When a Democrat is on the verge of losing an election, they have various "cards" they play to scare voters. For example, a Democrat-sponsored billboard in Missouri this past May featured an American flag and an African-American man with the words "Republicans have a plan and you are not part of it." In 2000, Al Gore claimed Republicans would gut Social Security and Medicare, and Gore tried to make you believe Grandma would have to choose between eating cat food or buying her prescription drugs.
Since they've been so successful scaring African-Americans and seniors, they now want to scare you by playing the draft card. Democrats like Daryl Altman and Rob Shepard, who wrote the Sept. 21 Viewpoint "Draft cited as reason to vote," want you believe that if President Bush is reelected, you'll be "catching bullets in Baghdad by your junior year." Altman and Shepard referred to two draft revival bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163, currently in Congress. However, they conveniently left out numerous facts about who is proposing and supporting these bills and their status.
S. 89 was authored by Democratic Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) and brought to committee in Jan. 7, 2003, prior to the invasion of Iraq. S. 89 is currently languishing in the Senate Committee on Armed Services, and has no sponsors. Hollings is retiring in November, and S.89 will likely retire along with him.
S. 89's counterpart, H.R. 163, was authored by Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and brought to committee on Feb. 3, 2003, but was never given a hearing in committee. 14 Democratic representatives are sponsoring the bill — mostly members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas), Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). Another sponsor of H.R. 163, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), is called "Baghdad Jim" for his infamous visit to Iraq in support of Saddam Hussein before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Rangel wanted to use H.R. 163 to illustrate the Democratic opposition to the invasion of Iraq, saying in a Jan. 7, 2003 press release, "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." I also must note that not a single Republican has signed on as a sponsor to either H.R. 163 or S.89.
Another popular claim is that the budget for the Selective Service System — the administrators of a draft — has been increased by $26 million for FY05. Actually, $26 million is the total budget for the SSS, unchanged from FY03 and FY04. Some also claim local draft boards are filling vacancies in preparation for a draft, but many of these spots have been vacant since 1999.
SSS created draft boards in 1979, and members were appointed to 20 year terms; thus these seats have been vacant for 5 years. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated in May that he could not imagine the United States returning to a military draft, saying that a volunteer force is sufficient, and many military experts share his sentiment.
So are the Democrats and their allies making political hay off of the draft card? You bet. Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) in campaign speeches accuses Bush of planning a "backdoor draft" if reelected. MTV is running ads for their "Choose or Lose" campaign saying that young people should vote because of a draft. E-mail chain letters have been circulating for over a year now claiming that the draft is coming back. When Democrats play the draft card, it screams desperation.
I can't understand how a party so ardently anti-war can support and oppose a military draft at the same time. Wait, they have a presidential candidate that can vote for something before he votes against it. I guess I'm not so surprised after all.
Republicans want to bring back the draft? Surely you jest. I urge you to visit www.congress.gov and www.factcheck.org if you wish to confirm these facts independently.
Baranowski is a senior marketing and finance major.
Click here to comment on this viewpoint on the Tribune Forum.