What is the story behind the lopsided vote against the draft bill? Wasn't it brought up for a vote by Tom DeLay? It is really weird that there were only two votes for it and neither of those was from Charles Rangel, who sponsored the bill.

Being the unbiased journalist that you are, could you please explain in detail what happened?

Also, what do we do if we don't have enough volunteer soldiers?

Simple: The Democrats sponsoring the bill didn't want to vote for it before the election, and so the Republicans smartly brought it up for a vote now to kill the proposal, and to make it clear that the GOP does not favor and will not pass a draft. Simple fact is, if the GOP retains a majority in the House, there will not be a draft. But if Democrats are allowed to regain a majority, they might push this legislation again, in order to help John Kerry (if he wins) get the additional 40,000 troops he says he wants to add to the military.

Hey, SemiPundit, how much do you get paid to troll?

Do I not meet your intellectual standards?

I'm not sure that this matter is as simple and straighforward as it has been presented here. I think that the whole thing was some sort of technical maneuver. Mr. Rangel, at his congressional website, has posted a comment on the vote--something about it being a vote to place the bill on the Suspension Calendar. I'm not sure what that means.

No, I don't get paid. I make my living in other ways and, frankly, don't have the time it must take to really do a bang-up job on this stuff. I still enjoy participating.

Here is the text of Mr. Rangel's statement at his Congressional website:

WASHINGTON, October 5, 2004 -- 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.

I am voting no, because my bill deserves serious consideration. 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.

But what we are seeing now is election-year politics. They are using the Suspension Calendar, which is reserved for non-controversial items, to make a cynical political statement. The American people are deeply concerned about this issue deserve more than this. So do our troops, who after we leave here today, will still be on ground, and left with the message that we couldn't take the time to discuss their situation and what should be done to relieve them.

This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. I would not encourage any Democrat running for reelection to vote for this bill.

Clearly, Mr. Rangel - a DEMOCRAT - believes a draft to be an "option." Just as clearly, he urged his fellow DEMOCRATS to vote against it not because they ARE against it but because it was politically bad timing to be FOR it. And just as clearly the Bush administration and President Bush himself have stated unequivocal opposition to having a draft.

The Democratic Party was caught trying its usual scare tactics, trying to scare college kids about a non-existent plan for a draft just as they for years have scared seniors with claims that the GOP had a plan to kill Medicare or Social Security or possibly even grandma herself.