Skip to comments.
Draft rumors show manipulative side of politics
The Digital Collegian (Penn State) ^
| Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004
| Matt Valkovic
Posted on 10/15/2004 12:48:40 PM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
The supposedly non-partisan "Rock the Vote" campaign recently sent out an e-mail to a whole slew of young people basically saying that if things in Iraq don't improve then the draft is inevitable and that we should "take a stand now by registering to vote."
They also cited stretch troop deployments across the world, the possibility of a future conflict on the Korean peninsula or elsewhere in the Middle East; the ability of the president and Congress to approve of and begin the draft process in two or three days; and the inclusion of women in the draft, among other things, as potential reasons for a greater chance of a draft.
All right, let's be honest here.
This campaign to get young voters is really only "rocking the vote" for Sen. John Kerry.
How do you explain the e-mail subject heading "You've been Drafted!" with the implicit message that if you don't vote -- presumably for Kerry -- then you're going to be shipped off to the Sunni Triangle or some other future hot spot?
And how else do you explain "Rock the Vote" spokesman P. Diddy's disgusting mantra "Vote or Die!"? What could that message possibly mean?
Maybe something like: "Vote [for Kerry and everything will be fly] or Die [in Iraq because Bush restarted the draft and sent your sorry butt to Fallujah]!"
Don't think I'm being the typical paranoid right-winger accusing some "non-partisan" activist group of having liberal bias. The South Carolina Democratic Party sent out a mailing to potential voters saying, in effect, register to vote, then vote for Kerry or get drafted.
As the Associated Press reported, the first page of the mailing had a draft notice with orders to sign up the local military induction station. The following page depicted a military helicopter and troops in combat with headlines reading: "Officials in Washington are calling for more troops in Iraq ... Which form would you rather fill out?"
It's pretty clear the Democrats are playing dirty with the politics of the draft to stir up opposition to the war and ultimately Bush. And their primary target is you, the impressionable, young college student.
If I were you, I wouldn't buy it. Despite Bush's and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's repeated statements making it crystal clear there is no secret plan to reinstate the draft, Democrats continue to believe and claim that there is such a plan. And yet two members from their own party, Sen. Fritz Hollings and Rep. Charles Rangel, introduced legislation in the Senate and House, respectively, calling for a draft and two years of mandatory service for 18- to 26-year-olds.
The Dems logic is quite befuddling in this regard. Think about it: If the president and Congress went ahead with their secret plan to restart the draft after the election, you can be quite sure waves of protests would erupt on college campuses across the country. Bush's approval rating would plummet, as would, presumably, support for the war in Iraq. Politically, the thought of introducing the draft is near idiocy.
But what is ironic are the responses I got from several students I stopped in the HUB-Robeson Center and Pattee Library on Monday when I asked them about the possibility of the draft. When I spoke to students who identified themselves as Bush supporters they said that if there was a draft and their number was called, they'd report for duty, no questions asked.
But the Kerry students offered more of an ambivalent response to being called up. Some said they'd do everything in their power to avoid being drafted.
Does this mean all the Kerry supporters would try to get out of the draft? Does this mean all Bush people would answer their government's call?
Probably not, but the sampling I got on Monday certainly suggested a clear partisan divide between those willing to serve and those unwilling to serve.
I also found that Bush students weren't as fearful of the draft, citing confidence in the current troop deployments. Yet Kerry people, like "Rock the Vote" and their partisans in South Carolina, felt a Bush re-election would mean a much greater chance of a draft.
So what does it say when most Bush supporters, who think the likelihood of a draft is slim, would have no problem signing up to serve if there number were to be called, while Kerry supporters, who are more fearful of the draft returning, seem to be more hesitant to serve if called on by their government?
It's obvious. The Bush people believe the war is a good cause while the Kerry faithful think the war was a mistake. The Bush partisans have faith we can finish the job, while the Kerry crowd sees the situation as hopeless.
In the end, the people who support Bush are right about it all from the myths of the draft to the just cause of the Iraq project.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: draft
LOL! Talk about being stuck in a time warp!
The campus radicals of the '60s resort to reintroducing the military draft
simply so they can relive their Woodstock glory days calling for its abolition.
I guess we finally have indisputable proof that smoking dope arrests and retards emotional development.
"This is like deja vu all over again."
~ Yogi Berra
To: Willie Green
Excerpts:
The bills are not being pushed. It's quite true that the two bills mentioned would require both men and women aged 18 through 25 to perform a two-year period of "national service," which incidentally could be either military or non-military service. But the bills are sponsored only by Democrats, and there's not the slightest evidence that the Bush administration is pushing for them, quietly or otherwise.
One bill is HR 163 , whose principle sponsor is Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York. It has 14 co-sponsors, all of them Democrats in a Congress controlled by Republicans. The bill was dead on arrival: it sits in a House subcommittee with no hearings or votes scheduled and no action expected.
In fact, Rangel told FactCheck.org through his spokesman Emile Milne that even he isn't pushing for passage, let alone Bush (emphasis added):
Rep. Rangel: I'm not pushing this bill . It's up to the President to come to me when he needs it.
The identical Senate bill, S. 89 , introduced by Democratic Sen. Ernest Hollings, and also was DOA. Not one other senator has co-sponsored it. It also sits in committee with no action scheduled or expected.
Both bills in question were drawn up before the Iraq war started, mostly to make a political point. Rangel said he acted to highlight Democratic objections to use of military force against Saddam Hussein. He wrote , "I truly believe that decision-makers who support war would more readily feel the pain of conflict and appreciate the sacrifice of those on the front lines if their children were there, too."
To: Willie Green
3
posted on
10/15/2004 12:53:58 PM PDT
by
68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
(GET OUT THE VOTE NOV 2 ! IF YOUR NEIGHBORS OR RELATIVES NEED A RIDE TO THE POLLS OFFER TO HELP)
To: Willie Green
4
posted on
10/15/2004 1:03:01 PM PDT
by
EdReform
(Have you seen FAHRENHYPE 9/11? - www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1240926/posts)
To: Willie Green
When Kerry was up by 4 or something earlier in the Zogby horserace, Zogby said, "Don't get excited, Bush is trending well in 18 to 29." Well, then Kerry comes up with something to scare 18 to 26.
Why doesn't MSM (mainstream media) call this dirty politics?
5
posted on
10/15/2004 1:23:00 PM PDT
by
mamaof6
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
