Republican representatives have forced a vote on Chuck Rangel’s bill to reinstitute a draft<\/a> and voted it down 402-2. Of course, activists who like the sound of that particular drum when they beat it disagree with what the legislative defeat really means:<\/p>\n But congressional Democrats and activists elsewhere denounced the vote as an empty exercise that trivialized what many Americans believe is a real possibility.<\/p>\n “They have used gamesmanship to give a false sense that there is not going to be a draft. Nobody wants a draft. But if you don’t have the manpower to confront the need, then there is no option,” said Bobby Muller, founder of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, an international organization that addresses the causes and consequences of war.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some might think that these fellows are remarkably disingenuous (depending on what that word means–remind me to look it up later–suspect it’s a synonym for pelfiful<\/a><\/i>).<\/p>\n I, on the other hand, applaud the intellectual consistency in the position. Namely, that a legislator’s vote or record of votes has no bearing or reflection on the secret plans or inclinations of that legislator<\/b>. Especially when a legislator runs for a position in the executive branch<\/b>. <\/p>\n Because that’s one of the arguments for a Kerry presidency featuring military strength and, you know, that archaic concept of I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States<\/i> without the asterisk and footnote except where conflicts with the directives of the United Nations as formulated by France, Germany, Ghana, Syria, or China<\/i>.<\/p>\n