During the Vice Presidential debate last night, John Edwards continued his “two Americas” theme by asking, "Have you ever seen America more divided? Have you ever seen Washington more divided?"
I’m starting to think he may be right, at least about Washington. I’ve seen the Congress divided along party lines before. And I’ve even seen legislators who were divided from their own party. But I can’t recall every seeing at time when they were divided against their own selves.
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, accused Republican leaders of holding a vote on the bill to reinstate the military draft solely for political gain. "We have seen something I haven't seen in 28 years in the House of Representatives — someone bringing a bill to the House they don't support," Skelton said.
Skelton misses the obvious irony in claiming that the Republicans are forcing the vote on a bill they don’t support when Charlie Rangel (D-NY), the Democrat who introduced the legislation, voted against it himself. Rangel has never been accused of being a man of principle but at least he has his priorities straight. This is hypocrisy of the worst kind," Rangel said. "I would not encourage any Democrat running for re-election to vote for this bill."
Charlie has a point. If you’re a Democrat and you want to get reelected, don’t vote for any legislation that you sponsor. Otherwise, their constituents might start thinking they have principles and confuse them for Republicans.
(Note: The other cowards who co-sponsored the bill but voted against it are: Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1], Brown, Corrine [FL-3], Christensen, Donna M. [VI], Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1], Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14], Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7], Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23], Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2], Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18], Lewis, John [GA-5], McDermott, Jim [WA-7], Moran, James P. [VA-8], and Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12]. Pete Stark [CA-13] was the only co-sponsor who had the courage to vote for the legislation. He was joined by John Murtha of Pennsylvania.)
So when are the Bush daughters and Karen Hughes' son going to enlist to fire weapons to bring freedom to Iraq and other countries? What are they waiting for? Don't they want to join the best and brightest in the noblest of causes? Or is it the case that these chidren of privilege are neither the best nor the brightest, and the cause really is more stupid than noble?
Other people's children are dying of shrapnel wounds to their faces while the twins vomit Jagermeister in Manhantten. What's the deal?
That's a good question.
Personally, I consider Jenna and Barbara Bush too self-absorbed to consider military service. They are more concerned with how they look on television, what their hair looks like, what other trendy people think of them, and spending time in their family's multimillion dollar estates around the country.
You know, sort of like John Kerry and John Edwards.
Typical GOP tactic. Divorce the quote from its context. The whole quote:
[Emphasis added.]If you're going to attack a guy's position and his words, the least you could do is actually bother to pay attention to them. He wanted the administration to clearly demonstrate that there's no shortage of manpower, and that a draft is, in addition to being undesirable, totally unnecessary.
But I agree with you on one count: Rangel's a fool. He should know from three and a half years of history that there's no way this administration will ever answer questions of accountability like the ones he's asking. "Scoff and aww" is more their tactic.
Larry,
You must not have children. Telling his kids *what* they must and must not do when they're that age is probably just about as difficult as GWB's day job. I have enough problem's with my two girls and they haven't even impacted puberty yet.
Tgirsch,
He wanted the administration to clearly demonstrate that there's no shortage of manpower, and that a draft is, in addition to being undesirable, totally unnecessary.
Legislators don't introduce bills in Congress and then wait for someone to come make the case that it’s a good idea to make it a law. If you present a piece of legislation you should actually believe in it. Contrary to what many Democrats think, we don’t send them to Washington to play silly games.
(By the way, why add more to the quote when it only makes your side look even worse? What was the point in that?)
Contrary to the pontificating, it's not at all that uncommon for the original sponsor of a bill to withdraw it or vote against it. Usually it's because a rider amendment has been attached to the bill that the sponsor won't accept. Basically a poison pill attachment. Just the business of politicking. So I wouldn't get all huffy about who is taking a stand on this. It's all just hot air from both sides of the aisle.
Patrick,
Contrary to the pontificating, it's not at all that uncommon for the original sponsor of a bill to withdraw it or vote against it. Usually it's because a rider amendment has been attached to the bill that the sponsor won't accept.
I could understand not voting for a bill if amendments were added which the sponsor disagreed with. But when the bill is presented exactly as the sponsor wrote it they lose that excuse. I think this type of stunt shows a lack of seriousness on the part of the Democrats.
(Oh, and to be fair, if you notice the Republicans pulling this sort of nonesense, please point it out and I will condemn that too.)
It is NOT a lack of seriousness, it is total dedication to political warfare. Many ads were run and speeches were given saying that "there are bills winding their way through the Republican-controlled Congress that would re-instate the military draft."--end of story. And the Leftist lapdog press printed the story without question.
So, when called on it, the far-Left Liberal Democrats in Congress were forced to retreat and cower, and reveal themselves for what they are.
Why aren't Barbara and Jenna joining the Army? Wow, such a brilliant argument. Is that all you can come up with? What is that like the 400th time you've tried that argument? And you think Christians are silly. Wow.
Why aren't the Reps doing more against these folk:
"Who co-sponsored the bill, before voting against it."
Heh heh. Nice work Tom. Didn't occur to me.
Rangel: "I actually introduced the bill reinstating the draft - before I voted against it."
"Why aren't Barbara and Jenna joining the Army? Wow, such a brilliant argument. Is that all you can come up with?"
It's not an "argument". It's a serious question that our incompetent press corps is afraid to ask the Chimp and his advisor to their white privileged faces. Both Bush and Karen Hughes have attacked people for allegedly not supporting the troops and have wrapped themselves in the American flag in an attempt to equate support for our invasion of Iraq with patriotism.
But of course, their own kids aren't the ones that are sent to Iraq to die.
Finlay, what do you suppose would happen to support for American support for the war on Iraq the moment that a draft is announced? Do you think support will increase? I don't. I think it will decrease dramatically. I know it will decrease dramatically and so do Republicans. The hypocracy is that these people love to point fingers at anyone who questions their motives, idiotic plans, and incompetent leadership. They point fingers and question the patriotism of critics.
It's a sick joke that is played over and over again. It must be nice for Bush and Karen Hughes and other powerful hawks to know that their sons daughters are more liable to die in a skiing accident than of a bullet to the throat in Iraq. If I were them, I wouldn't spend so much time questioning the patriotism and love for America shared by others who believe, quite reasonably, that they are hypocritical buffoons who would do whatever they can to avoid directly participating in the bloody crimes they gleefully send others to commit on their behalf.
The way I figure is we got rid of the draft to have an all volunteer Army so our president could send them wherever the heck he wanted to without having to worry about whiny college boys.
Now we got whiny college boys saying that even that isn't good enough. We ought to have a law saying that a president first send his daughters to die before sending anyone else's children.
I can't agree with that. A volunteer Force seemed like a good compromise. And anyway, even when she's drunk, Chelsea Clinton is pretty cute. It would be a shame if President Clinton had to send that sweet little girl to die in Bosnia.
Joe:
No, but they do expect an opportunity to make the case themselves -- an opportunity Rangel was being denied by the GOP's rush vote strategy.Sorry, but there's nothing to suggest that he doesn't believe in his bill. From what I can tell, he actually does believe a draft will be necessary if we continue on the current course, and that the GOP is just waiting until after the election to admit it. You can argue whether he's right or wrong, but I've seen you produce no evidence to suggest that Rangel doesn't believe that.And sorry, but voting against your own bill is not even the least bit uncommon. Bob Dole voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment -- which he himself introduced -- when it was clear that it would not pass. There are procedural reasons for doing this.
It should be noted that Dole did not vote against it because it had been altered or poisoned. The bill was what he wanted, it just didn't have enough votes to pass, and by voting against it, I believe he reserved the right to re-introduce it later. But the Senate's a weird place, and I don't pretend to understand the rules there.
Let me put Rangel's situation to you this way: Suppose you're proposing a controversial idea. You think you can make a good case for your idea. Now suppose that nobody's going to let you make that case. That's what the GOP did here, if I understand it correctly. Let's rush this to a vote, without actually debating the merits. Would you think your bill got fair consideration?
You have two possible answers here. You can say "no." Or you can lie. Take your pick. ;)
"(Oh, and to be fair, if you notice the Republicans pulling this sort of nonsense, please point it out and I will condemn that too.) "
All right, That being the case, will you condemn the introduction of the anti-gay marriage amendment when it's sponsors knew perfectly well that it would not pass?(certainly in the current congressional session) As I said, pure hot air from both sides of the aisle.
The purpose of both measures was not to pass an actual law. It was to start the next culture war over either the Draft/Iraq or gay marriage. It was done in order to have an issue to rally to or campaign around for re-election. In a certain sense, both measures succeeded.
They didn't vote against the gay marriage amendment, though, and they didn't introduce that to try to make the Democrats look as if they wanted a gay marriage amendment. They wanted an honest count of the votes. This is much worse because they wanted it to confirm an internet rumor that said those who opposed this legislation had actually intitiated it.
And Larry Lord emerges from his "Give Stalinism a Chance--Vote Kerry" conference to write, again, of the Bush daughters not doing their part to rid the world of tyrannical dictators.
Seems to me there's just as much hypocrisy on the other side. The Democrats who sponsored this bill, pushing for a military draft, should start at home, and send their sons/daughters/lovers/lovers' sons and daughters/lovers' lovers--was Barney Frank one of the co-sponsors? Because that would cause a "don't ask don't tell problem.
Spin spin spin spin.
C'mon Kevin. How many times do I have to explain it? Even if had a giant bong, I'd never get the chance to inhale, what with all the explaining I have to do here.
I don't want the Bush daughters and Karen Hughes' dorky son to go to Iraq and get shot up. I want Bush and his supporters to stop questioning the patriotism of those who criticize his policies or, if they insist on continuing to do engage in that behavior, to put their lives and their family's lives where their big fat mouths are and where the lives of a whole lot of much less wealthy and privileged people have been sacrificed.
You can't have it both ways. You can't tar people as incapable of leading the country because they criticize your crappy policies and lies and jeapodize "the safety of all Americans" and then pretend that this war is not really so important that your own family (god FORBID) and friends should get involved in it at the most intimate level.
Now, one intelligent response might be the special security concerns that arise if the President's daughters are on the ground in Iraq and there whereabouts become known to hostile forces. But that sure wouldn't apply to Hughes' son, who must be getting really close to enlisting age by now.
Who knows, maybe Hughes' son will surprise us all. Any bets??
What is it with you squishy Clinton democrats? If ya gotta da bong, smoka da bong. Fact of the matter is, if I came home to Hillary every night, I'd be doin' a whole lot of inhaling, and when that grew old, I'd be breaking in the new intern pool too.
I don't try to have anything both ways. I want one thing: Islamists dead. I've never shied away from admitting that. If you're a militant Muslim, I want you dead. Whether you're after Jews or Indians or Russians or Filipinos or African Christians or New York office workers, I want you found and killed. Anything that is in conflict with those ends needs to be cast aside.
Such as, for example, two clueless dingbats who were born into the first family, picking up a rifle and taking on Islamist insurgents. Leave that to the men.