Outside the Perimeter: The Dems Were For The Draft Before They Were Against It

When I was in New York for the big protest before this year's Republican National Convention, I was confused by some of the professionally printed signs that the protestors were carrying. The signs said "No Draft No Way". The organization that, I assume, had the signs printed have a web site here. Their "Draft Threat Advisory", by the way, is set at "Yellow, Significant Risk of Conscription." Here is a still from some of the video I took of the protest, so you can see one of the signs from this organization in evidence:

The old draft was abolished in 1973, and a new draft would require a new law. "Schoolhouse Rock" pounded into me at an early age the process where a bill becomes a law. The upshot is that a law for a new draft would have to be introduced and passed in both Houses of Congress. If the bill passed in both Houses, then the President could sign the bill into law.

Step number one of instituting a new draft has been accomplished. Not by President Bush or his minions - But by Democrats: Dem. Congressman Charley Wrangle introduced House Bill 163 and Dem. Senator "Fritz" Hollings introduced Senate Bill 89. (Note: You can look up both of the bills yourself, HB163 and SB89 here). Both of the bills seek to introduce a new draft.

So What Gives With the Kerry Stoking Fears of a Draft?

The irony of the protestors carrying the "No Draft, No Way" signs a few weeks ago was not lost on me. I had heard Rangel talk in the past about reestablishing a draft. I merely assumed that the people carrying the signs were your typical liberal lemmings - shove a sign and their hand, point them in the general direction of the protest, and watch them go.

However, what I did not know at the time is that this was the start of a trend. My next clue was an editorial by my favorite "progressive" columnist, Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He wrote just this week:

... the U.S. military will be able to take on new commitments only if it is significantly expanded. And that probably means a draft.

Note: I've been reading him for a couple of years, and Bookman is typically either slightly ahead of the curve or right there with the Democratic Party line.

Then later in the week, John Kerry's surrogates, including The Mad Doctor and Mini-Me, are saying that President Bush wants to reinstate the draft. Mini-Me said:

“America will reinstate the military draft” if Bush is re-elected and continues the Iraq War, (Max) Cleland predicted, according to an account of his speech by the Colorado Springs Gazette.

Later in the article, The Mad Doc speaks up:

Former Kerry rival Howard Dean, now traveling the country to drum up support for Kerry and raise money for Democratic candidates, said last week at Brown University in Providence, R.I., "I think that George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term, and any young person that doesn't want to go to Iraq might think twice about voting for him."

One question: Just what the heck are these Democratic handmaidens talking about? It is their party mates in Congress who have been introducing bill to reinstate the draft. President Bush has never supported a draft. Donald Rumsfeld certainly does not think we should have a draft (quote from the same article as above):

“This country does not need a draft,” Rumsfeld told an Army sergeant who’d just returned from Iraq and asked about the draft at a town hall meeting in Fort Bliss, Texas on Aug. 23.
Noting the size of the U.S. population, more than 290 million people, Rumsfeld said, “If you add up everyone we are looking for in the active forces, 1.4 million and the Guard and Reserve and the selective reserve and individual ready reserve and if you add them all up, it’s about 2.5 million. And all you have to do is alter the incentives and we can attract and retain all the people we need. We do not need to go to compulsion.”

Obviously, this is the latest attempt by the Kerry campaign to make up some fake issue, with no basis in fact, to try to keep their loser of a candidate afloat.

This would be, as I count it, the third fake issue the Dems have raised in a week. Number One was "Operation Fortunate Son", with the rather unfortunate associated CBS scandal. scandal. Number Two was "The Other Guy has a secret plan". A plan that apparently only exists in John Kerry's imagination.

Now with the second revelation of a supposedly "secret plan of Bush" in one week, the Dems showing that they are all out of ideas. Of course, as the selection of John Kerry as their candidate demonstrates, this year has not been a good one for smart Democratic ideas.

Comments

"The irony of the protestors carrying the "No Draft, No Way" signs a few weeks ago was not lost on me. "

It might surprise you to know that the left is not some monolithic block. Just like the right, there are differing views on things.

Posted by: actus | September 20, 2004 at 10:12

"The draft" are the scariest two words a male college-age man can hear. When the 1991 conflict in Iraq kicked off, I awaited the call. I almost knew, against logic, it was coming.

Vietnam and Korea are fresh in anyone's memory that happens to be over 30 (mostly through their parents personal stories). Unfortunately for Dems, this doesn't have the same effect on an 18 year-old that can't believe we, the modern US, would ever seriously be under any legitimate threat from a foreign offensive.

An 18 year-old man may well be impacted by a threat of draft, but it's simply not as scary as it would be to me at that age. Vietnam ended when I was five. My dad had a number. It was all I saw on TV for years. This may play well with the people that react to Michael Moore saying GWB might institute Marshall Law to avoid elections, but those guys are already on board with Kerry. It's a stunt, and it's depirite. Not lying, mind you. That's Carvell's contribution to modern politics. It's never going away. But, the paranoid whacko "black helicopters" conspiracy rhetoric is only brought out when they know they don't stand a chance. Consider this a gasp before the bitter end for this compaign.

Posted by: Jason | September 20, 2004 at 11:23

Actus: Sure. But you don't see the right acting like a monolithic block in the streets of New York City.

My larger point was that the "no draft" messaged seemed to go from the streets of New York, to the mainstream media, to the Kerry campaign in the space of about 3 weeks.

Also, it is silly proposition since it has been the Democrats screaming for a draft and not the Republicans.

Posted by: Blind Pig | September 20, 2004 at 18:01

"Actus: Sure. But you don't see the right acting like a monolithic block in the streets of New York City."

Neither the left. Some were on bikes. Some went out for sunday strolls. Some disrupted Young Republican events and got kicked while held down. Some got arrested outside of Broadway shows, some made their own shows. Some parts of the left weren't there -- the DLC wasn't there, the NAACP wasn't there, some unions were, but mostly it was kids from out of town and a lot of plain old new yorkers. I can imagine that this middle-class part of the left is where anti-draft feelings come from.

You did see Repunblicans in a block inside the convention center. I'm sure in there there were libertarians and christians, Neo-cons and paleo-cons, all under one big happy tent chanting 4 more years.

There's no exceptionalism here. When there's two parties, one left, one right, you're going to have both of them fit a lot of things under them.

Posted by: actus | September 20, 2004 at 22:38