Puh-lease. Dennis the Menace, and Danny Glover (who was fired from commercial work for his anti-Bush rants)? Clue-impaired, meet clue-repellant.

And I really, really take offense at the expropriation of the phrase “world without end”. If he’s claiming that Americans “deserve a world without end,” then I would question his Christianity. I know of no Nicene-professing Christian denomination that would claim that. If anything, it borders on heresy.

Posted by: gus3 at December 23, 2003 11:43 AM

Listen up America, if this war on terror continues, your could be personally inconvenienced. Vote Kucinich.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 23, 2003 11:48 AM

I don’t have a long “boycott list,” but Glover is at the top of it. Anybody who can accuse Bush of being a tyrant, and be buddies with Fidel Castro, is beyond the pale. I can’t believe Kucinich would use him. The guy has to either be completely clueless, or he recognizes that he’ll never be running in the general election and he’s happy with whatever crumbs he can scrounge on the left.

Posted by: samuelv at December 23, 2003 11:49 AM

Why not get the Glover endorsement? He’s already got children’s book characters among his backers.

Look, this is Dennis Kucinich. Most people never listened to him in the first place, and most who did have since stopped. Let him make an ass of himself. Nobody will notice anyway.

Posted by: Move Along at December 23, 2003 12:09 PM

Just because no Presidential candidates, including the incumbent, are publicly promotong a draft doesn’t mean that there isn’t a need for same.

US forces are close to 50 percent committed overseas, across the spectrum, and that represents more time away from home than the individual serviceman or servicewoman thought they were signing up for. While a draft is about the last thing our highly professional and committed military personnel need, something is going to have to give somewhere, or else morale will take a hit as a result.

I don’t think we can maintain our present committments with a 12 active division structure.

Posted by: jeffers at December 23, 2003 01:53 PM

FIrst off, the pentagon absolutely doesnt want a draft. Quite simply, enscripted armies suck next to volunteer armies. We would end up with a less useful military. Secondly, we have ample troops available. There are 2 divisions pretending to defend South Korea’s half million man modern army. There is a division of light infantry sunning in Hawaii. There are 2 national guard divsions in the Balkans. There are still troops in Germany. And we have barely touched the the reserves and Guard when you look at their actual numbers. Believe me, calling up another 2 guard divisions would have a heck of a lot less negative impact all around then bringing back a conscription army.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 23, 2003 02:14 PM

Enscripted=conscripted. Obviously.

Posted by: Mark buehner at December 23, 2003 02:16 PM

“…that represents more time away from home than the individual serviceman or servicewoman thought they were signing up for…”

What did they think they were signing up for? I know when I joined the Navy I did NOT expect to stay home. Indeed I expected to be away from home, “see the world” and all that.

If they wanted to stay home they should have joined a scout troop, not a military organization.

Posted by: StinKerr at December 23, 2003 09:46 PM

I read a recent mainstream news article saying that the Bush administration has been actively restocking vacant positions on draft boards.
If Bush doesnt want to bring back the draft, why restock the draft boards?
Link:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/03/draft/index_np.html

Personally I would like to see enlistment offered to QUALITY non violent criminals as an alternative sentence, and illegal immigrants (in return for citizenship)… I want to emphasize again the term quality!

Posted by: AnyonebutBush2004 at December 24, 2003 02:52 AM

AbBMMIV: Why restock the draft boards? Two reasons: (a) Because the vacant positions had been ignored for far too long. (b) That alone will give our enemies pause for thought.

But I’m with you on offering military service as an alternative to criminal sentencing, in certain cases.

Posted by: gus3 at December 24, 2003 05:06 AM

Gus said, “But I’m with you on offering military service as an alternative to criminal sentencing, in certain cases.”

Only if the military can get unliberalized. They, like parents have been restricted in the discipline area. If you sent the military a bunch of misfits, you would need to expand their diciplinary options. The military has saved many a young man that was headed down the wrong road, and they still do, to some extent. (It seems now that most of the young men and women enlisting, are already top notch. Smart enough to know how they will benefit from a military experience.) Yeah, sure, it has taken a few of them too, but if a young man/woman hadn’t figured things out by the time they were out of highschool, the military got ahold of them and helped them figure things out. Most good ‘leaders’ and successful businesspeople, in all the communities around the US, owe their maturity and leadership qualities to the military (and they aren’t shy about telling you).

Alot of the bloggers that we hear on C-P that speak with clear vision and intelligent problem solving ideas…..are current or prev-military.
When I am hiring new employees, a military background is a ‘gold plated’ resume.

Posted by: Jeff B at December 24, 2003 06:57 AM

Jeff B: Oyez, oyez. Agreed on all points. I would be ex-mil myself, except for a bad medical history. My father and grandfather were both Navy. My mother has collected many stories about the Philippines, where her father was stationed during WWII. And two good friends are Army, one being a Ranger, the other being newly in the Reserves. I’ve thanked them I’m not sure how many times for their service. And I thank as many as I see on the street for theirs, too.

Posted by: gus3 at December 24, 2003 02:46 PM

Wow, I actually almost agree with AOBB. I‘m not entirely certain about the nonviolent criminal restriction though. Certain types of violent offenders would make excellent military material. Repentant gangbangers, for example, would be ideal, as the same neurosis that made them gang bangers would also make them effective soldiers.

I would say military service should always be available as an alternative to parole.

Posted by: CCR at December 24, 2003 05:58 PM

We do not need criminals in the military. Gangbangers would make effective soldiers?? Are you kidding? We need people with their head screwed on straight and solid values. These kids will have their lives on the line. Not just in Iraq but every day in the military. People are killed in the military even when there isn’t a war. Don’t endanger the rest of these young kids by putting gangbangers and criminals along side them. Who do you want your military service people surrounded by?

Posted by: SSmith at December 26, 2003 02:15 PM

Gang bangers in the military? are you nuts???? Do you really want some trigger happy fool trying to ‘keep the peace’ in Iraq? The military gets rid of gung ho killer types all the time, and for good reason.

“restock the draft boards…. will give our enemies pause for thought.” -you mean democrats right?

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at December 26, 2003 08:33 PM

Uh, guys, do you think that soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen want to live with, dine with and depend on criminials? A thief is gonna be a thief wherever he is. In the communal living quarters that servicemen live in, a thief is a real pain in the ass. Not to mention rapists, armed robbers and murderers. You want to hot wrack with one of these guys? I was in a rating that required a security clearence. That meant a criminal background check, which weeded out most of the criminals. When I went to other commands, crime was much more evident. Crime is caused by criminals. Foisting it on the military instead of society at large is not an acceptable solution.

Posted by: John at December 28, 2003 06:13 AM

On the draft question more generally, there is never going to be a general call up of every eligable citizen. Why? Because there are 15 million men of draft age. That’s 30 times the size of the US Army. Thirty times. If you draft women (why not?) thats around 30 million people of draft age. There is no way we will ever need that many soldiers. No one has ever had an army that big. Not even China, which has four times our population.

So if there is a draft, it will have to be selective. A sixfold increse in the size of the Army would require only 3 million- ten percent of the total pool if we include women. So who goes? Who chooses who goes? How can the process be fair? In the past, the process clearly was not fair. The deferrments went to people who were more educated and more monied and more motivated to avoid the draft.

Lately the biggest proponents of the draft have been Democrats. The idea is that if more rich and powerful people had children in the military, war would be less likely. However, we know that in the past, the children of the rich and powerful could avoid the draft. W. and Dan Quayle were famously in the National Guard (at a time when the Guard mostly stayed home) and students like Bill Clinton could avoid going to Vietnam.

Also, we know that the volunteer military vastly outperforms the draftee military. Quality is better than quantity, with the added benefit of fewer dead soldiers.

Finally, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have repeatedly objected to the reimpositon of the draft. They objected after Democrats (Rep. Wrangel et al) raised the idea.

The draft ain’t coming back unless something really wierd happens- like a land war with China or an alien invasion.

Posted by: John at December 28, 2003 06:28 AM

John,
What are you talking about? Of course theres not going to be a draft now, the Repubs know that its political suicide so it will happen right after the 2004 election. Until then- theyre going to LIE and deny its even a posibility- thats what they do.

As for the idea that you suggest that it will be very limited in scope- so what? Its not like every eligable person got drafted in vietnam… and conscriptees were a disaster.
And while your talking about famous people who avoided a draft- have you forgotten Bush- yknow, the president?
As for this notion that this is somehow a democrats idea- you are ridiculous. Its Bush and the Neocons who have written the current chapter in american pre-emptive war- hell they’ve written the whole book. Logically if they want to continue it they are going to be the ones who are going to be instituting the draft.

As for the question of criminals into the military- I can think of several convictions that wouldnt be a bar to military service. Since about 2/3 of the prison polutation is non violent drug offenders I imagine that its a pretty big pool to draw on, some of which may meet the military’s standard for fitness..

Posted by: AnyonebutBush2004 at December 28, 2003 07:13 PM

The only reason the little troll is running for president is because (by his own admission) he is a failed congressman. This whole “campaign” is nothing more than a public relations pitch to enhance his name among the politically powerful. His modus operandi is obvious; focus on and attract those people who are so far out in left field (beyond the foul poll) so as to offer a corner of the political market to whichever democrat gets the nomination. Thankfully, in his desperate attempt to enhance his name nationally, he has diminished it locally and after the November 2004 congressional election his political career will have finally come to an end.

Posted by: KUCINICHCOM at February 15, 2004 09:04 AM