« Fox Nixes O.J. Book Deal and Special | Main | Mexican Leftist Lopez Obrador Refuses to Go Away »

Nancy Pelosi Kills Charlie Rangel's Draft Bill

As I said yesterday, this bill would be political suicide, which Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi is fully aware of. So she killed it:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said Monday Rep. Charlie Rangel's, D-New York, call for a reinstatement of the draft is something he has long championed to promote shared sacrifice. But Pelosi, having just concluded a meeting with incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, to discuss the Democratic agenda, said the leadership will not support the measure.


"It's not about a draft it's about shared sacrifice in our country," Pelosi told reporters in her Capitol Hill office. "Mr. Rangel will be very busy with his work on the Ways and Means Committee which jurisdiction is quite different, but he is a strong voice for social justice in our country. And that's a way to make a point that this war has not involved or made any shared sacrifice."

When asked directly if she supported the measure, Pelosi said "No. No."

The phrase "shared sacrifice" sounds like it has the makings of a new Democrat buzzword. Will they invoke it as a justification for raising taxes?


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nancy Pelosi Kills Charlie Rangel's Draft Bill:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Rahm Emanuel, Architect for Democratic Rebound

» A Blog For All linked with Wrangling on Rangel

Comments (45)

Incoming speaker makes her ... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Incoming speaker makes her first smart decision. Let's see if she can follow it up with others.

Maybe Pelosi has been readi... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Maybe Pelosi has been reading WizBang and could see what a stupid idea Rangel was pushing.

She didn't have to read it ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

She didn't have to read it here. Everyone, including Democrats, knew it was a stupid idea.

That "shared sacrifice" phr... (Below threshold)
JimK:

That "shared sacrifice" phrase is definitely worrying. I can absolutely see it being used to try to justify a tax hike.

The quote, 'we're going to ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

The quote, 'we're going to take from you for the common good' has already came out of the dim's mouth to cover the massive tax increases they have planned.

Don't blame me, I voted republican.

The Dim's bought a dangerous non-returnable item with a two year shelf life.

This election is more fun every day.

The dim's proposals are in a pattern like they were fired from a 10Ga shotgun with an open choke. Splattered all over the area.

Maybe Pelosi has been re... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Maybe Pelosi has been reading WizBang and could see what a stupid idea Rangel was pushing.

Or maybe she remembers when Rangel pushed it in January, 2003, and it was defeated 402-2. Even Rangel, showing what an idiot he is, voted against his own bill. Anyone who thinks any Democrats were behind Rangel on this one is very misinformed. No one, including Rangel himself, wants a draft. He just thinks it's a good way to highlight the fact that black recruits are a disproportionately larger portion of the armed forces than the general population. He claims it's minorities, and not just blacks, but that's just not true (yes, I just linked to the Heritage Foundation). Rangel's position is not the Democrats', it isn't even that of the Black Caucus. There's certainly plenty of reasons to criticize the policy proposals of the Democrats (especially if you wait until their session actually begins), but when you pretend that one nutbag among them represents the positions of the group you just sound stupid.

shared sacrifice, eh? I gu... (Below threshold)

shared sacrifice, eh? I guess if you make over about $50K a year you'd better get used to "sharing"...as in, you give and others get what you give. That always works so well.

mantis uttered:<block... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

mantis uttered:

He just thinks it's a good way to highlight the fact that black recruits are a disproportionately larger portion of the armed forces than the general population.

Uh... according to the statistics provided by the CRS report dated June 8, 2006 less than 10% of the soldiers who have died in Iraq have been black. Yet, according to the CIA, blacks represent 12.9% of the U.S. population. What's Rangel's point again ?

Well, if you look at the He... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Well, if you look at the Heritage study you will find that there's a higher percentage of blacks in the military than the general population. Whites are represented proportionally and other minorities in lower proportions. Why a smaller percentage of blacks are getting killed in Iraq I have no idea. That's actually very interesting and I'm curious about it.

In any case Rangel's point is that he sees injustice in the fact that blacks are in the military in greater proportion than the general population. He ignores that the groups that enlist is smaller proportions are other minorities, and he ignores what is the real reason, which is economic (though less so, lately). In any case I said he was an idiot, and I'm not defending his position, just trying to point out his real motives (pandering to his constituency).

(preying) mantis you sound ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

(preying) mantis you sound just like p'p' (lee lee)- hmmmm anyone seen "pucker puss" (lee lee) lately

Charlie Rangel is undoubted... (Below threshold)

Charlie Rangel is undoubtedly the most moronic asshat in the universe.

He doesn't sound like Lee a... (Below threshold)

He doesn't sound like Lee at all.

Anyhow, to the extent that poorer people join the military it's because they see it as an opportunity. JUST like anyone else. The Heritage Foundation numbers compared geographical demographic areas, by fifths, and found that only something like 13% come from the poorest area (20% of the population by definition). High school drop outs or anyone with police involvement or who can't pass a urine test... don't get in.

I think that the reason why blacks are killed in Iraq at lower than their numbers in the military is that, particularly in the Army, you get to chose your MOS and blacks don't chose combat specialties at an equal rate as they enlist. My guess... maybe there's numbers someplace to test it. If blacks are viewing military service as an opportunity it makes sense to chose something with more of a civilian application than infantry.

Which would go for all poorer people of any race who primarly join for civilian application of their training. Is it possible that the breakdown of those going into exclusively "military" jobs are from higher economic backgrounds, no matter their race? It would be an interesting question.

Rangel's draft and his reasoning are insulting to each person's right to make decisions about their own life. Unless blacks aren't qualified?

People with NO options, don't go... not of any race. Anyone who can get in the military does have other options... they've kept their nose clean and finished high school. If they decide that among the options they have that the military offers them the prefered opportunity, they should be able to make that choice without having someone like Rangel or people who think like him, try to tell them that he knows better than they do about what is good for their lives.

All anti-recruiting is exactly that...I'll decide for you, what is best, because I know better than you.

It's insulting. It's controlling. It's not "liberal" in any real sense of the word.

Michele Malkin has a Charli... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Michele Malkin has a Charlie Rangel rant posted and a challenge for someone to figure out what the he** he's saying. There won't be two opinions within 50 miles of each other. I'll bite, he excaped from a rubber room and is looking for the way back.

I agree with Rangel's point... (Below threshold)
John:

I agree with Rangel's point.

He knows that this is going nowhere, but he's trying to make a point, and trying to get some press on this issue.

The problem is that the people asking for and profiting off this war are not the same people being asked to pay the ultimate price.

Out of the entire congress, how many have a child in Iraq. One or two?

Out of the Administration, how many used deferments or political connections to weasle out of service?

Back in the business world, we call this having "Skin in the Game".

I have no respect for people that don't have skin in the game.

My son is 15. He want's to be a sniper. That's fine. I've introduced him to a professional sniper. And a medevac corpsman. And a Vietnam vet with enough metal inside to set off metal detectors at the airport.

And that's cool, if he wants to be a sniper. He's a good shot.

He also want's to be a rock star, and a video game designer.

I think it's a great idea to get a step up on a career, and discipline. I think that he could learn a great deal from the military.

On the other hand, I would not support him being sent into the meat grinder.

That's why I want all our battles to be chosen wisley. I think that's what Rangel is getting at.

When it's YOUR son or daughter being fed into the meat grinder, You're going to demand answers to the tough questions. The questions that should have been asked anyway. I don't think that that's a bad thing.

How could it be?

John

Because we don't need a dra... (Below threshold)

Because we don't need a drastically larger military.

That's why it wouldn't work, John. It wouldn't make more people feel a personal risk it would just make *different* people feel a personal risk. It would be an anxiety that maybe your kid would bet called up... and that would frighten everyone.

Our soldiers are volunteers. All of them. Do *they* or their families need this extra insight into the risk of war? If people do not feel enough confidence in the way our military is used THEY WON'T JOIN. So there is, actually, an immediate corrective element already in place. Recruiting levels, even with increases, meet goals. More notably, reenlistment rates meet goals.

What is gained by making every parent of every child, *particularly* those parents of those people who absolutely don't want to go and are not suited in any way, afraid?

Will wars get undertaken with more care? Do you think, perhaps, that THOSE PARENTS would ever EVER want their child to go to war and maybe get hurt or killed? Trust me... no war, no decision, will convince those people that it's okay to send their children.

The THING, the thing that is so upsetting to some is that we don't NEED the draft. We have enough volunteers during war time to manage without one (and as someone on Blackfive pointed out... what we actually need is senior level NCO's, not draftees).

A draft is a proclamation that public support for a war doesn't exist.

Rangel would like to make that perception true.

There's certainly ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
There's certainly plenty of reasons to criticize the policy proposals of the Democrats (especially if you wait until their session actually begins), but when you pretend that one nutbag among them represents the positions of the group you just sound stupid.

Looks like you drafted another straw man. When you argue with your own straw man you really look stupid.

If I remember correctly the... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

If I remember correctly the draft was in during Vietnam and the same complaint was around then. There is too many Blacks in the military. What was wrong with the draft then? The rich left wing dim's didn't serve because they ran to Canada?

People are really stupid. We have a volunteer military that is working better than any military in history. The only reason the dim's would want to screw with it is to screw it up. Are the members of the military in the way of your leaders planned coup? The young men and women in todays military sure won't follow the failed generals you are conspiring with, and it's doubtful many of them will follow a dim of any stripe.

Rangel may be right. A draft may be essential after the 08 election. Only an uneducated fool would join up if there is a dim president. Conscription/Slavery will be the only way to fill the ranks.

I highly recommed that anyone in the military arrange their discharge/retirement for the first quarter of 09. If a dim is elected president you surely don't want to be a part of that. They'll put you in a combat situation and abandon you. History proves that. If you're planning on enlisting make sure it is for no longer than three years and out.

Out of the entire congre... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Out of the entire congress, how many have a child in Iraq. One or two?
Out of the Administration, how many used deferments or political connections to weasle out of service?

1. Sen Johnson (D-SD). Two more Congressmen had sons who reportedly were being sent to Iraq in late 2003 or early 2004: Representatives Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) and Duncan Hunter (R-California). In addition, there are some other members of Congress and the Bush administration with children or relatives serving in the military if not necessarily in Iraq. For example, Representative Mark Kennedy (R-Minnesota), who was seen in Fahrenheit 9/11, reportedly has a nephew serving in Afghanistan, and one of his four children reportedly was thinking of joining the navy. (Former) Attorney General John Ashcroft's son Andrew also reportedly has served in the Navy in the Persian Gulf.

2. Zero, as most of the administration was of age after Vietnam. Cheney served in the Navy, and Bush in the Air Force. Neither had children in the military, but then neither did Kerry, Gore or Edwards have children in the military.

So, is there a point someplace, John?

Now, if you talk about the ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Now, if you talk about the former administration, Clinton used deferments and connections to weasel out of service. Is this the point you were trying to get across?

"The phrase "shared sacrifi... (Below threshold)
equitus:

"The phrase "shared sacrifice" sounds like it has the makings of a new Democrat buzzword. Will they invoke it as a justification for raising taxes?"

Didn't I hear recently that the bottom 40% of income earners pay virtually no taxes? I assume that "sharing sacrifice" means that we all pay our share. Then must this tax increase not include low-income earners?

Or could this be just another meaningless catch phrase?

The simple fact of the matt... (Below threshold)

The simple fact of the matter is that we haven't got enough troops to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan AND deal with a potential third war with either North Korea or Iran. The threats we face in this world are many and varied. After the events of 9/11, we simply can't afford to be complacent. If there were more people signing up voluntarily for the military this wouldn't be a problem. But unfortunately, there just aren't enough patriotic young Americans willing to serve their country right now. The time for a return of the draft is now.

Whats chucky rangle going t... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Whats chucky rangle going to do now it looks like the dems are already fighting amounst themselves

Not true Larkin, and in any... (Below threshold)

Not true Larkin, and in any case, someone should have told Clinton.

We've been increasing the total number in our armed forces *during war* at the same rate as Clinton reduced those force number during his term.

But we *still* have enough to fight if we have to. Iraq is primarily a ground war that involves primarily Army and Marines.

We *have* the military force we need, though, as Rummy said, you go to war with the military you have... and that will be the Navy and Air Force and if you think even for a moment that the Navy and Air Force are whimps, consider that what we're trying for in Iraq, for a lot of very good reasons, is a Light Touch.

If we MUST start on another front, the people who make that necessary will be very, very sorry.

The biggest reason, though,... (Below threshold)

The biggest reason, though, that a draft is idiotic, is that even if conscripted soldiers are given a magic pill to make them gung-ho, the bottleneck is training, experience, and a command structure to fit them all into as well as procurement... all those soldiers need gear, trucks, guns, armor, uniforms, and a seemless supply of housing and food.

There's a reason we aren't building force faster than Clinton reduced our military size.

James Cloninger writes... (Below threshold)
John:

James Cloninger writes

"Cheney served in the Navy, and Bush in the Air Force. Neither had children in the military, but then neither did Kerry, Gore or Edwards have children in the military.

"So, is there a point someplace, John?"

Well, I guess it's a different point, but this one would be that you need to brush up on your history.

Cheney did NOT serve in the Navy. Look up his bio. Cheney got 5 (FIVE) seperate deferments to AVOID going to Vietnam.

George W. Bush did NOT serve in the Air Force. His father had him sent to the Texas Air National Guard, where he flew training missions keeping Texas air space safe from the Viet Kong. When he left the Air National Guard, it was under "flight status revoked", and it seems that he never finished his obliglation. He was removed from his position as a pilot, regardless.

Brush up on your history.


Are the Viet Kong related t... (Below threshold)

Are the Viet Kong related to Donkey Kong?

Oops.. better brush up on your history. I wonder why they were referred to as "Charlie"?

Sorry, that should read Vie... (Below threshold)
John:

Sorry, that should read Viet Cong... As in Victor Charlie.

Synova:A... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Synova:

All anti-recruiting is exactly that...I'll decide for you, what is best, because I know better than you.

It's insulting. It's controlling. It's not "liberal" in any real sense of the word.

You'll find that I use the word Liberal (capital 'L') to describe the batch of leftist in this country. IMO, the leftist in this country are anything but liberal in the traditional sense of the word (i.e. lassiez faire). They political beliefs of the Liberal (capital 'L') have more in common with totalitarianism than they do with traditional liberalism.

If Wrangle was 'making a po... (Below threshold)
LJD:

If Wrangle was 'making a point', does he feel more important legislation, that actually does something positive, is less important, or can't he think of anything else?

John: How many time can you... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

John: How many time can you be wrong in one post.
George Bush did serve in the United States Air Force. His entire military record was released and copies of the assignment orders were there for all to see. All pilots we assigned as permanent party during training. Actually he has more active duty time than Hanoi John. You return to guard duty upon completion of training.

Removed from flight duty was a normal occurance since the war was over and he was not re-enlisting. He didn't take the flight phy, That avoided the cost of stupidity as the Dimmy administration did to me. Forced me to attend a 9 week school in another state, at a cost of thousands of dollars, after my application for retirement was approved.

National Guard duty completion was based on a point system and president Bush exceeded the required points every year.

On the other hand, Clinton deserted the country to avoid the draft, was tried, convicted, pardoned by Dimmmy. Hanoi John Kerry has several years of reserve comittment, show me a record where he completed one hour of that requirement. He did't and he won't let you see his military records, including the less than honorable discharge.

John and millions of dim's have been brainwashed by the liberal school system and the process was continued by the antique MSM. I don't believe in the tooth fairy and I don't believe one word from any of the MSM outlets or a dimwit.

It is real fun watching the dim's try to avoid the facts. The newly 'in charge' dim's are putting criminals in charge of rewriting the rules on what a crime is. Then they are in a pince, very few, if any of the dim's in congress aren't criminals. Keep on trying to divert people's attention from the dim crime maching by screaming Bush, Bush, Bush. Bad news boys and girls, President Bush can't run again and he is not going to declare martial law and take over the country. Anyone want to make a bet. I'll bet he doesn't go all over the world after he leaves office bad mouthing the sitting president as Dimmy and Slick have done. They are definetly the two worst (slime ball) presidents to ever enter the white house.

Keep up the comedy by appointing known criminals to high office to root out criminals, and we'll make sure the American people are watching real close. A laugh a day keeps the doctor away. So far in two weeks the dim's have provided enough laughs to last a year or more.

You should live in New Mexi... (Below threshold)

You should live in New Mexico... a judge lives rent free in a house aquired by the state for two years and gets traffic tickets and an arrest order cancelled for the guy who runs the agency who owns the house she lives in...

But she's sure that had nothing to do with it.

John: How many time can ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

John: How many time can you be wrong in one post.

Apparently not as many as you.

George Bush did serve in the United States Air Force.

Cite your source. No mention of it on the White House's biography of Bush site. No mention of it in Wikipedia. No hits in Google. Mo mention in the Air Force Times bio of Bush. Cite your source.

Removed from flight duty was a normal occurance

Not this way!

[Bush's] descent began when Bush apparently did not follow an order to report for his annual flight physical in May 1972, which got him grounded....

The first is a White House-released letter from the commander of the 147th Fighter Group, Col. Bobby W. Hodges, to its Texas higher command dated Sept. 5, 1972, with a subject line of "Suspension From Flying Status."

The letter documents the missed flight physical and the suspension, "effective 1 Aug 1972." A Sept. 29 order from the National Guard Bureau further confirms the missed physical and the suspension.

National Guard duty completion was based on a point system and president Bush exceeded the required points every year.

Oh really?

Another White House-released document shows a total of 56 points Bush apparently earned during this 12-month period, but it's awarded in one lump sum rather than credited for each training period. But this document also contains an error, listing Bush's status as "PLT On-Fly" -- meaning he was on flight status -- when he had not been for a year. This, said retired Army Lt. Col. Gerald A. Lechliter, who has done an in-depth analysis of Bush's pay records (www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lechliter.pdf), makes the form's authenticity suspect.

Hanoi John Kerry has several years of reserve comittment, show me a record where he completed one hour of that requirement.

Kind of like this?

On Sept. 5, Bush formally asked Killian for a discharge from the Texas unit so he could attend Harvard Business School in Cambridge, Mass....

Two months earlier, on June 30, Bush signed a statement promising that if he left his Texas Ready Reserve unit, "it is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve Forces unit...."

There is no record of Bush ever having signed on with a Massachusetts Reserve unit. In 1999, Dan Bartlett, working for the Bush campaign, told The Washington Post that Bush had completed his six-year commitment with a Boston unit. That didn't happen, Bartlett recently told The Boston Globe. "I must have misspoke," he said.

Anyway, not to rehash all that's been rehashed. But the facts are out there. I'm surprised you're still lying about it, much less baselessly accusing someone else of being wrong about the known facts.

ScrapIron,You're a... (Below threshold)
John:

ScrapIron,

You're a smart guy, but why can't you use some of that intelect trying to find out what's true and what's not.

I know you don't like the mainstream media, and prefer to get your news from blogs, but where do you think the bloggers get their news from?

Joe blogger can't afford to go to Washington to interview anybody, so he eiether gets it from the MSM, makes it up, or gets it from another blogger (who got it from the MSM or makes it up, or gets it from another blogger). Now repeat this cycle 10 times or so, and before you know it you've got stories about how the Clintons sold cocaine and stole the flatware from the Whitehouse on the way out.

Dude, you need to vet your sources. You need to get your news closer to the actual source, not this blog telephone game, and you need to start cross checking and doing critical thinking.

Unless you want to keep coming off as a lunatic.

I value your military service. I'm impressed that you're a volunteer fireman. On the other hand, it seems like you're drinking two pints of cough syrup before noon.

I don't suppose you're going to answer the rest of my reply to James Cloninger about how "Dick Cheney served in the Navy".

If you do, bring some facts to the party.

John

Nancy did not kill the bill... (Below threshold)
chris:

Nancy did not kill the bill because it was never alive. Almost no one want a return to the draft but Charlie's point is solid. If the politicians who have promoted this war had actually served, they would not have stuck with such a dumb policy.l

Cheney did NOT serve in ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Cheney did NOT serve in the Navy. Look up his bio. Cheney got 5 (FIVE) seperate deferments to AVOID going to Vietnam.
George W. Bush did NOT serve in the Air Force. His father had him sent to the Texas Air National Guard, where he flew training missions keeping Texas air space safe from the Viet Kong. When he left the Air National Guard, it was under "flight status revoked", and it seems that he never finished his obliglation. He was removed from his position as a pilot, regardless.

Okay, you got the point on Cheney, I must have had someone else in mind.

Re Bush: Okay, not the air force, but military service anyway.

Again, what exactly was your point with all this? Is it the old "you can't have an opinion on something unless you have done it?" Doesn't wash with me. Perhaps I really don't care if my president has ever served in the military or not. Hell, if Clinton who also avoided Viet Nam can be president, and who sent guys in to die in Kosovo, then why does one prior military status matter anymore?

Besides the Air National Guard is reserve component of the USAF, and flying a deathtrap like a Corvair F-102 ain't chump change in my eyes.

As far as his "never finished his obligation", he obtained permission to finish six months early to attend HBS. And if you are finishing early, of course you will have your flight status revoked, as would any other pilot not currently serving. But please feel free to couch your two quotes in scary quotes, because it at least beats using CAPS LOCKS TO SOMEHOW SHOW ONE'S SUPERIOR DEBATING SKILLZ.

If it sounds like I don't give a shit, it's probably because I don't.

James, you must have missed... (Below threshold)
John:

James, you must have missed Brian's well documented post just above about why Bush had his flight status revoked.

"[Bush's] descent began when Bush apparently did not follow an order to report for his annual flight physical in May 1972, which got him grounded....
The first is a White House-released letter from the commander of the 147th Fighter Group, Col. Bobby W. Hodges, to its Texas higher command dated Sept. 5, 1972, with a subject line of "Suspension From Flying Status."

The letter documents the missed flight physical and the suspension, "effective 1 Aug 1972." A Sept. 29 order from the National Guard Bureau further confirms the missed physical and the suspension."

I know you don't give a shit. It's because you're intellectually lazy. You think you know more than you do, and you're comfortable with that. It's because absorbing new information that conflicts with your preconceptions is hard for you.

And to think that someone who doesn't give a shit for facts and detail gets to vote.

Go figure.

John

I know you don't give a ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

I know you don't give a shit. It's because you're intellectually lazy. You think you know more than you do, and you're comfortable with that. It's because absorbing new information that conflicts with your preconceptions is hard for you.

Hey, John...
Don't presume to lecture me. I gave you props for the Cheney correction, and that's great. You still haven't really answered the question about the point of your line of argument. Don't presume either about my voting status, or whom I did or did not vote for, or for what as well. These "facts" have been disputed on both sides, and really, both sides could be given equal weight.
Argument of Ignorance---it hasn't been proved or disproved, and therefore you cannot assert it is true. Unlike some on this board I could mention, I am willing to have my mind changed give enough hard evidence to butress an idea. This bit about Bush is as old news as Clinton's blowjob, and since Bush isn't going to run for election again, what's the point? Your original quote:

Out of the entire congress, how many have a child in Iraq. One or two?
Out of the Administration, how many used deferments or political connections to weasle out of service?

...smacks of not only intellectual laziness, but
of some required prerequisite not enumerated in the Constitution. Said document does not require members of Congress to have a personal connection in order to pass some sort of legislative action. I could, by the same token, bitch about Congress raising taxes and spending it on worthless entitlement programmes when none of them have ever used said programmes or have excempted themselves of what they propose to saddle us with.

I seriously doubt Warren Buffett had politics in mind when he coined "Skin in the Game".

The whole point of the thread (and Rangel's actions) is a political ploy. That's it. He doesn't care about "shared sacrifice" He voted his own legislation down once before, as noted. It's a stunt, and even Pelosi knows it. The race-baiter from NY can stick his bill where the sun doesn't shine.

Which is the same place you can stick your assumptions, Thankyouverymuch.


Keep on defending the p... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Keep on defending the party of criminal frauds John. Explain the sealed portion of the Barrett Report or the failure of Fraud Kerry to release his entire Military Record. Or why BJ Clinton pardoned felons and criminal and even Mexican terrorists? Need I mention his crime partner/wife?

"And to think that someone who doesn't give a shit for facts and detail gets to vote.

Go figure."

No surprise democrats are proud of the fact that over 85% of felons vote for democrats. Why is that John?

"Out of the entire congress... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"Out of the entire congress, how many have a child in Iraq. One or two?"

Did John say this ? How lazy and stupid indeed. There are no children in or even allowed in the Military. Just another democrat feel good line from the party of emotional frauds. Do explain John.

The word "decent" is a clue... (Below threshold)

The word "decent" is a clue that the person reporting has come to a conclusion that, well, decent was involved.

I understand the motivation to try to portray Bush's guard service as somehow shameful. It's based on the idea (partly taken from the criticisms of Clinton when he ran for office) that avoiding Vietnam was shameful. (Previous presidents hadn't served in Vietnam either, IIRC, but in Korea or WW2 or whatever.) The problem with this, however, is that at no point did anyone try to claim Bush was a war hero (unlike the claim that Kerry was a super-duper military war hero). Unlike Kerry, Bush's National Guard service was not presented as the over riding qualification for his election. (When he was first elected no one expected us to be at war a year later.)

The biggest problem with criticisms of Bush's guard service, however, is that people with any familiarity with the National Guard aren't going to get all bent about the seemingly egregious rule breaking. I don't know how to explain it that won't sound like no one cares about the rules at all, but the fact is that there are rules and there are rules. The idea that a young LT could walk into his guard commander's office with a "howdy" and "you know where to find me" is entirely believable... as is the idea that a local guard unit might be all too happy to let a transfer's attendance slide because it saved them having to find him busy work. (As former enlisted I can really sympathize with avoiding an unnecessary young officer hanging around with nothing to do. Bored officers... *shudder*.)

National Guard service, as everyone today knows, doesn't save anyone from deployment. You get ordered to deploy you go. If your commander *wants* you at work, you go to work.

I know that lots of people have an idea of the military as a goose-stepping cadre of anal-retentive sorts on power trips but not even the pretend records of Rathergate, were they true, give me any idea at all that Bush in any way whatsoever EVER defied his commander's expressed wishes. The give me no idea, even if they were true instead of fabrications, that had Bush's guard commanders told him they expected him at roll call and had work for him to do that he would not have been spit and polish and on-time.

James, please go back and r... (Below threshold)
John:

James, please go back and re-read my origional post, and let me know what specific questions you have. I believe my point was clear, but if not, I will answer.

If it sounds like I don'... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If it sounds like I don't give a shit, it's probably because I don't.

Yes, your multiple multi-paragraph posts just scream out "I don't give a shit".

John:<br... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

John:


Joe blogger can't afford to go to Washington to interview anybody, so he eiether gets it from the MSM, makes it up, or gets it from another blogger (who got it from the MSM or makes it up, or gets it from another blogger). Now repeat this cycle 10 times or so

I believe you'll find that there are other methods of communication available than face-to-face meetings (phones, e-mail, etc). In fact if you bother to look around a little, I bet you'll find numerous conference calls between politicians and popular bloggers. The MSM used to be the sole source provider of information as your claiming it currently still is, but that's simply no longer the case.

Somebody ought to hand char... (Below threshold)
moseby:

Somebody ought to hand charlie rangel a mop and bucket so he can find his calling.

Republicans loss elections ... (Below threshold)
Joe Smoe:

Republicans loss elections because they don't do a good enough job of highlighting their own successes (i.e. the economy). Democrats loss elections because they don't do a good enough job of pretending to be Republicans.

The best way to ensure Republicans in power is just to show Americans the Democrats in action. Just keep showing Charlie Rangel, Nancy Polosi, Howard Dean, Jack Murtha, John Kerry in action, and the Republicans will easily retake control in 2008.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy