> I don't understand your concern that doing that lets the other 99 off th=
e
> hook, since your original proposal is to let all 100 off the hook.
> >
> > As soon as we get one, we should go after the other 99. And we
> will have renewed hope and energy and resources to do so. It will be a
> different world. Once we get one.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > sue udry wrote:
> >
> > The point of making that argument in the email was not to say we
> shouldn't try alternative strategies, but so that people don't give up on
> pushing congress, becuase we are so sick of them. As for demanding a
> filibuster or demanding a witdrawal timeline as a part of any funding bil=
l,
> I would say it all amounts to the same thing -- but I don't have a proble=
m
> with building momentum this way too
> >
> > Realistically, we won't get 41 NO votes either -- but does
> focussing on Boxer and Feingold let everyone else off the hook? I don't =
see
> how it makes the whole damn congress feel the heat. I don't see either
> Feingold or Boxer having the courage/chutzpa/passion/integrity to go agai=
nst
> their party -- Not saying we shouldn't push them.
> >
> >
> >
> > The point is, we have to continue to push, no matter what we call
> for, we have to have more people calling, sitting in, heckling, picketing
> etc....
> >
> > On Jan 14, 2008 8:46 PM, David Swanson < david@davidswanson.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Just Say No. It only takes 41 Senators.
> >
> > Momentum Schmomentum. We need them to block the damn bills THIS
> YEAR.
> >
> > I will NOT spend all of 2008 planning for 2009 while PEOPLE DIE.
> >
> > We should be focusing the entire peace movement on Feingold or
> Boxer until they propose a filibuster, and then on Clinton and Obama to s=
ign
> on.
> >
> > Then the whole discourse changes, people get energized, and the
> whole damn congress feels the heat.
> >
> > Wouldn't at least TRYING that be as useful a course of action as
> "building momentum"?
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > sue udry wrote:
> >
> > UFPJ IRAQ Legislative Update
> > January 14, 2008
> >
> > 1. Members return soon
> > 2. Still outstanding: Request for $130 Billion
> > 3. Recap of Congressional Action before the recess
> > 4. Congressional & political calendar
> >
> > 1. Members of the House will return to DC on Jan. 15, the Senate
> will return on the 22nd. (see the end of this email for the 2008
> congressional recess calendar)
> >
> > 2. Request for $130 billion for occupation is still awaiting
> Congressional Action
> > Last month Congress gave Bush $70 billion of the $200 billion he
> had requested for the occupation of Iraq. The vote came amidst news repo=
rts
> on the 'reduction of violence' and the 'sucess' of the surge. Nevermind
> that more U.S. troops were killed in 2007 than any other year of the war.
> See Assessing the "surge", Iraq Outlook 2008:
> http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4882 . And "Progress in Iraq"
> http://www.isreview.org/issues/57/rep-surge.shtml
> >
> > While that vote was important, it was only the tip of the iceberg=
.
> Bush is still asking for another $130 billion to continue the war in
> FY2008. He will also ask for more money for Iraq and Afganistan for
> FY2009. It is unclear when the Congress will take up Bush's request for
> the addtional $130 billion. With the $70 billion they just handed to Bus=
h,
> the Pentagon has enough cash to last through May. We do not know if the
> vote will come soon, or later. We are trying to get information on this,
> and will let you know as soon as we do.
> >
> >
> > We have been consistent and strong in our message and should keep
> as our fundamental demand that Congress bring the troops home on a rapid
> time-line, using the "power of the purse" to make that happen. The ongoi=
ng
> funding battles are extremely important for two reasons:
> >
> > 1/ No President (Republican or Democrat) is going to end this war
> without strong backing from the Congress for doing so. To the extent that=
we
> create Congressional momentum in that direction this year, we will have a
> positive impact on the Presidential campaign and future decision-making =
in
> 2009. The fact is that we have continued to make progress, even in this
> last discouraging round of voting. To compare two votes in the Senate --
> last May only 14 Senators voted against the supplemental (whcih fully-fun=
ded
> Bush's request an included 'benchmarks' and no timeline for withdrawal). =
In
> December, 25 Senators voted against the McConnell amendment to give Bush =
the
> $70 billion. (see roll call below).
> >
> >
> > 2/ The more important reason is that most candidates for the Hous=
e
> and the Senate are going to try to rhetorically distance themselves from =
the
> Bush Administration and to create alot of fog around their actual positio=
n.
> By creating a real fight on every budgetary request, and every freestandi=
ng
> bill, we force members to take actual positions on a controversial item.
> >
> >
> > 3. Recap of Congressional Action on Iraq funding last month:
> >
> > On Dec. 17, the House passed the omnibus funding bill with no
> money for Iraq, but $30 billion for the war in Afganistan.
> > On Dec. 18, the Senate voted on the $555 billion omnibus spending
> bill, adding $70 in unrestricted funds for the occupation of Iraq and th=
e
> war in Afganistan. The Senate also rejected amendments to withdraw troop=
s
> and even a non-binding amendment to change the mission in Iraq.
> > On Dec. 19, the House passed the revised version of the spending
> bill -- including the $70 billion for war and destruction.
> > Here are the Roll Call votes:
> > Senate RollCall on Feingold Amendment for the safe redeployment o=
f
> U.S. troops:
> > ( Sen. Feingold on his amendment: "It requires the President to
> begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq within 90 days of
> enactment, and requires redeployment be completed within 9 months. At tha=
t
> point, with the bulk of our troops safely out of Iraq, funding for the wa=
r
> would be ended, with four narrow exceptions: providing security for U.S.
> Government personnel and infrastructure, training the Iraqi security forc=
es,
> providing training and equipment to U.S. service men and women to ensure
> their safety and security, and conducting targeted operations limited in
> duration and scope against members of al-Qaida and others affiliated with
> international terrorist organizations". )
> > http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_v=
ote_cfm.cfm?congress=3D110&session=3D1&vote=3D00437
>
> >
> > Levin Amentment - a non binding resolution to restrict the missio=
n
> in Iraq:
> http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.=
cfm?congress=3D110&session=3D1&vote=3D00438
> >
> > McConnell Amendment (Allowing $70 billion for Iraq/Afganistan wit=
h
> no restrictions) : http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/ro=
ll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=3D110&session=3D1&vote=3D00439
>
> >
> > NAYs ---25
> > Bingaman (D-NM)
> > Boxer (D-CA)
> > Brown (D-OH)
> > Byrd (D-WV)
> > Cantwell (D-WA)
> > Cardin (D-MD)
> > Durbin (D-IL)
> > Feingold (D-WI)
> > Harkin (D-IA)
> > Kennedy (D-MA)
> > Kerry (D-MA)
> > Klobuchar (D-MN)
> > Kohl (D-WI)
> > Lautenberg (D-NJ)
> > Leahy (D-VT)
> > Menendez (D-NJ)
> > Murray (D-WA)
> > Reed (D-RI)
> > Reid (D-NV)
> > Sanders (I-VT)
> > Schumer (D-NY)
> > Smith (R-OR)
> > Stabenow (D-MI)
> > Whitehouse (D-RI)
> > Wyden (D-OR)
> >
> >
> > Not Voting - 5
> > Biden (D-DE), Clinton (D-NY), Obama (D-IL), Dodd (D-CT),
> Feinstein (D-CA)
> >
> >
> > Final vote on the $555 billion Senate bill: http://www.senate.gov=
/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=3D110&sess=
ion=3D1&vote=3D00441
>
> >
> > The House then voted on the revised version, sent back to them
> from the Senate. This version INCLUDED the $70 billion for Iraq/Afganist=
an
> with NO strings attached. The vote was 272 for, 142 against.
> > http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1186.xml
> >
> > 4. 2008 Congressional, Political, Cultural and
> > Holiday Schedule
> >
> > JANUARY
> > Tuesday, Jan. 1: New Year's Day (federal holiday)
> > Thursday, Jan. 3: Iowa presidential caucuses
> > Monday, Jan. 7: College football championship game - Ohio State
> and
> > Louisiana State University
> > Tuesday, Jan. 8: New Hampshire presidential primary
> > Tuesday, Jan. 15: House returns to session
> > Saturday, Jan. 19: South Carolina Republican presidential primary=
,
> Nevada
> > presidential caucuses
> > Monday, Jan. 21: Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (federal holiday)
> > Tuesday, Jan. 22: Senate returns
> > Monday, Jan. 28: President's State of the Union address
> > Tuesday, Jan. 29: South Carolina Democratic presidential primary
> >
> > FEBRUARY
> > Sunday, Feb. 3: Superbowl pro-football championship
> > Monday, Feb. 4: Probable date of submission of the FY 2009 budget
> > Tuesday, Feb. 5: Super Tuesday primaries in many states for the
> Presidential
> > nominations
> > Tuesday, Feb. 5: Minnesota Democratic senatorial caucuses to pic=
k
> Democratic
> > Nominee
> > Wednesday, Feb. 6: Ash Wednesday
> > Thursday, Feb. 14: Valentine's Day
> > Friday Feb. 15 =96 Monday Feb. 25: Congressional Presidents Day
> recess
> > Monday, Feb. 18: President's Day - Washington's Birthday (federal
> holiday)
> > Sunday, Feb. 24, 2008: 80th Academy Awards
> >
> > MARCH
> > Sunday March 9: Daylight Savings Time begins
> > Friday, March 14 =96 Monday, March 31: Congressional Easter reces=
s
> > Monday, March 17, 2008: St. Patrick's Day
> > Thursday, March 20 =96 Monday, April 7: NCAA collegiate basketbal=
l
> championship
> > Friday, March 21, 2008: Good Friday
> > Sunday, March 23, 2008: Easter Sunday
> >
> > APRIL
> > Tuesday, April 15, 2009: Tax Day
> > Saturday, April 19, 2008: Passover begins at sundown
> >
> > MAY
> > Tuesday, May 20: Oregon Democratic senatorial primary - Jeff
> Merkley vs.
> > Steve Novick
> > Friday, May 23 =96 Tuesday, June 3: Congressional Memorial Day
> recess
> > Monday, May 26: Memorial Day (federal holiday)
> >
> > JUNE
> > Tuesday, June 3 New Mexico GOP primary =96 Rep. Heather Wilson (R=
)
> vs. Rep. Steve
> > Pierce (R)
> > June 6-8: Minnesota Democratic state convention to pick Senate
> nominee
> > Friday, June 27 =96 Tuesday, July 8: Congressional Independence D=
ay
> recess
> >
> > JULY
> > Friday, July 4: Independence Day (federal holiday)
> >
> > AUGUST
> > Friday, Aug. 8 =96 Monday, Sept. 8: Congressional summer recess
> > Friday, Aug. 8 =96 Sun. Aug. 24: Beijing 2008 Olympic Games
> > Monday, Aug. 25 - Thursday, Aug. 28: Democratic National
> Convention in Denver
> >
> > SEPTEMBER
> > Monday, Sept. 1: Labor Day (federal holiday)
> > Mon. Sept. 1 =96 Thursday Sept. 4 - Republican National Conventio=
n
> in Minneapolis
> > Tuesday, Sept. 2: Ramadan begins
> > Friday, Sept. 26, 2008: Presidential debate at University of
> Mississippi (Domestic
> > policy focus)
> > Monday, Sept. 29: Rosh Hashanah begins at sundown
> >
> > OCTOBER
> > Thursday Oct. 2, 2008: Vice Presidential debate at Washington
> University, St. Louis,
> > MO (Domestic and foreign policy focus)
> > Tuesday Oct. 7, 2008: Presidential debate at Belmont University,
> Nashville, TN (Town
> > hall format)
> > Wednesday, Oct. 8: Yom Kippur begins at sundown
> > Monday, Oct. 13: Columbus Day (federal holiday)
> > Wednesday Oct. 15, 2008: Presidential debate at Hofstra
> University, Hempstead, NY
> > (Foreign policy focus)
> > Friday, Oct. 31: Halloween
> >
> > NOVEMBER
> > Sunday, Nov. 2: Daylight Savings Time ends
> > Tuesday, Nov. 4: Election Day
> > Tuesday, Nov. 11: Veterans Day (federal holiday)
> > Thursday, Nov. 27: Thanksgiving Day (federal holiday)
> >
> > DECEMBER
> > Sunday, Dec. 21: Hanukkah begins at sundown
> > Thursday, Dec. 25: Christmas Day (federal holiday)
> > Friday, Dec. 26: Kwanzaa begins
> > Wednesday, Dec. 31 =96 New Year's Eve
> > - - -
> > Jan. 20, 2009 Pres. George W. Bush departs. Welcome President ?
> >
> > Note: All deadlines and due dates for Congress and the
> Administration should be considered flexible; both branches of government
> frequently act later than scheduled.
> >
> > --
> > Sue Udry
> > Legislative Action Coordinator
> > United for Peace and Justice
> > 301-565-4050 x315
> > visit our website:
> http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3D3116
> > support our work: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3D=
160
> > join one of our Legislative listserves:
> > either announcements only (2-3 emails/week): https://lists.mayfir=
st.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-leg-action
>
> > or the discussion listserve:
> > https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-legislative
> >
> > 1100 Wayne Ave. #1020
> > Silver Spring, MD 20910
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ufpj-legislative mailing list
> >
> > Post: Ufpj-legislative@lists.mayfirst.org
> > List info:
> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-legislative
> >
> > To Unsubscribe
> > Send email to: Ufpj-legislative-unsubscribe@lists.mayfir=
st.org
>
> > Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj=
-legislative/david%40davidswanson.org
>
> >
> > You are subscribed as: david@davidswanson.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sue Udry
> > Legislative Action Coordinator
> > United for Peace and Justice
> > 301-565-4050 x315
> > visit our website: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=
=3D3116
>
> > support our work: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3D=
160
> > join one of our Legislative listserves:
> > either announcements only (2-3 emails/week):
> https://lists.mayfirst.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-leg-action
> > or the discussion listserve:
> > https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-legislative
> >
> > 1100 Wayne Ave. #1020
> > Silver Spring, MD 20910
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ufpj-legislative mailing list
>
> Post: Ufpj-legislative@lists.mayfirst.org
> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-legislative
>
> To Unsubscribe
> Send email to: Ufpj-legislative-unsubscribe@lists.mayfirst.org
> Or visit:
> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-legislative/jvwalshmd%40g=
mail.com
>
> You are subscribed as: jvwalshmd@gmail.com
>
------=_Part_20941_28907552.1200418551094
Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Here is a part of discussion that is going on - very belatedly- within UFPJ=
.<div>Do you not thing that the GP should be pushing the filibuster idea re=
ally hard as a way to expose the Dems phony antiwar stance? And it ma=
y help.
</div><div>See below. I think the GP should put out a call far and wi=
de to get more signatures on <a href=3D"http://WWW.FilibusterForPeace.org">=
WWW.FilibusterForPeace.org</a></div><div>john walsh (MA delegate)<br><br><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_quote">
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class=3D"gmail_senderna=
me">John Walsh</b> <<a href=3D"mailto:jvwalshmd@gmail.com">jvwalshmd@gma=
il.com</a>><br>Date: Jan 15, 2008 12:31 PM<br>Subject: Re: [Ufpj-legisla=
tive] Iraq Legislative Update
<br>To: <a href=3D"mailto:david@davidswanson.org">david@davidswanson.org</a=
><br>Cc: Kevin Martin <<a href=3D"mailto:kmartin@peace-action.org">kmart=
in@peace-action.org</a>>, UFPJ legislative discussion list <<a href=
=3D"mailto:ufpj-legislative@lists.mayfirst.org">
ufpj-legislative@lists.mayfirst.org</a>><br><br><br>With all due respect=
to Kevin Martin and others, there are some FACTS here;<div>First, wh=
en we first launched the filibuster effort and asked UFPJ to push for it, w=
e were in FACT told that the UFPJ's "friends on the Hill" cou=
nseled against it. From that time on it went nowhere. That is a=
n unpleasant fact.
</div><div>Second, the question of whether it will succeed is an open one. =
Once it is in play there will be ENORMOUS pressure on the Dem candida=
tes to back it. And on others too. The Dems have been saying th=
ey do not have the votes to do anything. Joe Lieberman is the road bl=
ock. Of course that is a lie - which shows once again that they are n=
ot really interested in ending the war.
</div><div>Third, by not putting pressure on the Dems, UFPJ is protecting t=
hem and helping to gull the public. That is a FACT. Is that wha=
t the leaders of UFPJ want? I cannot read minds. I am sure that=
is NOT what Kevin and Sue want. But about others I am not so s=
ure. After all, the "line" of the "C"PUSA remnant=
s is to get the Dems elected as part of the "anti-monopoly coalition,&=
quot; a term that has been around since the 1930s!!
</div><div>Fourth in the current discussion, I note that there is little re=
ference to <a href=3D"http://WWW.FilibusterForPeace.org" target=3D"_blank">=
WWW.FilibusterForPeace.org</a>. That site was started by two Greens (=
Kevin and myself, real Greens not DemoGreens) and one Libertarian who=
was the Lt. Gubernatorial Libertarian candidate in MA in 2002. I do =
not know why our site has been neglected - but notice that there were no De=
ms involved.
</div><div>So by all means, let us keep the discussion civil but let us not=
sweep inconvenient facts under the rug.</div><div>Best,</div><div><font co=
lor=3D"#888888">john walsh (MA delegate)</font><div><div></div><div class=
=3D"Wj3C7c">
<br><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Jan 15, 2008 12:01 PM, David Swa=
nson <
<a href=3D"mailto:david@davidswanson.org" target=3D"_blank">david@davidswan=
son.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I agree with all t=
he let's be civil and not make paranoid accusations stuff.
<br><br>I agree that a filibuster is an uphill fight.<br><br>I do not agree=
that we should push the bills coming out of the<br>progressive caucus (I h=
ave seen them), because pushing pointless futile<br>bills makes the filibus=
ter fight that much more uphill, by promoting the
<br>idea of passing bills and avoiding the subject of blocking bills.<br><b=
r>A preemptive announcement of intent to filibuster any more occupation<br>=
funding would not constitute opposition to a particular bill from<br>Reid. =
That's why we should proactively push for it now.
<br><br>If we don't get there, we've "built momentum" for=
the next Congress on<br>behalf of the peace movement, rather than just for=
the Democrats on<br>behalf of the Democrats.<br><br>If you want a Senator =
to understand that they have a fighting chance,
<br>commission a poll something like:<br><br>Many Senators and Congress Mem=
bers have expressed opposition to the occupation of Iraq. How serious=
do you believe they are?<br>Very<br>Somewhat<br>Not serious<br>They're=
lying
<br><br>Assuming that the Pentagon has sufficient funding to bring all U.S.=
troops safely home, would you support the Senate or the House of Represent=
atives refusing to provide any more funding to extend the occupation of Ira=
q?
<br>Yes<br>No<br><br>Using a tool called the filibuster, any 41 senators co=
uld block further funding for the occupation of Iraq. Would you appro=
ve of such an action?<br>Yes<br>No<br><br>If one senator was the first to p=
ropose a filibuster of any bills to fund the occupation of Iraq, how would =
you view that senator?
<br>As a hero.<br>As a good public servant.<br>As someone unfit for office.=
<br>As a traitor.<br><div><div></div><div><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>Kevin=
Martin wrote:<br>> Friends,<br>><br>> As one who has pushed the f=
ilibuster idea in various fora, I'd caution against anyone thinking tha=
t legislative tactic (or any other) is the magic bullet (sorry for the viol=
ent reference) to ending the occupation, and in our extreme frustration wit=
h the Dems' spinelessness, let's not attack each other or charge th=
at UFPJ or others are blocking a filibuster or any other particular legisla=
tive strategy. I find Mr. Jereski's charge that the leadership of=
UFPJ and other national peace groups is somehow blocking the will of our m=
embers in order to prolong the war for the benefit of political parties to =
be totally obnoxious. If it came from exasperation with the war and congres=
s's refusal to do its job and end it, I share it, but it really is a sc=
urrilous attack, I would humbly suggest a retraction is in order.
<br>><br>> On the substance of the filibuster, one needs to understan=
d that we start with the reality that the funding bill coming to the Senate=
would have at least the tacit support of the Dem "leadership" (t=
his is obvious - it would not be coming to the floor otherwise, and I'm=
stating this as a matter of fact, not "protecting the Dems" here=
), so a filibusterer, assuming it's a Dem, would indeed be bucking the =
party (which some may well be open to doing, but sadly not very many). So l=
et's say we do indeed have a senator willing to lead a filibuster to st=
op funding the next time it comes up. He or she would look at previous vote=
s around funding and conclude she/he would not have anywhere near 40 collea=
gues willing to join in stopping funding the war (the "I'll get sl=
ammed for abandoning the troops" garbage still has depressingly powerf=
ul sway over many allegedly anti-war members of congress, so they keep voti=
ng for funding). So, assuming he or she is not into lost causes/publicity s=
tunts, the filibuster doesn't happen. The point is the particular vehic=
le of the filibuster has no "magic" of its own, we already know w=
e don't have 41 senate votes to stop funding for the war, regardless of=
the bill or parliamentary tactic, so let's stop charging some folks of=
perfidy for "blocking the filibuster strategy". Not that we shou=
ld give up on a filibuster, just stop assigning it magic it doesn't hav=
e and those in the movement who don't drop everything in order to pursu=
e it blame they don't deserve.
<br>><br>> Soon, there will likely be a comprehensive "end the o=
ccupation bill" in the House, and we should push for a companion in th=
e Senate. Neither will likely pass, any more than a filibuster to stop fund=
ing the war would succeed. Nor will the Dem "leadership" likely j=
ust say, "enough's enough, we're not even going to vote on Bus=
h's funding request, war's over, troops are coming home." In t=
heory they could do any or all of these things, but they ain't gonna an=
ytime soon. This doesn't mean we shouldn't push as hard as we can f=
or any and all of these things, but to lash out at each other in our frustr=
ation or accuse some of blocking "the best strategy for ending the occ=
upation" and thereby sow division in the movement is the best gift we =
could give the war machine.
<br>><br>> Kevin M.<br>><br>> -----Origina=
l Message-----<br>> From: ufpj-legislative-bounces+=
kmartin=3D<a href=3D"mailto:peace-action.org@lists.mayfirst.org" target=3D"=
_blank">peace-action.org@lists.mayfirst.org
</a> on behalf of Kevin Zeese
<br>> Sent: Tue 1/15/2008 10:31 AM<br>> &=
nbsp; To: <a href=3D"mailto:david@davidswanson.org" target=3D"_blank=
">david@davidswanson.org</a>; 'sue udry'<br>> &nbs=
p; Cc: 'UFPJ legislative discussion list'
<br>> Subject: Re: [Ufpj-legislative] Iraq Legislat=
ive Update
<br>><br>><br>><br>> Well said David. &nbs=
p;I've been pushing for the filibuster strategy for quite some time and=
hoped that UFPJ would take it on. As the coalition of peace groups i=
ts leadership/involvement is needed. The Congress has gotten very goo=
d at ignoring us. We need to up the ante and not just keep treading w=
ater.
<br>><br>><br>><br>> The key to the filibu=
ster has always been to find one member of the Senate who will say "th=
ere needs to be 60 votes to continue funding this occupation." W=
ith all the media saying the surge is working our task has gotten more diff=
icult. Frankly, I don't believe the media on this any more than I=
believed them when they were cheerleading for the war and claiming their w=
ere weapons of mass destruction and Saddam was a danger. And, I expec=
t we will see soon how the surge in fact has not worked. That it is a=
charade. The person who seems to have the analysis closest to how I =
see it is Ron Paul who essentially says violence is down because we have lo=
st part of the country and empowered the Shia and Sunni private military fo=
rces because we could not beat them. How this empowerment will play o=
ut in the coming months will be interesting to see.
<br>><br>><br>><br>> But even though our t=
ask is more difficult we should still be pushing. Perhaps we as a mov=
ement should focus on the most likely senator to lead such an effort and pu=
t all the pressure on him or her for a certain amount of time. If tha=
t person does not step up then go to the next choice.
<br>><br>><br>><br>> KZ<br>><br>><br=
>><br>><br>> _____<br>><br>><br>> &n=
bsp; From: ufpj-legislative-bounces+kzeese=3D<a href=3D"mailto:earthlink.ne=
t@lists.mayfirst.org" target=3D"_blank">
earthlink.net@lists.mayfirst.org
</a> [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:ufpj-legislative-bounces+kzeese=3Dearthlink.=
net@lists.mayfirst.org" target=3D"_blank">ufpj-legislative-bounces+kzeese=
=3Dearthlink.net@lists.mayfirst.org</a>] On Behalf Of David Swanson<br>>=
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:07 AM
<br>> To: sue udry<br>> Cc:=
UFPJ legislative discussion list<br>> Subject: Re:=
[Ufpj-legislative] Iraq Legislative Update<br>><br>><br>><br>>=
It does not amount to the same thing. It amount=
s to ending the funding of the occupation of Iraq. If you've deci=
ded that's not possible, why are you working for a peace organization?
<br>><br>> We should focus on the most likely se=
nator(s) to do what Dodd did on spying: start a filibuster. Nobody ac=
cused Dodd of "going against his party" because the public was on=
his side. The first senator to step up on the occupation funding fil=
ibuster will be an instant hero.
<br>><br>> Whoever you think is most likely, is =
who we should focus on first. I don't understand your concern tha=
t doing that lets the other 99 off the hook, since your original proposal i=
s to let all 100 off the hook.
<br>><br>> As soon as we get one, we should go a=
fter the other 99. And we will have renewed hope and energy and resou=
rces to do so. It will be a different world. Once we get one.<b=
r>><br>> David
<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> sue udry wrot=
e:<br>><br>> The point of making that argument i=
n the email was not to say we shouldn't try alternative strategies, but=
so that people don't give up on pushing congress, becuase we are so si=
ck of them. As for demanding a filibuster or demanding a witdrawal ti=
meline as a part of any funding bill, I would say it all amounts to the sam=
e thing -- but I don't have a problem with building momentum this way t=
oo
<br>><br>> Realistically, we won't get 41 NO=
votes either -- but does focussing on Boxer and Feingold let everyone else=
off the hook? I don't see how it makes the whole damn congress f=
eel the heat. I don't see either Feingold or Boxer having the cou=
rage/chutzpa/passion/integrity to go against their party -- Not saying we s=
houldn't push them.
<br>><br>><br>><br>> The point is, we have=
to continue to push, no matter what we call for, we have to have more peop=
le calling, sitting in, heckling, picketing etc....<br>><br>> =
On Jan 14, 2008 8:46 PM, David Swanson <
<a href=3D"mailto:david@davidswanson.org" target=3D"_blank">david@davidswan=
son.org</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> Just Say No. &n=
bsp;It only takes 41 Senators.<br>><br>> Momentu=
m Schmomentum. We need them to block the damn bills THIS YEAR.
<br>><br>> I will NOT spend all of 2008 planning=
for 2009 while PEOPLE DIE.<br>><br>> We should =
be focusing the entire peace movement on Feingold or Boxer until they propo=
se a filibuster, and then on Clinton and Obama to sign on.
<br>><br>> Then the whole discourse changes, peo=
ple get energized, and the whole damn congress feels the heat.<br>><br>&=
gt; Wouldn't at least TRYING that be as useful a c=
ourse of action as "building momentum"?
<br>><br>> David<br>><br>><br>><br>>=
<br>> sue udry wrote:<br>><br>> =
UFPJ IRAQ Legislative Update<br>> January 1=
4, 2008<br>><br>> 1. Members return soon<br>
> 2. Still outstanding: Request for $130 Billion<br=
>> 3. Recap of Congressional Action before the rece=
ss<br>> 4. Congressional & political calendar<b=
r>><br>> 1. Members of the House will return to =
DC on Jan. 15, the Senate will return on the 22nd. (see the end of th=
is email for the 2008 congressional recess calendar)
<br>><br>> 2. Request for $130 billion for occup=
ation is still awaiting Congressional Action<br>> L=
ast month Congress gave Bush $70 billion of the $200 billion he had request=
ed for the occupation of Iraq. The vote came amidst news reports on t=
he 'reduction of violence' and the 'sucess' of the surge. &=
nbsp;Nevermind that more=20
U.S. troops were killed in 2007 than any other year of the war. See A=
ssessing the "surge", Iraq Outlook 2008: <a href=3D"http://www.fp=
if.org/fpiftxt/4882" target=3D"_blank">http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4882</a>=
. And "Progress in Iraq"=20
<a href=3D"http://www.isreview.org/issues/57/rep-surge.shtml" target=3D"_bl=
ank">http://www.isreview.org/issues/57/rep-surge.shtml</a><br>><br>> =
While that vote was important, it was only the tip of =
the iceberg. Bush is still asking for another $130 billion to continu=
e the war in FY2008. He will also ask for more money for Iraq and Af=
ganistan for FY2009. It is unclear when the Congress will take up Bu=
sh's request for the addtional $130 billion. With the $70 billion=
they just handed to Bush, the Pentagon has enough cash to last through May=
. We do not know if the vote will come soon, or later. We are t=
rying to get information on this, and will let you know as soon as we do.
<br>><br>><br>> We have been consistent and s=
trong in our message and should keep as our fundamental demand that Congres=
s bring the troops home on a rapid time-line, using the "power of the =
purse" to make that happen. The ongoing funding battles are extr=
emely important for two reasons:
<br>><br>> 1/ No President (Republican or Democr=
at) is going to end this war without strong backing from the Congress for d=
oing so. To the extent that we create Congressional momentum in that direct=
ion this year, we will have a positive impact on the Presidential cam=
paign and future decision-making in 2009. The fact is that we have co=
ntinued to make progress, even in this last discouraging round of voting. &=
nbsp;To compare two votes in the Senate -- last May only 14 Senators voted =
against the supplemental (whcih fully-funded Bush's request an included=
'benchmarks' and no timeline for withdrawal). In December, 2=
5 Senators voted against the McConnell amendment to give Bush the $70 billi=
on. (see roll call below).
<br>><br>><br>> 2/ The more important reason =
is that most candidates for the House and the Senate are going to try to rh=
etorically distance themselves from the Bush Administration and to create a=
lot of fog around their actual position. By creating a real fight on every =
budgetary request, and every freestanding bill, we force members to take ac=
tual positions on a controversial item.
<br>><br>><br>> 3. Recap of Congressional Act=
ion on Iraq funding last month:<br>><br>> On Dec=
. 17, the House passed the omnibus funding bill with no money for Iraq, but=
$30 billion for the war in Afganistan.
<br>> On Dec. 18, the Senate voted on the $555 bill=
ion omnibus spending bill, adding $70 in unrestricted funds for the o=
ccupation of Iraq and the war in Afganistan. The Senate also rejected=
amendments to withdraw troops and even a non-binding amendment to change t=
he mission in Iraq.
<br>> On Dec. 19, the House passed the revised vers=
ion of the spending bill -- including the $70 billion for war and destructi=
on.<br>> Here are the Roll Call votes:<br>> &nbs=
p; Senate RollCall on Feingold Amendment for the safe redeplo=
yment of=20
U.S. troops:<br>> ( Sen. Feingold on his amendment:=
"It requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops fr=
om Iraq within 90 days of enactment, and requires redeployment be completed=
within 9 months. At that point, with the bulk of our troops safely out of =
Iraq, funding for the war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions: prov=
iding security for=20
U.S. Government personnel and infrastructure, training the Iraqi security f=
orces, providing training and equipment to U.S. service men and women to en=
sure their safety and security, and conducting targeted operations limited =
in duration and scope against members of al-Qaida and others affiliated wit=
h international terrorist organizations". )
<br>> <a href=3D"http://www.senate.gov/legislative/=
LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=3D110&session=3D1&a=
mp;vote=3D00437" target=3D"_blank">http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro=
ll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=3D110&session=3D1&vot=
e=3D00437
</a><br>><br>> Levin Amentment - a non binding r=
esolution to restrict the mission in Iraq: <a href=3D"http://www.senate.gov=
/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=3D110&=
session=3D1&vote=3D00438" target=3D"_blank">
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cf=
m?congress=3D110&session=3D1&vote=3D00438</a><br>><br>>  =
; McConnell Amendment (Allowing $70 billion for Iraq/Afganist=
an with no restrictions) :
<a href=3D"http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote=
_cfm.cfm?congress=3D110&session=3D1&vote=3D00439" target=3D"_blank"=
>http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?c=
ongress=3D110&session=3D1&vote=3D00439
</a><br>><br>> NAYs ---25<br>> =
Bingaman (D-NM)<br>> Boxer (D-CA)<br>> &n=
bsp; Brown (D-OH)<br>> Byrd (D-WV)<br=
>> Cantwell (D-WA)<br>> Car=
din (D-MD)<br>> Durbin (D-IL)
<br>> Feingold (D-WI)<br>> =
Harkin (D-IA)<br>> Kennedy (D-MA)<br>> &n=
bsp; Kerry (D-MA)<br>> Klobuchar (D-MN)<br>&=
gt; Kohl (D-WI)<br>> Lautenber=
g (D-NJ)<br>> Leahy (D-VT)
<br>> Menendez (D-NJ)<br>> =
Murray (D-WA)<br>> Reed (D-RI)<br>>  =
; Reid (D-NV)<br>> Sanders (I-VT)<br>> &n=
bsp; Schumer (D-NY)<br>> Smith (R-OR)=
<br>> Stabenow (D-MI)
<br>> Whitehouse (D-RI)<br>>  =
; Wyden (D-OR)<br>><br>><br>> Not Voting - 5<=
br>> Biden (D-DE), Clinton (D-NY), Obama (D-I=
L), Dodd (D-CT), Feinstein (D-CA)<br>><br>><br>> &nb=
sp; Final vote on the $555 billion Senate bill:=20
<a href=3D"http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_=
vote_cfm.cfm?congress=3D110&session=3D1&vote=3D00441" target=3D"_bl=
ank">http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_c=
fm.cfm?congress=3D110&session=3D1&vote=3D00441
</a><br>><br>> The House then voted on the revis=
ed version, sent back to them from the Senate. This version INCLUDED =
the $70 billion for Iraq/Afganistan with NO strings attached. The vot=
e was 272 for, 142 against.
<br>> <a href=3D"http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/ro=
ll1186.xml" target=3D"_blank">http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1186.xml<=
/a><br>><br>> 4. 2008 Congressional, Political, =
Cultural and<br>> Holiday Schedule
<br>><br>> JANUARY<br>> =
Tuesday, Jan. 1: New Year's Day (federal holiday)<br>> =
Thursday, Jan. 3: Iowa presidential caucuses<br>> &=
nbsp; Monday, Jan. 7: College football championship game - Ohio Stat=
e and
<br>> Louisiana State University<br>> &nb=
sp; Tuesday, Jan. 8: New Hampshire presidential primary<br>> &nbs=
p; Tuesday, Jan. 15: House returns to session<br>> =
Saturday, Jan. 19: South Carolina Republican presidential pri=
mary, Nevada
<br>> presidential caucuses<br>> &=
nbsp; Monday, Jan. 21: Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (federal holiday)<br>>=
; Tuesday, Jan. 22: Senate returns<br>> &nbs=
p; Monday, Jan. 28: President's State of the Union address
<br>> Tuesday, Jan. 29: South Carolina Democr=
atic presidential primary<br>><br>> FEBRUARY<br>=
> Sunday, Feb. 3: Superbowl pro-football cham=
pionship<br>> Monday, Feb. 4: Probable date of subm=
ission of the FY 2009 budget
<br>> Tuesday, Feb. 5: Super Tuesday primaries in m=
any states for the Presidential<br>> nominations<br=
>> Tuesday, Feb. 5: Minnesota Democratic sena=
torial caucuses to pick Democratic<br>> Nominee
<br>> Wednesday, Feb. 6: Ash Wednesday<br>> &nbs=
p; Thursday, Feb. 14: Valentine's Day<br>> &nbs=
p; Friday Feb. 15 =96 Monday Feb. 25: Congressional Presidents Day r=
ecess<br>> Monday, Feb. 18: President's Day - W=
ashington's Birthday (federal holiday)
<br>> Sunday, Feb. 24, 2008: 80th Academy Awa=
rds<br>><br>> MARCH<br>> =
Sunday March 9: Daylight Savings Time begins<br>> =
Friday, March 14 =96 Monday, March 31: Congressional Easter recess
<br>> Monday, March 17, 2008: St. Patrick's Day=
<br>> Thursday, March 20 =96 Monday, April 7: NCAA =
collegiate basketball championship<br>> Friday, Mar=
ch 21, 2008: Good Friday<br>> Sunday, March 23, 200=
8: Easter Sunday
<br>><br>> APRIL<br>> Tu=
esday, April 15, 2009: Tax Day<br>> Saturday, April=
19, 2008: Passover begins at sundown<br>><br>> =
MAY<br>> Tuesday, May 20: Oregon Democratic senator=
ial primary - Jeff Merkley vs.
<br>> Steve Novick<br>> Fri=
day, May 23 =96 Tuesday, June 3: Congressional Memorial Day recess<br=
>> Monday, May 26: Memorial Day (federal holiday)<b=
r>><br>> JUNE<br>> Tuesd=
ay, June 3 New Mexico GOP primary =96 Rep. Heather Wilson (R) vs. Rep. Stev=
e
<br>> Pierce (R)<br>> June =
6-8: Minnesota Democratic state convention to pick Senate nominee<br>=
> Friday, June 27 =96 Tuesday, July 8: Congressiona=
l Independence Day recess<br>><br>> JULY
<br>> Friday, July 4: Independence Day (federal hol=
iday)<br>><br>> AUGUST<br>> &nb=
sp; Friday, Aug. 8 =96 Monday, Sept. 8: Congressional summer recess<b=
r>> Friday, Aug. 8 =96 Sun. Aug. 24: Beijing 2008 O=
lympic Games
<br>> Monday, Aug. 25 - Thursday, Aug. 28: Democrat=
ic National Convention in Denver<br>><br>> SEPTE=
MBER<br>> Monday, Sept. 1: Labor Day (federal holid=
ay)<br>> Mon. Sept. 1 =96 Thursday Sept. 4 - Republ=
ican National Convention in Minneapolis
<br>> Tuesday, Sept. 2: Ramadan begins<br>> &nbs=
p; Friday, Sept. 26, 2008: Presidential debate at University =
of Mississippi (Domestic<br>> policy focus)<br>>=
Monday, Sept. 29: Rosh Hashanah begins at sundown
<br>><br>> OCTOBER<br>> =
Thursday Oct. 2, 2008: Vice Presidential debate at Washington University, S=
t. Louis,<br>> MO (Domestic and foreign policy focu=
s)<br>> Tuesday Oct. 7, 2008: Presidential debate a=
t Belmont University, Nashville, TN (Town
<br>> hall format)<br>> Wed=
nesday, Oct. 8: Yom Kippur begins at sundown<br>> M=
onday, Oct. 13: Columbus Day (federal holiday)<br>> =
Wednesday Oct. 15, 2008: Presidential debate at Hofstra University, Hempst=
ead, NY
<br>> (Foreign policy focus)<br>> =
Friday, Oct. 31: Halloween<br>><br>> NOVE=
MBER<br>> Sunday, Nov. 2: Daylight Savings Time end=
s<br>> Tuesday, Nov. 4: Election Day<br>> =
Tuesday, Nov. 11: Veterans Day (federal holiday)
<br>> Thursday, Nov. 27: Thanksgiving Day (federal =
holiday)<br>><br>> DECEMBER<br>>  =
; Sunday, Dec. 21: Hanukkah begins at sundown<br>> =
Thursday, Dec. 25: Christmas Day (federal holiday)
<br>> Friday, Dec. 26: Kwanzaa begins<br>>  =
; Wednesday, Dec. 31 =96 New Year's Eve<br>> &n=
bsp; - - -<br>> Jan. 20, 2009 Pres. George W=
. Bush departs. Welcome President ?<br>><br>> &nb=
sp; Note: All deadlines and due dates for Congress and the Administration s=
hould be considered flexible; both branches of government frequently act la=
ter than scheduled.
<br>><br>> --<br>> Sue U=
dry<br>> Legislative Action Coordinator<br>> &nb=
sp; United for Peace and Justice<br>> =
301-565-4050 x315<br>> visit our website: <a href=
=3D"http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3D3116" target=3D"_blank">
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3D3116</a><br>> &nbs=
p; support our work: <a href=3D"http://www.unitedforpeace.org/articl=
e.php?id=3D160" target=3D"_blank">http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php=
?id=3D160</a><br>> join one of our Legislative list=
serves:
<br>> either announcements only (2-3 emails/week): =
<a href=3D"https://lists.mayfirst.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-leg-act=
ion" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.mayfirst.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/=
ufpj-leg-action
</a><br>> or the discussion listserve:<br>> &nbs=
p; <a href=3D"https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufp=
j-legislative" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinf=
o/ufpj-legislative</a><br>>
<br>> 1100 Wayne Ave. #1020<br>> &=
nbsp; Silver Spring, MD 20910<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>>  =
; _____<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> ______=
_________________________________________<br>
> Ufpj-legislative mailing list
<br>><br>> Post: <a href=3D"mailto:Ufpj-legislat=
ive@lists.mayfirst.org" target=3D"_blank">Ufpj-legislative@lists.mayfirst.o=
rg</a><br>> List info: <a href=3D"https://lists.may=
first.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-legislative" target=3D"_blank">
https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-legislative</a><br>><br=
>> To Unsubscribe<br>> &nbs=
p; Send email to: <a href=3D"mailto:Ufpj-legisla=
tive-unsubscribe@lists.mayfirst.org" target=3D"_blank">
Ufpj-legislative-unsubscribe@lists.mayfirst.org
</a><br>> Or visit: <a =
href=3D"https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-legislative/david%4=
0davidswanson.org" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/opt=
ions/ufpj-legislative/david%40davidswanson.org
</a><br>><br>> You are subscribed as: <a href=3D=
"mailto:david@davidswanson.org" target=3D"_blank">david@davidswanson.org</a=
><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> --<b=
r>> Sue Udry<br>> Legislati=
ve Action Coordinator
<br>> United for Peace and Justice<br>> &=
nbsp; 301-565-4050 x315<br>> visit our websi=
te: <a href=3D"http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3D3116" target=
=3D"_blank">http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3D3116
</a><br>> support our work: <a href=3D"http://www.u=
nitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3D160" target=3D"_blank">http://www.united=
forpeace.org/article.php?id=3D160</a><br>> join one=
of our Legislative listserves:<br>
> either announcements only (2-3 emails/week): <a h=
ref=3D"https://lists.mayfirst.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-leg-action"=
target=3D"_blank">https://lists.mayfirst.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ufpj=
-leg-action</a>
<br>> or the discussion listserve:<br>> &=
nbsp; <a href=3D"https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-le=
gislative" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/uf=
pj-legislative</a><br>><br>
> 1100 Wayne Ave. #1020<br>>  =
; Silver Spring, MD 20910<br>><br>><br><br>__________________________=
_____________________<br>Ufpj-legislative mailing list<br><br>Post: <a href=
=3D"mailto:Ufpj-legislative@lists.mayfirst.org" target=3D"_blank">
Ufpj-legislative@lists.mayfirst.org</a><br>List info: <a href=3D"https://li=
sts.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-legislative" target=3D"_blank">https=
://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-legislative</a><br><br>To Unsub=
scribe
<br> Send email to: <a href=3D"mailto:Ufpj=
-legislative-unsubscribe@lists.mayfirst.org" target=3D"_blank">Ufpj-legisla=
tive-unsubscribe@lists.mayfirst.org</a><br> Or v=
isit: <a href=3D"https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-legislativ=
e/jvwalshmd%40gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">
https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-legislative/jvwalshmd%40gma=
il.com</a><br><br>You are subscribed as: <a href=3D"mailto:jvwalshmd@gmail.=
com" target=3D"_blank">jvwalshmd@gmail.com</a><br></div></div></blockquote>
</div><br></div>
</div></div></div>
</div><br></div>
------=_Part_20941_28907552.1200418551094--