John Kerry’s Draft
In recent days Senator Kerry has made some REDICULOUS predictions as to what he thinks will happen if President Bush is reelected. One is so silly that I have a hard time believing that most in the news can repeat it without having to stifle a laugh.
The issue is the draft.
Senator Kerry and his supporters have been going around spreading a rumor that they KNOW TO BE FALSE! But they also know the emotional fallout from this political grenade, and cannot help themselves. They have to throw it.
They have been claiming a desire on the part of President Bush to instate a draft. To “prove” it they point to a bill pending in the House of Representatives. H.R. 163, introduced by Charles Rangel, a DEMOCRAT from New York, would have instated a draft had it been passed. Hey, wait a minute! A Democrat introduced the bill? Is it the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee being accused of wanting to institute a draft? How can a DEMOCRAT point his finger at a Republican for a bill introduced by a DEMOCRAT? How can a reporter talk about this without laughing?
It gets even FUNNIER! As we learned in school (those of us who paid attention) the purpose of introducing a bill in the House is to hopefully get a vote, and then hopefully get it passed into law, right? Well, Rep. Rangel was given a vote on HIS bill. HE voted AGAINST it! HE introduced a bill that HE DID NOT want to pass! Either that or he changed his mind from the time he introduced it until it came time for the vote. Then, he was mad that it came to the floor for a vote. He said, "It is a prostitution of the legislative process to take a serious issue and use it for political purposes on the eve of the election just to say they are against the draft." Many is the legislator who is upset at his opponents for keeping his bill from being voted upon, but I cannot recall the last time one was upset that his bill got a vote. Can you think of a reason for this? Could it be that the bill was introduced for the sole purpose of scaring voters into thinking that a draft may be needed if President Bush is re-elected, and therefore convince some to vote for Senator Kerry instead? Senator Kerry is a Democrat, as is Rep. Rangel. (Just in case you didn’t get that.) The bill went down in OVERWHELMING DEFEAT! 402 votes AGAINST, two votes for. Considering that Rep. Rangel introduced a bill HE DID NOT WANT TO PASS, and FOR WHICH HE DID NOT VOTE, who would you consider, in Rep. Rangel’s terminology, to be the “prostitute” in this political sideshow?
Do you think that Senator Kerry is correct in making these allegations? Should he have to back his allegations with more than a bill introduced by one of his Democratic buddies?
How many hours were wasted in the House of Representatives, how many dollars were wasted just so Rep. Rangel could perform his “prostitution of the legislative process”? Is that the kind of leadership for which the people of New York elected Rep. Rangel?
Read more about it and…
WOAI: SAN ANTONIO//NEWS
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
The issue is the draft.
Senator Kerry and his supporters have been going around spreading a rumor that they KNOW TO BE FALSE! But they also know the emotional fallout from this political grenade, and cannot help themselves. They have to throw it.
They have been claiming a desire on the part of President Bush to instate a draft. To “prove” it they point to a bill pending in the House of Representatives. H.R. 163, introduced by Charles Rangel, a DEMOCRAT from New York, would have instated a draft had it been passed. Hey, wait a minute! A Democrat introduced the bill? Is it the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee being accused of wanting to institute a draft? How can a DEMOCRAT point his finger at a Republican for a bill introduced by a DEMOCRAT? How can a reporter talk about this without laughing?
It gets even FUNNIER! As we learned in school (those of us who paid attention) the purpose of introducing a bill in the House is to hopefully get a vote, and then hopefully get it passed into law, right? Well, Rep. Rangel was given a vote on HIS bill. HE voted AGAINST it! HE introduced a bill that HE DID NOT want to pass! Either that or he changed his mind from the time he introduced it until it came time for the vote. Then, he was mad that it came to the floor for a vote. He said, "It is a prostitution of the legislative process to take a serious issue and use it for political purposes on the eve of the election just to say they are against the draft." Many is the legislator who is upset at his opponents for keeping his bill from being voted upon, but I cannot recall the last time one was upset that his bill got a vote. Can you think of a reason for this? Could it be that the bill was introduced for the sole purpose of scaring voters into thinking that a draft may be needed if President Bush is re-elected, and therefore convince some to vote for Senator Kerry instead? Senator Kerry is a Democrat, as is Rep. Rangel. (Just in case you didn’t get that.) The bill went down in OVERWHELMING DEFEAT! 402 votes AGAINST, two votes for. Considering that Rep. Rangel introduced a bill HE DID NOT WANT TO PASS, and FOR WHICH HE DID NOT VOTE, who would you consider, in Rep. Rangel’s terminology, to be the “prostitute” in this political sideshow?
Do you think that Senator Kerry is correct in making these allegations? Should he have to back his allegations with more than a bill introduced by one of his Democratic buddies?
How many hours were wasted in the House of Representatives, how many dollars were wasted just so Rep. Rangel could perform his “prostitution of the legislative process”? Is that the kind of leadership for which the people of New York elected Rep. Rangel?
Read more about it and…
WOAI: SAN ANTONIO//NEWS
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home