The Command Post
2004 US Presidential Election
October 06, 2004
| Democrat Charlie Rangel's Draft Bill Defeated In The House

The draft bill, introduced by Democrat Charlie Rangle and appearing in emails that had young people worried about a draft reinstatement, was rejected today.

The final vote was 402 Nays and 2 Yeas. See the voting results page.

San Francisco Chronicle


Persistent election-year rumors that President Bush has a secret plan to reinstate the draft if he is re-elected led Republican House leaders Tuesday to force a vote that overwhelmingly rejected a bill to reinstate conscription.

The Republicans say Democratic candidates, party organizations and such youth-oriented independent groups as Rock the Vote are spreading the rumor that a draft is imminent.

“This campaign is a baseless, malevolent concoction of the Democrat Party, ” House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas said during a pointed, sometimes angry partisan debate. “It has one purpose and one purpose only … to spread fear … and undermine our commander in chief in an election year. Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s a lie.”

Liberal Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Charles Rangel of New York and Rep. Pete Stark of Fremont, had introduced the bill in January 2003 as a protest against the Bush administration’s increasing moves toward war in Iraq.

Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., the ranking Democrat on the House military appropriations subcommittee, said he supports a draft as a matter of fairness and because the Bush administration has stretched the regular military and the National Guard and Reserves to the breaking point. “We are in a war,” he said, “and not only a small segment of our population should fight our wars.

“Everyone, rich and poor, should serve in the military of the United States,” added Murtha, a Marine veteran — and, with Stark, the only lawmakers to vote in favor of the bill.

“As many times as the administration says they are against a draft, all one hears on the Internet and around the country is that we’re going to have a draft,” [Charlie Rangle] said.

Stark, explaining his vote in favor, said, “I don’t put in bills capriciously. I believe the bill was the right thing to do when we proposed it, and I still do.”



Posted by Digger at October 6, 2004 09:54 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Title should have been….”Liberals get hat handed to them again”.

Posted by: dickmr [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 6, 2004 01:02 PM

At least Stark had the balls to stand by his bill. Big man Rangel voted against his own proposed legislation (as well as the vast majority of co-sponsors). The height of hypocracy, as I see it.

Posted by: submandave [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 6, 2004 03:52 PM

my disdain for Rangel could not be greater. Thanks for wasting my taxes on your friggin circus, Rangel. The guy deserves a serious kick in the gnads.

Posted by: jackhammer [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 6, 2004 06:17 PM

Just a quick reminder that FADI (father’s against death in Iraq) has endorsed John Kerry for president.

If our sons are going to be drafted to clean up this mess in Iraq, and we are going to send our sons over to Iraq to die for a cause, it is clear that John Kerry would be the better person to have in charge of those number of body bags which would ultimately be sent back.

John Kerry has proven, by his stand against the Viet Nam folly, that he will do what is best for the american people, when confronted with such a debacle as Iraq.

I am also confident, he will do a much better job against the other two axis of evil partners, Iran and North Korea.

I cannot say the same for George Bush II, though I have no beef whatsoever with his father, and the contribution his father made to american society.

Posted by: FADI [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 6, 2004 07:49 PM

I am also confident, he will do a much better job against the other two axis of evil partners, Iran and North Korea.

Yeah, of course he will. I mean, he’ll internationalize the talks with North Korea by having bilateral talks, you know, because that was so successful before.

The only thing John Kerry has proven, Fadi, is that he has no core beliefs, and will say whatever he thinks people want to hear.

Kind of like Charlie Rangel, who voted against his own bill, Fadi, and then had the freaking audacity to call it “a prostitution of the system”

Voted against his Own. Bill. Fadi.

God.

Posted by: Ebonic Plague [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 6, 2004 10:25 PM

By the way, just a quick reminder that FADIC (Fathers against Dumbasses in Congress) has just endorsed George Bush and is starting a letter writing campaign to remove Charlie Rangel from his office. Just thought you’d want to know. :)

Posted by: Ebonic Plague [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 6, 2004 10:32 PM

FADI, help us with your logic, OK?

Kerry chides Bush about the number of allies in the Iraq co alition (too few), then chides Bush for the number of allies in the Nork talks (too many).

Kerry reminds me of a tune in one of the Marx brother’s movies.

Whatever it is,
I’m against it.
No matter how he
Describes or presents it,
I’m against it.

Placing faith in Kerry, with his lackluster record, is akin to keeping a hope chest in a whorehouse.

Posted by: skip [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 7, 2004 12:36 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)