Before there is too much of a Blogospheric eruption over the following from the AP (Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstate draft) let’s stop and consider a few things.
1) Any member of Congress can “seek” a large number of things. “Seeking” however, does not equal “policy-making.” This is a key point that is often ignored when members say controversial things.
2) This isn’t the first time Rangel has broached the subject in recent years. Of course, he was in the minority at the time. Still,
In 2003, Rangel proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. It was defeated 402-2 the following year. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.
One would note that in 2003 he had only one ally in what was clearly a symbolic vote in the first place–so it isn’t as if this is an idea that has any momentum behind it. Correction: in ‘03 even Rangel voted against the measure in protest over the lack of debate.
3) There is no way that the Democrats want to be the party that brought back the draft.
4) The Pentagon doesn’t want a draft.
5) There is that whole veto thing.
6) This is about Rangel making a political and philosophical point, not about likely changes to the law:
“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,” Rangel said.
I am not sure that this is true, actually, as it isn’t as if drafts in the past led to pacifism on the part of the US government.
Update: McQ at QandO makes some similar points. For that matter, so did Cokie Roberts on NPR’s Morning Edition this morning.
Sphere: Related Content
November 20th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
One would note that in 2003 he had only one ally in what was clearly a symbolic vote in the first place–so it isn’t as if this is an idea that has any momentum behind it.
Actually, Rangel had two people who supported his proposal — he just wasn’t one of them.
According to The Hill, Rangel protested when Republican leadership scheduled his own bill for a vote and then sent out a letter encouraging his Democratic colleagues to vote against it.
http://www.hillnews.com/news/100604/rangel.aspx
November 21st, 2006 at 8:05 am
That is a very interesting example of how voting in the Congress is often much more complicated than most people understand. Kerry may have sounded stupid when he made his “I voted for it before I voted against it comment” but sometimes there is really something to that kind of oxymoronical statement.
November 21st, 2006 at 8:26 am
[...] As predicted yesterday (via Reuters): Top House Democrats to bar military draft plan A reinstatement of the military draft, being pushed by a senior Democrat, will not be slated for consideration in the House of Representatives, the chamber’s newly elected top leaders said on Monday. [...]