Posted on 10/05/2004 8:29:03 PM PDT by nypokerface
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) did something a little unusual yesterday. First he protested when Republican leadership scheduled his own bill for a vote.
Then he sent out a letter encouraging his Democratic colleagues to vote against it.
Rangel’s bill, which the leadership had placed on the suspension calendar, would create a national-service draft under which all 18- to 26-year-olds would serve in the military or perform two years of national service as determined by the president. Rangel has been advocating a draft for several years, but he argued yesterday that the bill was too important for the suspension calendar, “which is reserved for non-controversial items,” he said in a statement.
Bills on the suspension calendar cannot be amended on the floor and require two-thirds of the House to clear the chamber.
Rangel accused Republicans of using his bill to assuage fears that President Bush had plans to reinstate the draft, stating, “The Republican leadership decision to place the draft legislation on the suspension Calendar is a political maneuver to kill rumors of the President’s intention to reinstate the draft after the November election.”
He went on to urge Democrats running for reelection to vote no.
“I am voting no, because my bill deserves serious consideration,” his statement continued.
“It should be subject to hearings and to expert testimony. The administration should come and tell us about our manpower needs, about recruitment and retention, about the extent to which out troops are overextended. And they should give us their views about shared sacrifice. If they did all of those things in a serious way, they would have to admit that my bill is an option.”
Democrats said Republican leaders gave them no notice that the Rangel bill was headed to the floor.
HEHEHEE...someone forgot to tell Charlie that it would be a DNC talking point during the elections. Bwaaaaaaaahhaha
Yessiree, it's an important bill, far too important to vote for or to pass or anything, so important you have to vote against it. Especially if you're for it. Or if you're not for it but you want your opponents to be for it and they're not cooperating. Yeah, that's it.
===========================================
These are the people who want to forcibly conscript your children between 18 and 26 years of age into the Army. See if you can detect what they have in common.
` Bills HR 163 and S 89 have been introduced in 2003, prior to the War in Iraq by Charles Rangel (Democrat-NY) and Senator Ernest Hollings (Democrat-SC) respectively.
CO-Sponsors of HR 163:
ABERCROMBIE, NEIL ---------------------------Democrat, HI
BROWN, CORRINE ------------------------------Democrat, FL
CHRISTENSEN, DONNA --------------------------Democrat, VI
CLAY, WM. ------------------------------------Democrat, MO
CONYERS, JOHN -------------------------------Democrat, MI
CUMMINGS, ELIJAH ----------------------------Democrat, MD
HASTINGS, ALCIE -----------------------------Democrat, FL
JACKSON LEE, SHEILA -------------------------Democrat, TX
LEWIS, JOHN -----------------------------------Democrat, GA
MC DERMOTT, JIM -----------------------------Democrat, WA
MORAN, JAMES --------------------------------Democrat, VA
NORTON, ELEANOR HOLMES -----------------Democrat, DC
STARK, FORTNEY ------------------------------Democrat, CA
VALEZQUEZ, NYDIA -----------------------------Democrat, NY
HR163. The Senate bill is S89, introduced by Fritz Hollings, another democRAT.
IIRC, it went down 402-2. Two dims voted for it. Pete Stark was one but I've forgotten who the other one was.
Figures
As I understand it (according to a local radio host), almost all the bill's sponsors voted against it, except for Fortney Stark.
I hate Pete Stark, but give him a little credit for consistency.
He voted it for it before he voted against it. It's called the Kerry plie.
Earlier on another thread I said it was buried. My congressman's aid called me back and told me that the reason they brought the bill out was to force the vote and get rid of it and hopefully the rumors.
Amongst his other lame-brain proposals in Congress was for a Gold Coin in "honor" of the Reverend Jesse Jackson.
Final vote:
Aye: 2
Nay: 402
As far as the draft issue goes, the fact that most of the ALL DEMOCRATIC sponsors of the bill voted against it, and that the bill was obliterated in the House, should be a wake up call to the scare mongers. The 'draft' is prank legislation, and now even the pranksters are backing off of the joke.
We really need to blast this REAL AND TRUE evidence that, if Hanoi John gets elected, the Democrats will revive the draft.
Good. Why would they need a draft? We're not in a sitatution for it. They are trying to bring back Vietnam syndrome again.
Because if Kerry is elected, the military will walk out and leave him holding the bag...
"OOOPs,,if my draft legislation can't be used to my party's advantage,,then,,,nevermind."
Is there a online listing of the vote, somewhere?
I actually voted against the bill, after I sponsored it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.