Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » OT: EGO ALERT

OT: EGO ALERT

Filed at 3:52 pm under by dcobranchi

Gingrich’s hat is in the room ring. He thinks he can manipulate himself into a Draft Gingrinch movement. Sounds like a good idea, but only if we can draft him directly into Iraq.

15 Responses to “OT: EGO ALERT”


Comment by
Southpaw
November 20th, 2006
at 4:20 pm

Is he thinking of Pat Buchanan as his running mate? Is this a Stephen King novel? Return of the Contract on America?

Such a bold gesture, but not from the Audacity of Hope.


Comment by
Tim
November 20th, 2006
at 4:24 pm

Lucky for Gingrich, the democrats have decided not to pursue Rangel’s plan for reinstating the draft right now. Maybe if they win more seats in 2008 they’ll be willing to push it through? Of course the democrats pushing a draft could be a problem for the “Vote or Die” movement…


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
November 20th, 2006
at 4:31 pm

Rangel is playing presidential politics. He was a strong opponent of the war and is shoving this draft in McCain’s face since McCain is demanding an additional 20,000 troops in Iraq.


Comment by
Tim
November 20th, 2006
at 5:31 pm

So Rangel’s previous attempts to reinstate the draft were preemptive strikes against McCain’s future demand for more troops?


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
November 20th, 2006
at 5:41 pm

McCain et al. Yes. Read Rangel’s statements from Jan. ’03 and recently. They’re all about the hypocrisy of the chickenhawks sending other folks’ kids off to war.


Comment by
Tim
November 21st, 2006
at 1:44 am

Rangel could definitely teach McCain a lot about the downsides of war. Maybe if McCain had some real war experience he wouldn’t be such a gung-ho warmonger and force peaceful freedom loving democrats into calling for a draft.


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
November 21st, 2006
at 3:31 am

Yeah, McCain learned so much in Vietnam.


Comment by
Tim
November 21st, 2006
at 2:26 pm

Let’s see… he learned how much troop morale is hurt by people back home not supporting the troops, telling them they’re doing a terrible job, accusing them of atrocities. He also learned how much morale is hurt by a draft.

Of course today’s troops’ morale is boosted every day by how much support the democrats give them right?

soldie...e.com/


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
November 21st, 2006
at 3:29 pm

I understand McCain math, now–

Supporting the troops=putting more of them in harm’s way=killing more of them in a lost war.

And you can face yourself in the mirror? I’m impressed!


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
November 21st, 2006
at 4:41 pm

Of course today’s troops’ morale is boosted every day by how much support the democrats give them right?

Or, as Robert Reich points out, we can support the troops and boost their morale by lying to them.

I talked with John McCain Sunday morning in the green room just before “This Week.” I asked him why he continued to call for more troops for Iraq when he must know it’s a political non-starter. He said he thought it important for the morale of the troops.

QED


Comment by
Tim
November 21st, 2006
at 6:08 pm

Yah, that makes perfect sense. Listen to Robert Reich to determine what helps boost or hurt troop morale and just ignore what the troops themselves have to say about it.


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
November 22nd, 2006
at 12:57 am

Nice attempt at misdirection, Tim. The fact is that Rangel, as has been pointed out in numerous places, is engaging in a bit of Swiftian excess. He’s attempting to put the hawks on the record. If you are calling for 100,000 more troops (McCain’s position) and they are not available via volunteers, you are in essence calling for a draft. If you are too politically craven to support that draft then stop calling for the additional (non-existent) troops.

McCain has acknowledged to Reich that he knows the troops don’t exist and that they won’t be forthcoming. He’d just rather distance himself from the Bush war/disaster than tell the truth.

And what happens if Lyndon Baines McCain magically gets his 100,000 troop escalation (National Guard callups– another type of draft) and Iraq doesn’t get any better 6 months from now? Do we call up another 100,000 or 200,000? Do we institute a draft then? Maybe we could just dust off the B-52s and bomb Tehran or Damascus at Christmas-time.

I’m personally opposed to a draft, and I don’t believe that we’ll see one anytime soon. But that doesn’t negate the value of the political theater.


Comment by
COD
November 22nd, 2006
at 8:41 am

What Rangel is doing is wasting time and money. The Republicans called his bluff last year and brought his draft proposal up for a vote. It lost 402-2. Rangel voted against the bill he sponsored. Political theater or full of shit. Take your pick on the term.


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
November 22nd, 2006
at 10:28 am

Not exactly. The GOP used a parliamentary maneuver to vote on the bill without hearings. Rangel wants to hold hearings and get the generals to testify where the 100,000 would have to come from.

It’s high risk politics, no doubt.


Comment by
Tim
November 22nd, 2006
at 2:33 pm

Maybe I’ve missed an article or two, but I haven’t seen any quote of Rangel saying we don’t have enough troops to send more to Iraq without a draft. What I do see Rangel saying is this:

“The question of whether we need a universal military draft will be important as long as this country is placing thousands of young men and women in harm’s way in Iraq. As long as Americans are being shipped off to war, then everyone should be vulnerable, not just those who, because of economic circumstances, are attracted by lucrative enlistment bonuses and educational incentives.”

Now this whole “only the poor and uneducated people join the military” idea may be popular on the left, but it’s far from accurate. According to Bill Carr, deputy undersecretary of defense for military personnel policy:

“Two-thirds of our recruits are from the top half aptitude (range), whereas an average or equitable share would be only half. Moreover, we draw disproportionately from the middle class and the upper class. The underrepresented (in the military) are the poor. A draft would only shift the burden toward the poor.”