Fact-Checking the SCLM: Democratic-Sponsored Draft Bill?

This morning on 11Alive in Atlanta, reporter Paul Crawley did a piece on the Senate debate held last night between Democrat Denise Majette, Repub Johnny Isakson, and Libertarian Allen Buckley. Everything was pretty straightforward (one thing I appreciate about 11Alive is that they seem to be the most "fair and balanced" of the local news outlets, at least as far as I can tell...) until Paul wrapped up the story with this tidbit (paraphrased):

"... and all three candidates stated that they would oppose a Democratic-sponsored draft bill."

More after these words...

Now, unless I missed something, I wasn't aware that there WAS a Democratic-sponsored draft bill. Nor was I aware that the Democrats had any plans to sponsor one.

Did anyone else in the Atlanta area hear that quote, or did anyone watch the senate debate last night to get the full context of that statement?

I thought I'd appeal to the dKos community to help fact-check this, and if Crawley is interjecting some heretofore unknown Democratic bias into his report, he needs to be called to the mat on it.

Paul Crawley's contact info:
[e-mail]

11Alive.com contact form:
http://www.11alive.com/whatson/contact/

I'm not going to contact Crawley or 11Alive until I can confirm or deny the existence of a Democratic-sponsored draft bill, but I have this nagging suspicion that my gut reaction is correct, and that Crawley and 11Alive need to be reprimanded.

Thanks for any assistance you guys can give me here!

•  Um, yeah there is

  Charlie Rangel introduced it in Dec. 2002 to highlight the fact that the many Republican lawmakers who were pushing war in Iraq were unwilling to send their sons and daughters to fight their war. It was brought to a floor vote last week so R's could go on record opposing it.

  by Cbal on Wed Oct 13, 2004 at 08:51:42 AM PDT

•  Well, sorta

  The bill was introduced by Charles Rangel of NY just a few months after the Iraq invasion. The bill was something of a protest, as the idea was to bring the issue forward and make it known that if a draft were to be required in the future, most of the deferments and other loopholes that existed in the 60s and 70s would no longer exist. Rep. Rangel was looking to make the point that the "all-volunteer" force we currently have is disproportionately heavy with those from the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

  by gattogrosso on Wed Oct 13, 2004 at 08:52:41 AM PDT

•  Rangel late in the game

  Yes to the above comments - Rangel's bill was a sort of poison pill served up to show what's in store for the Youth of Today should BushCo/PNAC continue to rule. One item of note in this is that the Repugs moved first on the draft, in December 2001 with a House bill introduced by Smith & Weldon. I gotta run but Google for that and you'll see, and not sure but IIRC other Repugs introduced a second bill before Rangel's. Rangel is the only one you ever hear about because the SCLM want to pin it on the Dems and because there's a vulgar error among the "Libertarian" type young that Dems always want to penalize the way-cool so as to pet the losers, etc. etc.

  by jlb on Wed Oct 13, 2004 at 09:16:42 AM PDT