I noted the other day that rumors of a Bush plan to reinstate the draft are false, based on bills introduced by Democrats simply to make a point. In an effort to put the rumors finally to rest, the Republican-controlled House brought the bill, which had essentially no support and was expected to die in committee, to vote. It was killed, 402-2.
From the linked article:
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the top Democrat on that committee, accused Republican leaders of holding the vote just 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.
That seems just a bit disingenuous, doesn’t it? How different is bringing a bill you don’t support to a vote from introducing a bill you don’t support?
Rangel voted against his own bill because it was not subjected to hearings and testimony from Bush administration officials. “This is hypocrisy of the worst kind,” he said. “I would not encourage any Democrat running for re-election to vote for this bill.”
Pot, meet kettle. Again, how is it hypocritical to refuse to hold hearings on a bill that was introduced hypocritically to begin with? If you want a hearing, schedule a damn hearing. Seems to me those who introduce a bill as a ploy shouldn’t be shocked when their ploys get shot down. But that’s politics for you.
Only Democratic Reps. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and Pete Stark of California voted for it.
Just so you know who not to vote for, if you ever get the chance.
And just so I’m not accused of being a Republican shill on this issue, I’ll say this: I agree with the idea behind this whole draft-reinstatement business, which is that politicians are far too ready to send our boys ‘n gals off to war when they have no personal stake in it. I just find the particular method chosen to make that point to be silly and needlessly fear-mongering.