More Spin

I was doing a little research after a friend indicated that the Bush Administration was trying to push for reinstatement of the draft.



Senate bill 89

Title: A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (None)

Related Bills: H.R.163

Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.





House bill 163

Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (14)

Related Bills: S.89

Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.



The problem is that both Hollings and Rangel are democrats.



So why is the rumor that the Bush administration wants it? Yesterday's editorial by Rekha Basu provides some insight. She acknowledges that the only bills up now regarding the draft are from Dems. She wonders in print how this morphed into a rumor about the Bush administration reinstating the draft. She even analyzes the motives of the democratic sponsors of the bills:

"Why would a liberal Democrat, whose district includes a disproportionate number of poor people and people of color, favor a draft during such a controversial war? Rangel argues that without one, poor and working-class people from inner cities and rural areas are disproportionately the ones who fight and die. A draft, he has said, would help balance that."

But she ends the article with this:

"But Harkin's press secretary, Maureen Knightly, says it's the path Bush is inevitably heading us down. "If George W. Bush is re-elected, there's no guarantee of what could happen - particularly as the National Guard and reservists are being stretched so thin, and re-extended," she said.



Could it come to that?



If it does, the Iraq war will start to look a lot more like Vietnam. And imagine what that could set off in an America already deeply divided by the war, and just about everything else."

So the only sponsors of bills to reinstate the draft are democrats, the Bush administration denies any intentions to reinstate the draft, but because democratic spokespeople say Bush is likely to reinstate the draft, it must be so?



Playing this story so soon after the Dan Rather memos could become a problem for Kerry, if the story is as loudly and publicly debunked as that one was.



When pundits play on the emotions of the voters by focusing on sensational stories that are then proven false, the question is what sticks in the voter's mind: the story, or the debunking? It it's the original false story, you're fine. But if it's the debunking, the voter is going to be much more likely to write off any valid criticisms as if they're just another fake. A calculated risk.