So, Nancy. Impeachment is off the table but the draft is on?

[pnwmom]

This isn't why we elected Democrats. And if you don't know this then watch out for 2008.

[demnan]

1. If the Dem leadership approves more

and not less involvement in Iraq, I'm going to have to find a different party!

[pnwmom]

19. Me, too.

Or country.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. You don't get it

do you?

Impeachment isn't on the table, because it's still in the oven. It won't be ready until January when the DEMS take back control of Congress.

As for the Rangel bill, do you have a link for a statement from Pelosi or her stand on the issue?

[Just-plain-Kathy]

So Pelosi lied or spinned the truth when she said,

"Impeachment's off the table"?

I have a son who I don't want drafted. I live in a republican neighborhood where I talked a lot of parents of draft aged sons to vote democratic. How can I look these people in their eyes again.

Draft? It's not a word to play around with. It could pass. Some democrats along with republicans (who could voted for it 100%) because democrats would never gain the White House if we brought back the draft.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. I don't think she lied

Impeachment isn't on the table because it is not her job to put it there. It is up to Congress to investigate and when they've documented enough evidence to call for impeachment. None of this can even start to happen until January. In the meantime, the only thing Pelosi took off the table was a campaign issue that the Swift Boaters would have gone nuts over.

[pnwmom]

20. I agree with you 100%. The average voter doesn't hang around on DU.

It's asking way to much to expect them to think that Rangel's proposal is just some chess move.

They're going to hear about this and think the Democrats have gone to the dark side.

[OzarkDem]

41. How is Pelosi connected to it?

This is Rangel's proposal.

[pnwmom]

52. Once Rangel put it on the table, it was her job to take it off.

I'm thankful that she did.

She's involved because, as Speaker of the House, she's responsible for everything the Democrats do.

[OzarkDem]

40. Welcome to DU!

Couple of things:

1. Impeachment of Bush has nothing to do with whether your son will get drafted

2. Pelosi has nothing to do with Rangel's talk of reinstating the draft. She's not on record anywhere supporting his proposal.


I'm not sure why you tried to link Pelosi to the draft and your GOP neighbors. Can you enlighten us?

[Just-plain-Kathy]

47. Thank you for the welcome OzarkDem,

You call for some enlightenment about my remark? Just like your post popped up as a response to the original post, mine did the same. ...I know you were addressing me only because your post came to my DU page as a reply.

The post before mine spoke of Pelosi and impeachment. The conversation split into two directions.

I never said Pelosi had anything to do with the draft. I am mad about Pelosi's saying "impeachment is off the table", especially after all the talk about subpoena power and accountability.

This administration hurt us far more than Osama or Saddam ever did, and they'll walk.

[pnwmom]

12. No link. But it's on the table if Rangel says it is because

he's the Chairman of the Ways and Means committee.

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. It's on Rangel's table then

not Pelosi's.

There a big difference.

[pnwmom]

21. It's up to her to rein him in. And she better do it NOW.

[DoYouEverWonder]

24. Oh please

I guess you would rather have Hassert back?

[pnwmom]

28. That is my point. If the Democrats get associated with a draft

they can forget coming back in 2008.

[maddiejoan]

3. Are you presuming to speak for me?

I don't recall sharing my views on these issues with you before.

[pnwmom]

13. No. But there are plenty of other "we's" out there who would support me.

I don't care if you do.

[maddiejoan]

18. Great.

Your post implies some sort of lock-step thinking denotes a "true" Democrat.

I have big problems with that mentality --and BTW --you should care what other's think.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

4. Don't get the horse before the cart...

... the proper investigations and procedures must be performed and followed before any serious impeachment proceedings can occur. No kangaroo court is wanted or needed. As with nearly everything wrong with the Bushco misAdministration, a legal investigation will shine some sunlight on what has occured and start the cleansing.

[rodeodance]

5. I do not think impeachment should be off the table.

[Skinner]

6. Link, please.

When did Pelosi say that a draft was on the table?

[Kagemusha]

8. Just IMHO, she should say that it isn't, if it isn't

Having the incoming Chairman of Ways and Means - no small, insignificant job - pronounce this on one of the main Sunday talk shows makes Rangel the face of the party on this until someone makes him not the face of the party on this. I don't expect that to happen but, in the past, the Republicans were in charge of the House and could be trusted to make Rangel's proposals insignificant because they were inconvenient for the Republican Party. The public can't rely on the likes of (and I choke as I speak these words) Hastert and DeLay to protect them from a draft.

While your point is a fair question, I don't think that it's politically responsible for Pelosi to say nothing and take the stance that this has nothing to do with her; silence is acquiescence for something this central to the Iraq debate.

[pnwmom]

23. Exactly. Her silence will be taken as her acquiescence. She must speak out.

[Lasher]

9. I believe the implication is that Pelosi's for it since she's in charge

Rangel has not been challenged by her as far as I now.

[Kagemusha]

14. The implication will remain unless and until Pelosi decides to deny it

And since the former minority leaders of the House and Senate loudly insisted that Howard Dean is not a spokesman for the party, she's as good of one as there exists, and her silence will speak volumes. We could argue about whether or not this is fair but it's way besides the point. Rangel used a megaphone. If Pelosi has a problem with that, she should speak. If she doesn't, silence will speak for itself. ...Not for our sakes, but because this draft meme is quickly becoming conventional wisdom and media reality and that may not be the best thing for the House majority or the party in general.

[pnwmom]

15. If Rangel says it is, then it is. He's the Chair of Ways and Means.

[Skinner]

25. Ways and Means is the tax committee.

Rangel is a powerful guy, but he can't possibly make the draft happen. IMHO, the reason Pelosi has not bothered to respond is because everyone in Washington knows a draft isn't going to happen, and there is no point in raising the profile of this issue by responding.

[pnwmom]

27. The profile has been raised already. Just google Rangle.

She needs to take a strong position against a draft before this gets out of hand.

[Skinner]

38. This story is going to go away very soon.

It'll occasionally flare up for a day at a time when Rangel decides to do so. But this is not a story with legs, and it is not going to dominate the news coverage for long.

[pnwmom]

53. It WILL go away now that Madame Speaker has spoken.

[Kagemusha]

30. Well, guess we'll have to agree to disagree on your 2nd sentence

I just don't think "everyone knows it isn't going to happen" is going to be enough to stop this feeding frenzy now that Rangel's tossed a CSI extra into the water. We'll know soon enough, for better or worse.

[mtnsnake]

33. If "everyone in Washington knows a draft isn't going to happen"

then what does that make Rangel? Someone who's just talking out of his ass?

[pnwmom]

35. And everyone on Main Street, America doesn't know a draft won't happen.

And millions of them are wondering why they voted for the party if they're just as bad as the war mongering Republicans.

[Lasher]

45. And that in a nutshell is the big problem with this.

The corporate media has been looking for excuses to give us a bloody nose and we just handed them one.

[Skinner]

37. No. It doesn't mean he is talking out of his ass.

It means he is a politician. Legislation with no chance of winning is introduced *all the time* in Congress. They do it so they can tell the voters back home that they did it.

[ima_sinnic]

7. so you insist on misinterpreting Rangel's bill as "dems are for a draft"?

I'm getting REAL tired of the constant willful ignoring of the motivation and implications of Rangel's bill. It has only been around since 2002 and has worked well since then to dissuade anybody, R or D, to initiate any kind of attempt to institute a draft. He jumped in before the Rs could set up an unfair, discriminatory system that would exclude their own little darling future fascists. It brings to a head the question: if, as some insist, we are supposed to stay in Iraq and fight until we "win," where will those warm bodies come from? It forces those who want to stay and fight to consider that even the rich and privileged will have to pitch in and make the sacrifice.

To avoid a draft, JUST SAY NO to any further funding of Bush's folly. Piddling around with skeletal forces is good for nothing, so if people are determined to stay in there, there will have to be a draft.

[pnwmom]

16. Doesn't matter what I think, or you think. The Republicans are already

spinning it that way. Read the headlines. And the American public has already shown how easily it is misled.

[Lasher]

22. That's not the point as far as I am concerned

A lot of others will interpret what they hear as, "Democrats want to start up the draft." Lots of people will form their opinions about this from little more than sound bites. As such, they will miss distinctions such as how drafting people to prevent war is different from having sex to promote virginity.

I get your point about how Rangel jumped in with a draft plan of his own before Republicans could come up with one that was worse. But I don't understand why he has to keep promoting his plan, now that we are in the majority.

Inequality in this respect is a good point to make, but this is a bad way to try to make it.

[pnwmom]

26. Thanks for the comic relief, Lasher.

I needed that.



"As such, they will miss distinctions such as how drafting people to prevent war is different from having sex to promote virginity."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Lasher]

43. You're welcome, looks like we'll need some relief.

I saw on the news (CNN, I think) where they're warming up to a Rangel interview later on today. They said they were wondering if he also has a plan for raising taxes.

[pnwmom]

54. Oh goody.

[formercia]

11. The Draft is just what we need

to give Fearless Leader the unlimited supply of cannon fodder he needs to invade the rest of the World.

The Elites will always find ways to keep their children out of the fray.

Rangel is right in that Blacks and minorities are over-represented in the military but they did it of their own free will. With the draft, free will is replaced by fear of incarceration. Throw in a recession to generate millions of more unemployed....there ya go...

[atreides1]

32. Elites will get their turn under the current system

"The Elites will always find ways to keep their children out of the fray."

Under the current Selective service system, there are no loop holes for the "Elites", or anybody else for that matter. Most exemptions are granted at the local board level, and even if little Johnny gets an exemption, his slot has to be filled by another little frat boy in the same local
area.

So if Johnny gets out of it, then his tennis partner Richie Rich gets to fill the slot!

Academic exemption only gives a student enough time to finish the current year that they are in, no longer the same as when George and Dick were students.

Before an exemption can be requested the draftee has to under go a military entry physical, so no more I have a "note form my doctor" crap. The MEPS medical personnel will determine whether someone
is physically able to serve or not.

And CO status? Not so easy any more!

[pnwmom]

34. And how many DU'ers want our kids put in the fray?

How many people who've never heard of DU voted for Democrats to get us out of Iraq -- not to draft their children ?

Millions of Americans are listening to Rangel and feeling betrayed.

[cali]

36. As the mother of a 20 year old son

I disagree with you completely. For the umpteenth time, Rangel is using a rhetorical divice to highlight repuke hypocricy, and instigate a dialog. Honestly, if you can't figure that out, your political IQ isn't even room temp.

[pnwmom]

39. He's got too much power now to use a rhetorical device.

That device could blow up in all of our faces. It already has. Read the headlines.

[formercia]

42. I don't even want to give Fearless Leader one iota

of slack. He has proven himself to be morally and intellectually dishonest.

As for Rangel, a scrutiny of his bona fides will show there is another hidden agenda at play.

[mtnsnake]

29. No kidding. It's like who the heck did we just vote for?

Here we are, thinking we just got done winning the huge battle of right vs wrong in Election 2006, and the first few things we hear out of the mouths of our spokespeople are that impeachment's off the table and one of our Reps is pushing for the Draft. WTF??

IMO, if Pelosi couldn't say anything positive about a future impeachment of Bush, she shouldn't have said anything. I don't see any reason for her to say how she feels about impeachment, one way or the other, before we've even taken power. At the very least, she should've simply left it up in the air. Let the Republican bastards wonder.

As far as the draft, no matter which way anyone is spinning it, the draft is not something any of us REALLY want to see. Having a draft means more war, and more war is not what Democrats have been pushing for. The people who marched during the times of Vietnam weren't marching because they liked the draft. A modern day draft wouldn't be any more fair than the draft that occurred during the times of Vietnam.

[pnwmom]

31. I think millions of Americans are wondering that now, mtnsnake. n/t

[oc2002]

44. the whole draft thing is nonsence.

it wont happen.

[sillyparty]

46. Did We Elect Them to Lie

Did the Dems come out for this. Or are you, lying?

[Kber]

48. Nancy doesn't support the draft proposal

"Pelosi said restoring the draft will not be on that list and was not something she supported."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000428.html

[pnwmom]

51. Right. I'm glad she came out with that today.

[onenote]

49. And the basis for your assumption is what?

Your post assumes that Pelosi will put the draft "on the table". Have any basis for that? Or are you just throwing around unfounded assumptions? Oh wait, Nancy has made it clear that Rangel's draft proposal is not on the agenda, so I guess we know the answer. Any more baseless speculation you want to offer up?

[pnwmom]

50. It WAS on the table because Rangel put it there. Now Pelosi's taken it off.

Good for her.

[warrens]

55. When did she say that?

Jeez, how about waiting until someone DOES something before accusing them of doing it?

[pat_k]

56. Politically deaf and dumb "strategerists"

Hey, they can keep the draft on the table (perhaps as national service, with armed services being a service option for which there is some major incentive).

Their failure to take up the fight for impeachment is far more damaging -- both to the party, and more importantly, to the nation.

Just posted the following on http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2978496&mesg_id=2980383">another thread.

The "wave" was a wave of outrage at Bush (The subtext? Impeach!)

The talking heads tell us the election was "all about about Iraq." Then they tell us it was "all about corruption."

There is a reason they are jumping around. It was "all about" one thing (that is, one PERSON).

The election was "all about" the nation's outrage at what Bush has done to our country. (See interview excerpts below)

The LAST THING angry voters were looking for was the sham of "bipartisanship" in Bush-World.

The message of this election: Be Gone Bush!

Do the Dems seize the moment and give voice to the outrage? No.

Do they give voice to what "Be Gone" actually means and take up the fight for impeachment? No.

Instead, they do the OPPOSITE. They do everything in their power to put the lid on the outrage. Instead of being champions of the People and the Constitution, they choose the path of "responsible" and tactical appeasement. (As they wipe their forheads in relief, believing they have dodged the Impeachment "bullet.")

Despite their BEST efforts to push the "Impeachment is BAD" propaganda they have only managed to get 44% of the electorate to say "Shouldn't Impeach." (And that 44% includes Dems who are simply following Pelosi's lead, but who would jump on the impeachment bandwagon in a minute if our so-called "leaders" woke up (http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Newsweek Poll)

Curtis Gans
Director
http://spa.american.edu/csae">Center for the Study of the American Electorate

On Politically Direct with David Bender
http://podcast.rbn.com/airam/airam/download/archive/2006/11/aapd111006.mp3">November 10th (Interview start time approx 18:30)

Bender: Joining me now is Curtis Gans. He is the Director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University and he has just released a new study analyzing the turnout this past Tuesday, and there's some interesting and there are some very, very interesting shifts in the turnout from previous elections. Welcome to Politically Direct . . .

Gans: It's very good to talk to you David.

Bender: Curtis, I'm holding the study in my hand right now, and clearly one of the things that all the exit polls showed was that Iraq played a part and your own work bears that out -- that Iraq helped propel some degree of an increase in turnout in this last election.

Gans: I think that it is not simply Iraq, although Iraq started Bush's downhill. But it is a gestalt around George Bush. it's being a pariah to other countries; it's people dying in what they increasing find is a vain fight; it's massive budgetary imbalances; it's a lack of compassionate conservatism; it's insecurity in jobs; it's the feeling that people have not been leveled with.

Bender: You've been doing this for almost 30 years; studying the American electorate. And there is probably no greater expert than you. It's just a real pleasure to have you on this program. . .

The prescription?

Gans: Traditionally, at least for the last 30 years, they have essentially been very tactical; very programmatic. I don't think either one of those works. I think they have to have an articulation of Central American principles and what that means within a progressive Party.

. . .You know, what is a Democratic definition of liberty? What is Democratic definition of the common welfare? Etc.

Bender: This is a moment, clearly -- the people voted for accountability, there's no question about that. And the opportunity to show that the Democratic Party is the Party of the Constitution, I think will be a very popular position across the board, particularly with Independents, and maybe even some Republicans who still love this Constitution.

Gans: The concept of the Constitution and the People's Government is something that can unite the Democratic Party in ways it hasn't been united since the late 1960's
. . .

How can the Democrats become the Party of "the Constitution and the People's Government" if they continue to adhere to their self-imposed "impeachment is off limits" edict?

It is impossible.

A laundry list of legislation while people are being tortured in our name, and the "tactical" sham of committing to "bipartisanship" in Bush-world, is the opposite of what this nation needs. It is the opposite of what the Democratic Party needs to be if they are to have any hope of inspiring and engaging the electorate.

Wake Up Dems! http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0511-29.htm Truth Matters!>

Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda

[LittleClarkie]

57. Nancy says a draft is off the table not on

Your OP is inaccurate.