Playing With Fire

Several people have written to inform me that Charlie Rangel’s draft proposal is merely a ploy to make war supporters squirm. Well, if it’s a ploy, then Rangel is playing with fire, because there are plenty of liberals out there who have rushed to defend his proposal on egalitarian grounds – and there are plenty of right-wingers who will be happy to read those arguments back to the libs when the Pentagon finally decides it needs more fodder than it can hoodwink into voluntarily enlisting.

Moreover, unless Rangel is simply a liar, it’s not a ploy:

“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq … if, indeed, we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,” Rangel said Sunday.

Rangel floated the same idea in Congress two years ago, but ended up voting against his own bill, along with 401 other Congress members, when the measure came up just before the presidential election.

At the time, he accused Republicans of rushing it out as a stunt against Democrats instead of giving it a legitimate hearing.

But the soon-to-be chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee said Sunday a draft bill will be no stunt this time, insisting he’s very serious about it.

“You bet your life; underscore serious,” Rangel said on CBS’ Face the Nation Sunday.

Fortunately, Rangel’s constituents, unlike sophisticated liberal know-it-alls, seem duly alarmed:

Along 125th Street in New York City on Sunday, Rangel’s draft plan was met mostly with derision.

“What, he was smoking pot or something?” said 58-year-old James Brown.

“He doesn’t represent the people of Harlem if he’s for the draft,” Neil Davis, 48, said.