tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5366199.post116402796213319696..comments2023-12-24T00:27:57.613-06:00Comments on Kole Hard Facts of Life: Mike Kolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17573721231319244630noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5366199.post-1164167889909077252006-11-21T21:58:00.000-06:002006-11-21T21:58:00.000-06:00I don't believe Rangel really wants a draft any mo...I don't believe Rangel really wants a draft any more than I do. I believe he wants to shed light on the idea that military service is more of a middle and lower class choice than an aristocrat one. Yet the aristocrats are the ones who ultimately decide WHEN these soldiers go to war.Jeff Pruitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01996970649630375507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5366199.post-1164159490467566132006-11-21T19:38:00.000-06:002006-11-21T19:38:00.000-06:00The mechanism has always been in place. It's in th...The mechanism has always been in place. It's in the Constitution that the President is supposed to gain the approval of the Congress for a declaration of war. <BR/><BR/>But, we've been sloppy as a people. We don't demand Constitutionality. We haven't had a Constitutional war since FDR went to the Congress for a declaration of war on Japan, and then Germany and Italy. We've had generations of things like 'police actions' and 'advisors' under Ike & JFK, executive orders under Carter and Reagan, etc., etc., and it's gotten to the point that Bush simply declared war on Iraq in disregard of the Constitution. Outcry from the Democrats or the media on Constitutional grounds? Crickets. It isn't on the radar anymore, and hasn't been for years for Republicans or Democrats, so they try to play tricks with themselves.<BR/><BR/>The Rangel plan is a poor substitute for an active, awake population, and for respect for the Constitution, and has a huge unintended consequence (or, is it intended?) in taking choice out of the matter and substituting force. <BR/><BR/>Andrew's point is interesting, speaking of unintended consequences. Even if exemptions were not part of the Rangel draft as they were in Viet Nam, there would still be 100 poor kids drafted for every rich one or two. <BR/><BR/>It just think it stinks every which way.Mike Kolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573721231319244630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5366199.post-1164158468616186292006-11-21T19:21:00.000-06:002006-11-21T19:21:00.000-06:00So what other mechanisms could we put in place so ...So what other mechanisms could we put in place so we don't get into idiotic wars like this in the future?<BR/><BR/>I think the draft is an inhibitor to stupid wars, though obviously not foolproof. And, perhaps its costs outweigh its benefits. <BR/><BR/>How did the talking point go? Something like "At least Rangel has an idea. Where are the Republicans ideas for keeping us out of wasteful, unnecessary wars?"Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11424730556609713021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5366199.post-1164117883614014442006-11-21T08:04:00.000-06:002006-11-21T08:04:00.000-06:00On a related issue, Pelosi talked about Rangel's d...On a related issue, Pelosi talked about Rangel's draft position not being about the draft, but about 'shared sacrifice'.<BR/><BR/>Well, that's a bit of doublespeak. A draft is a draft is a draft. But my opposition to the draft, as a young man and through today, is the forced nature of it. The competing idea of conscripted national service, championed by both Ds & Rs, is involuntary, and therefore wrong. <BR/><BR/>Shared sacrifice is fine if it is chosen. But as for me, I will oppose involuntary action every time.Mike Kolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573721231319244630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5366199.post-1164117596196735222006-11-21T07:59:00.000-06:002006-11-21T07:59:00.000-06:00Jeff- Thanks for pointing out the CNN article wher...Jeff- Thanks for pointing out the CNN article where Pelosi's opposition was actually the lead over the Rangel proposal.<BR/><BR/>Please consider this- If there's anything I learned after two years on the campaign trail all across the state, it's that Democratic and Republican candidates tend to say what plays at home, and party leadership keeps its trap shut until it feels it has to cut the loose cannon loose. <BR/><BR/>Good for Pelosi! That's gives me hope! Now- what can we do about Rangel?Mike Kolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573721231319244630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5366199.post-1164087170033297042006-11-20T23:32:00.000-06:002006-11-20T23:32:00.000-06:00That's ridiculous Mike. You KNOW the party doesn't...That's ridiculous Mike. You KNOW the party doesn't support this. You could've found Nancy Pelosi's <A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/20/rangel.draft/" REL="nofollow">opposition</A> if only you would've looked...Jeff Pruitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01996970649630375507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5366199.post-1164077062323829402006-11-20T20:44:00.000-06:002006-11-20T20:44:00.000-06:00Two reasons I think it is fair:1. Rangel is a lead...Two reasons I think it is fair:<BR/><BR/>1. Rangel is a leader among Congressional Democrats, having been named to a committee chair. Leaders speak for their party.<BR/><BR/>2. Unless and until another significant Democrat speaks against this idea, why would I draw any conclusion other than that the party agrees on a broad level?<BR/><BR/>For comparison, Mike Pence talked on about restraining spending, and Tom DeLay took him to the woodshed. We all knew right away that the Republican Party was not about restraining spending. Unless Nancy Pelosi wants the Democratic Party to be perceived as pro-draft, she should speak out against it.Mike Kolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573721231319244630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5366199.post-1164071741369334722006-11-20T19:15:00.000-06:002006-11-20T19:15:00.000-06:00Why do you lump Rangel in with all Democrats? Yes,...Why do you lump Rangel in with all Democrats? Yes, he is a member of the party but I'm not sure a single other congressional member agrees with him on this. I think it's unfair to lump the party in with Rangel on this issue...Jeff Pruitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01996970649630375507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5366199.post-1164035889031139222006-11-20T09:18:00.000-06:002006-11-20T09:18:00.000-06:00I love how the likes of Rangel are willing to look...I love how the likes of Rangel are willing to look at a cigarette tax and call it a "poor tax" just based on the number of poor people that smoke. Now mind you, the percentage of poor people that smoke is roughly the same as the percentage of rich people who smoke, but since there are so many more poor people than rich ones, an increase in smoke taxes has always been coined a "poor tax" since by numbers alone, poor people would shoulder the majority of the tax. The fact that Rangel et al are willing to disregard this exact philosophy with respect to a military draft is comical at best. The odds of poor folks getting drafted would be much higher than those of their more affluent across-town neihbors simply by virtue of volume.<BR/><BR/>Rangel's draft-dragnet would pull in literally 100 poor kids for every "privileged" one...sounds like a lot of collateral damage just to prove a point if you ask me.<BR/><BR/>What a small, shallow man Rangel must be.Andrew Kadukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11944123518135308325noreply@blogger.com