Politics: Draft is a ‘third rail’ in campaign discourse
The Springfield Journal-Register’s Bernard Schoenburg talked to a University of Illinois-Springfield professor about the 18th District Congressional race. He said the draft is worthy of discussion, which is what Colleen Callahan tried do when she replied to a reporter’s question. But Aaron Schock, the professor stated, demonstrated “his inexperience and lack of knowledge” be proposing the United States send nuclear weapons to Taiwan in an attempt to pressure China to not deal with terrorist-supporting nations. As I recall, the idea was soundly condemned by just about everyone. But because Schock made his comments during the primary months earlier, he won’t pay as heavy a price as Callahan likely will.
September 14th, 2008 at 2:22 am
It really doesn’t matter what either one thinks about nukes in Taiwan or bringing back the draft. Neither thought process has a chance in hell of getting through Congress. It just shows that they are a pair of knuckleheads on many levels. Aaron tends to run with his head straight down while Colleen is simply silly.
Either one will fit in quite well with our present Congress. However, Aaron has the race wrapped up, so the point is moot.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:38 am
What’s wrong with chalking these faux pas up to “inexperience”, or, “thinking out loud”? It doesn’t have to be some gigantic character flaw. Did you ever have a bad day? Seriously.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:34 am
So your defense of Callahan resorts to a comment from an academic and playing the Schock nuke card.
Solid.
September 14th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I would think that proposals for some sort of madatory service of a non-military nature woule be on shaky consitutional grounds. The constitution specifically gives congress the power to “raise and support armies.” However the 13th amendment forbids any form of “involuntary servitude” except as punishment for a crime. I don’t think the draft would ever fly today. A modern all-out war would be over before a conscript army couuld be raised and trained.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
The Constitution? How quaint. Who follows that anymore?
September 14th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
The only reason the draft is a “third rail” issue is because it is so nutty.
The military doesn’t want it. They want a larger sized army but not with a draft.
But the nutty aspects come regarding details of how this could be implemented.
If every 19 and 20 year old had to do two years of service, whether it was military or non-military, that would put all 19 and 20 year olds on the government payroll. How could our nation afford to pay the wages of every single 19 and 20 year old?
Future college credits? How does that pay the rent or for food and clothing? Military personnel get paid. So non-military people would need to earn wages also.
What if they have children? If 19 and 20 year olds who were parents got a pass then there would be a huge new incentive to become teenage parents.
What would happen to colleges? Suddenly take away all 19 and 20 year olds for two years and you have half empty colleges for two years. Who would pay for that?
What would we do with the millions of 19 and 20 year olds who don’t think anyone ought to tell them how to live their lives and would defend their freedom by not participating? Put them in jail? Don’t put them in jail and have almost all of them in non-compliance?
If you support this nutty idea, spell out exactly what the penalty would be for noncompliance.
The riots and civil disobedience this would cause by hijacking the lives of young adults for two years would paralyze our nation.
For those authoritarians who believe they know best, how would you like others to impose what they know to be right on you? Who the hell are you to say this is what young people need? Did you serve? You need to inspire young people to service in their own way instead of forcing them.
Unbelievable that some older women support this nonsense when they never had to serve in any way like this.
You are not ayatollahs to tell other people how to live or how to be patriotic.
This country was founded on liberty, not some telling others what they should do because they think it is a good experience.
This is nothing short of authoritarian fascism.
This mandatory service would apply to males and females.
Some older men served in the military but hardly any older females. So how do those people get off on telling the young what they ought to do for two years of their lives? Who gives you that right? If you never served how dare you tell others they MUST serve. And remember, a government who compels the activity of 19 and 20 year olds for two years can compel your activity in some other way also—in the name of patriotism.
Was Colleen Callahan in the Peace Corps? Did I miss something in her bio? Now that she is older, ya it’s easy to tell young women what they should do even though she didn’t. Hypocite.
Is she proposing only young men, or men and women be forced to be paid volunteers for the government? No matter who else she knows that served, she did not.
Let Freedom Ring. This idea is boneheaded.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Funny how the Republicans seem to agree it’s a dumb idea when the other side says it, but not when McCain openly supports it (as he said on 8/20/08). Way to win, Republicans.