Let me get this Rangel thing straight.....

[demgurl]

We have been told that the Republicans were kicked out because of fraud and corruption. People voted us in so they could have honesty and we could fix the mistakes made by this administration. They are now looking for US to restore honesty and integrity in the White House.

Rangel tried this whole draft thing before and even he voted against it. I did not see an uproar about the war back then. There was no increased surge in protesters or calls to our congress critters. There was no outburst for an end to this illegal occupation. Nothing really happened.

Flash forward to this time period when Rangel is trying the same thing again. Is there some reason we should expect that this time it will be more successful than the last? Is there some trick Rangel has up his sleeve that we do not know about? Is there any reason we should expect a different outcome?

This, at the very least, makes Rangel come across as disingenuous. He has done this before and voted it down. Now, like the boy who cries wolf, we all expect the same results. I am sure, after five or six more times of the same old same old we will all be tarred as the party of fakers.

I am not sure how Rangel's actions can be seen as genius and wonderful when he has done them before with no noticeable results. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over expecting different results. This time, though, Rangel may expect different results but aren't we all sitting back yawning as we all secretly know this would only be voted down yet again?

Is this really what we are about? I expect cheap theatrics from the Republicans, I hold our side to a much higher standard. Is this the only way we feel we can get any press on the situation? Is this what we have sunk to? Instead of trying something that has already been done, perhaps Rangle could have tried a new approach. Maybe he should be working on all sorts of different angles to get our message out there.

I think Rangel's heart is in the right place but I do not think his ideas are the right way to go about this. I think the right wing talk show people are going to crucify our party with this and I do not believe we will get an outcry over Iraq.

Maybe I am missing something here. If I am, please excuse me. I know we are all talking about this but we don't believe in the war anyway so he has not hit any new people here or changed any of our minds. I just do not get how great an idea this is the second time around after failing the first. We are better than that.

[longship]

1. You make some good points.

You seem to understand that this is a rope-a-dope, not a draft bill. That's good.

If you truly think that this is not going to go anywhere than you must also acknowledge that the risk for Rangel is minimum, especially in his own district where the ploy will undoubtedly play well.

In case you haven't caught this parameter, I thought I'd mention that Rangel is also issue framing here. What better way to talk about military unpreparedness than to discuss whether we should revive the draft. It is really wonderful framing.

The draft is an emotional issue and this is already getting some good play on the media. Go to Google News and see.

I suggest that DUers need to settle down a bit and see how this plays out before we all jump the shark and condemn it.

I, too, can think of other ways to frame the debate. However, I am not willing to say that they would work out better. That, we still cannot know.

Let's see what happens, first. I don't think that this will hurt us. The bill is not going to pass. Meanwhile, look at the debate we've had here at DU alone. Some good things have been said on both sides.

[demgurl]

9. Thank you, longship...

you put forth some wonderfully rational information for me to digest. Sooner or later we will see if this was good or bad. I hope, for the sake of our troops, it is good. We need to do something very soon.

[jobycom]

2. He got a lot more attention with it this time.

The mood of the nation has changed, and the power structure has changed, and this time people have heard what he is saying and are talking about it.

I don't consider it a gimmic or a fake. It is a device he has used to raise the issue. I'm not overly concerned about what the right-wing radio jockeys are trying to beat us up with, because they will find something. They have nothing else to do--what, you think they'll start talking about their own party's performance? Easier to beat up on us.

And the more they do, the more people hear what Rangel is saying, and it will sink in with some people. We tend to forget that the majority of people who vote Republican and who listen to their nonsense think they are voting for someone else. The entire Republican message is a wink, and most of their voters miss the wink. Rangel is trying to draw attention to the disconnect--the wink--between who the Republicans pretend they are for, and who they are really for.

Rangel isn't a national or even statewide official, he's a Representative representing the people of his district. He feels this is the way to help them. If they disagree, they will boot him. So far, they haven't, and as you say, he's done this before. It is the message they want him to give.

At worst, it hurts his image. At best, it delivers his message. I've got no problem with it. In fact, I applaud Rangel's courage. Now, let's see how the rest of the party reacts.

[demgurl]

7. It appears he is getting a bit more attention this time

but is it that much more. If so, I have been corrected and kudos to the man.

You are certainly right that the right will find something to hang us with no matter what we do. I guess I contend most of us are pretty well educated especially in matters of government. Others out there stare blankly when you bring up habeas corpus, Valerie Plame, free speech zones or even how bad the economy is.

Before the elections my mother-in-law told me she could not believe how much of the world hated us and that it is a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. I told her about our carpet bombing Iraq to try to get Saddam to attack us. I explained to her we had to give the UN a warning to get out before we were to go in and attack Iraq. I told her our most up to date information (via the UN) was that there were no WMD's. I explained how Bush had given an interview, when he was governor of Texas, stating how he would finish the job his daddy started if he ever got the chance. I told her about the PNAC and the views they had - how they were involved with * on every level of the government and they wanted into Iraq as badly as * did. I pointed her to their web site as proof. She denounced all of it even though she could easily look it up and see that everything I has said was true. She even said she was sure that the PNAC web site must be fake.

I hope you are right. I will sit back and we will wait and see. Let's hope for the best.

[jobycom]

12. But that's why

The public doesn't pay attention to details and facts. They can be given an alternate set of facts to support whatever they want to believe. The only real way to change people's minds is to change the way they interact with the world. Then they have to form new opinions.

What if there was a draft? Everyone knows they don't want to go, and they don't want their kids to go. What if the draft actually comes to a vote? You know people will form opinions on that vote. They will watch it, see what happens.

Maybe some will question what would make them go, or send their kids. Maybe then they start to see it differently.

Part of the reason Viet Nam was so much more personal to people is because everyone knew they could wind up over there, or that someone close to them could. I was seven when we got out, and I remember being afraid my brother would have to go. I even told him I would run if they came for me, and planned out a tunnel I would dig when I got old enough to be drafted, so I could escape. I was seven, like I said. But the draft--the fact that I or my brother could really be forced to go--made me not only care, but feel involved, about the war. In some ways that made me understand what the people we were attacking must feel, how they could not control what happened to them, either.

The problem in America is that this nation is immature, and has no understanding of what war really is. Anything that can wake them up, make them all share the costs of war, make it hurt them as much as it hurts the people we are slaughtering--that's helpful. I don't mind the firestorm over the issue. The firestorm is the intended goal. I wish there was more discussion of it. I wish it had a chance to pass, so people would worry even more about it.

[demgurl]

14. jobycom, I sometimes worry about people in America.

The same person once told me she would never go to Child Protective Services over abuse in our family. I was going to bat for two kids that were being mentally and physically abused. I asked what it would take for her to back me up and help those kids and she said even if they ended up in hospital, with injuries, she would never go against their mom! Others in the family agreed!!!! This is the America I see and am exposed to. This is a person who would gladly send over her grandchildren because it is the right thing to do! How do you rationally deal with someone who has no common sense?

I am against the draft and I have made plans for relatives to leave the country if a draft is reinstated.I have protested, I have called government officials and I have even written letters. I have done everything I feel I can.

People seem so much more selfish these days. I hope you are right and that this will open the debate up and change the tides.

[jobycom]

17. You don't have to tell me.

My family had its share of problems, abuse, and worse. Fortunately, it didn't touch me, but it touched the rest.

You can't convince everyone. You have to wake up the majority. A lot of the others will just follow conventional wisdom. We have to change that conventional wisdom, to make people lose their romance of violence and easy solutions. People want what's best for them or their families, they don't just always get that what's best isn't what looks the most like a John Wayne movie.

You have to shake people up to make them change. Even then, you won't change everyone.

[Rainscents]

3. Draft is NOT going to happen!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000428.html

Read the bottom.

[demgurl]

10. No, I do understand it won't happen.

I even said, in my first post, that we were all yawning waiting for it to be struck down. That was the whole point of my post - a draft will not happen. And because we all know this right now, pushing a draft to get conversations started is sort of moot.

[BOSSHOG]

4. I have a rather different view of the situation

I believe what Charlie is doing, and doing very well is equating the subject of the draft and military service and death and dying to the Iraq War. People who are so damned insistent that the killing should continue should have to address the possibility that they may have to put a little skin in the game. Its real easy to wave a flag and question the patriotism of others, its an entirely different world when one has to register for the draft.

I believe the mechanism should be in place. We may reinstitute the draft but that doesn't mean anyone will get drafted.

The first time his attempt failed dems were the minority. Now in Charlie's position his proposal has more gravitas. I cannot possibly see how any patriotic conservative could oppose this. Unless of course, they aren't really patriotic and they really are cowards.

[demgurl]

11. It failed the first time because even Rangel voted against it.

This is what I mean by saying the same thing will happen again. Rangel is not pushing this into the public eye because he wants it. He is doing it for the effect of doing it. He does not want it any more than when he voted against it the first time.

You do, however, bring up a good point. What if it is brought up and Rangel votes against it (because he never wanted it in the first place) but others vote for it and pass it? What happens when the dog catches the car it is chasing? This was only supposed to bring debate into the open, not kill more people.

I understand you are on the side of wanting the draft and I respect that that is your opinion. It in not, however, Rangel's opinion. He does not even want to pass it and not use it. He does not want it at all as evidenced by his past vote on his own bill.

[BOSSHOG]

13. I think the draft

should be available as a tool for a competent commander in chief to use if needed. The same applies to Aircraft carriers and submarines. They should be used to prevent wars, not start them.

The best way to end a war is to be ready for it.

However, when we have despicable people who are morally bankrupt like bush, such tools are only used to destroy and always for no good reason.

[demgurl]

15. Well said, bosshog. Well said. nt

[vi5]

5. The same could be said about the people on DU....

The fact is that when Rangel previously talked about this and submitted his bills, etc. and there was no political downside because dems were in the minority and this was little more than a way to hold the right's feet to the fire, the response on here was overwhelmingly "Right on!! Way to stick it to Bushcho!! Let those Repug chickenhawks send their kids!!!!"

Now that Rangel is taking the exact same position with a similar bill but this time he (and we) actually have something to lose and doing so carries an actual political risk everyone on here all of a sudden gets delicate and soft.

I thought what we wanted was politicians doing what they thought was right regardless of the consequences?

[demgurl]

16. I agree...

I think we all need to be consistent and I am completely about doing the right thing. I guess we all do not always agree on what exactly the right thing is. I was intrigued the first time but did not necessarily back it up but this time all I can think is 'You did it once, why are you doing it again?'.

I want to be proud of my party. I like Pelosi's 100 hour plan. I do not like Rangel's draft. Surely no one thinks this will pass if Rangel himself does not want it passed.

[caseycoon]

6. Pelosi says it's NOT on the agenda.

:hi:

[fooj]

8. She also said this...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061120/pl_nm/draft_dc
<snip>

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California noted her opposition to the draft in remarks to reporters. She said Rangel was trying to underscore that the U.S. war effort should be a "shared sacrifice" and his legislation was "a way to make that point."

Rangel, who is in line to chair the House Ways and Means Committee next year, has renewed his call for the draft, saying the war in Iraq is being fought by American soldiers who disproportionately are from low-income families and minorities.

Over the weekend, Rangel said he would seek passage next year of the universal draft legislation he has long sought. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

As Ways and Means panel chairman, Rangel will have a significant role in U.S. tax and health-care policy. That post will not necessarily give Rangel an effective forum for pursuing his military draft legislation, Pelosi observed.

Previewing next year's legislative agenda, Pelosi emphasized pocketbook issues, saying Democrats will try to ease the "middle-class squeeze."

"We want to take the country in a new direction, not just for privileged America," Pelosi said in a jab at Bush and his fellow Republicans who had been in control of Congress.
<snip>

[demgurl]

18. I know that....

in fact, someone was nice enough to provide a link further up the thread. My whole reason for the thread is not that I am against the draft (even though I am), my point is that Rangel is just grandstanding and we should all be able to see through it. As far as Rangel putting this forth, I have seen it all before. This is a repeat when I want new TV and not old programming. I didn't particularly like the Charles Rangel show the first time and I do not want to endure it a second time when he is not even being real.

If he wants Americans to talk about all of this then go to every media outlet and talk. Don't put forth a bill if you only plan on voting it down again. Get out and shout out to America about the way you feel and the way they should feel. I would be screaming and jumping up and down if a Republican was pulling these types of shenanigans over and over. We would all complain about the waste of tax payer money and how he is only putting forth a bill he already voted against. We would be fit to be tied. I will not be a hypocrite and say I feel any differently because it is a Democrat.