Should Kerry try to "capitalize" on the draft issue?

[tomfodw]

Some blogsters I'm reading are saying Kerry should run an ad trying, essentially, to scare Americans into voting for him by predicting that Bush will reinstitute the draft.

I'm sorry, but I don't think it's right to "capitalize" on this issue. The sad fact is, a military draft may turn out to be an unavoidable necessity even for President Kerry. It's best not to try to politick on it now, lest he find he has to implement it later. What if he promises never to bring it back only to find out later that he must. He'll rightfully be accused of playing with people's hopes and fears.

I don't want a new draft, but if lamentably turns out to be the only way to fully staff the military, we may have to swallow hard and say, reluctantly, yes. Kerry needs to be able to face this issue with clean hands (forgive the slightly mixed metaphor).

[grannylib]

1. Nope. I think he should stick to what's working now, and also to turn

all of Chimpy's flip-flops back at him. All the 'mexed missages' about why we went to war, for starters.
And then all the other flops to follow.
Hit the little imbecile with his own turds.

[are_we_united_yet]

2. I'm not sure.

I could be wrong but the re-instating of the draft appears to be tied to the Democrats rather than the Republicans. I think the Republicans want to throw more money at the military to hire more "Volunteers" rather than Conscription. At least thats the spin I hear.

Anyhow, I'm not sure. Anyone else know if this true or just BS?

[Jokinomx]

3. I don't think he should...

chimp/cheney have stated all along that the all volunteer service is all that is necessary. He even squeezed that in during the debate. They are expecting Kerry to bring this up.. I am sure they are well prepared to defend it.

He will attack on the issues of the home front next...which is what the second debate will be focused on.

:dem:

[tomfodw]

4. Here's one major blogger calling for this

http://americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_10_03_americablog_archive.html#109683155740593292


As I said, I think it's wrong to play politics with such an important issue, especially when there's no way not to know how it will play out.

It's kind of like people expecting Kerry to tell them today how he'll handle Iraq in January. How can he possibly know what the situation will be like four months from now? The best thing he can do is be honest but not close off any options. Same thing, alas, with the draft. What if he has to do it and he's promised not to? There'll be hell to pay. There'll be hell to pay if he has to, no matter what, but at least he won't be liable to charges of lying or flip-flopping.

This is a "third-rail" type of issue. Best not to touch it.

[Shoeempress]

5. Kerry shouldn't bring it up. But a soft drumbeat in the background by

some independent folks should help considerably. E-Mails sent out, anonymous postings in town, LTTE, all that.

[SeekingTruth]

6. Here's how he could and get away with it....

The new issue of In These Times has a lead article asking if Iran is next and that the same neo-cons that brought us Iraq are working on bringing us Iran.

Out of pure pragmatic politics, Kerry would certainly never bring up an article from a source such as In These Times (too left) but could say something like, "If Bush is elected, there are people in his adminstration, the same ones that cooked the Iraq books, who are talking about moving on to Iran. I want to work on diplomacy, not war, but if these people remain in Washington, I do not know how they are going to find enough soldiers for a war in Iran."

For one, Kerry would not want to offer an answer - let Bush come up with one.

[SKKY]

7. I don't think Kerry should...

...however comma I wouldn't particularly have a problem if moveon.org did a piece with something like, "He dodged the draft, and he defered it 5 times. Now they want to reinstate it. Are you ready give up your children's future?"