The paradigm shift gear grind.

[lumberjack_jeff]

What was once okay, is now, not.

When you're the opposition party, you can suggest goofy and unpopular things like a draft to illustrate the hypocrisy of the ruling party.
When you're the opposition party, committee membership often goes under the radar, particularly if the ruling party are outright criminals.
When you're the opposition party, no one cares that personal animosity among the leadership plays a large role in committee assignments.
When you're the opposition party, no one cares that there is a diverse message.

Times change. We run congress.

We have a clear, consistent message, embodied in Pelosi's 100 hour promise. Charlie, stop interrupting. You'll get your turn.

Rattling the bars is best done when you're inside the cage, trying to distract those who roam free. Running things is a different game.

[HereSince1628]

1. Verily. Amen and Amen!

[Wickerman]

2. It's my hope that mere discussion of the draft

raises consciousness enough of the injustice of having "others" do the work most won't that it will speed the end of this travesty.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Doing bad things because of the possibility for tangential benefit...

is a problematic approach.

[Wickerman]

4. its being discussed

and that is more than 3+ years of sacrifice of the working poor has gotten us so far.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. It's being RIDICULED.

Charlie doesn't need to be outrageous to call attention to Democratic causes. The election did that.

[Wickerman]

8. Maybe he 's more interested in solutions

than politics? I'm tired of play it safe politicians and support direct, hardcore attacks against hypocrisy instead of play it safe, don't give anyone any reason to get annoyed stances like we've witnessed for the last 6 years.

So he's attracting some negative press from the usual sources? Boo-hoo. Like they aren't going to go negative on the Dems anyway. :eyes: Might as well have it happen on something that will expose people's double standard on.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Proposing something you know won't pass, for the stated purpose of

... promoting it's opposite, to me is the definition of politics.

Hardball politics, ie wrapping wildly unpopular legislation with something hard to argue against, is justifiable, if successful.

Proposing to draft people's kids into a war they don't support is not. It doesn't catalyze discussion about a republican war, it causes people to freak out, having voted in the hope that a shift in power could help end it, only to find that it's being escalated.

[Wickerman]

10. I guess we'll agree to disagree

but I for one am tired of seeing our underclasses being used where the rest of society refuses to tread. Not supporting a draft says its ok to continue to support a back door draft. The threat of a draft would force pols to be more responsible to their "choice" wars - and almost all wars these days are the result of choice or incompetence.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. ... and disagreeing is okay.

I think that creating a draft which exempts no one, not by gender and not by privilege, is politically impractical. It won't happen. Any draft created today will have loopholes exempting those who wouldn't have volunteered anyway.

I think our efforts are better spent improving the care, pay, protection and benefits that the privileged must pay to those who volunteer to fight on their behalf. At least then society is giving soldiers an avenue to attain privilege, if only for their own kids.

[bananas]

15. 41% od DUers are in favor of it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2760029&mesg_id=2760029

[OneBlueSky]

6. amen, amen, amen . . . n/t

.

[EstimatedProphet]

7. Yeah, but we're still the opposition party

1) the new Congress hasn't taken office yet;
2) even when it does, the Bush administration and the media lackeys will still have a lot of public sway.

We won a couple weeks ago, but we're nowhere done yet. We're going to be out of power for some time.

[bobbolink]

12. So, anyone you disagree with is "outrageous"?

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. No, I said "goofy"

A person who promises to end war by creating a bigger army of conscripts is goofy. "Outrageous" in the context of a subsequent post, is a legitimate tactic to bring attention to an issue. I don't think that the Iraq occupation suffers from social inattention.

"Orgasms for peace" is outrageous. Sadly it also has the handicap of being goofy.

Rangel's idea is the political equivalent of playing chicken against a crazy person, but with all your kids in the car. If you're for peace, you have more to lose from a draft than those who are not.

[bobbolink]

14. So, "goofy", "outrageous"... any other epithets you want to heap

on your fellow Dems?

And this differs from RW name-calling...how?

[bloom]

16. Rangel proposed the draft 2 years ago

he may have been doing it every year.

The difference is that now with the dems in control - it worries more people. (though it worried people then, too).