Many people have become concerned about the possibility of the government reinstating the draft. A rash of rumors and E-mails have been spreading, threatening to turn the whispers of concern into the next urban legend. This sudden concern followed reports that at least two different proposals that had been made in Congress sought to return the draft.

A recent AOL survey questioned voters about which candidate they thought was most likely to restore the draft. When reporters recently asked John Kerry whether he thought George W. Bush would end up restoring the draft, he didn’t say yes, but he didn’t say no, either, further fueling that fire of speculation.

Keep this in mind for a moment as we briefly change topics.

Many Democrats took great exception to Dick Cheney’s comment that implied that choosing the wrong man for the presidency (in his mind, Kerry) could result in America being attacked again by terrorists. Many claimed that Cheney’s comment was completely out of line, because he was using fear as a ploy to unfairly influence people’s vote.

I recently heard a voter being interviewed on a national newscast and I was surprised to hear her say that she couldn’t imagine 9/11 having happened if Al Gore had been in office. I’m not sure how she arrived at such an absurd conclusion; the Oklahoma City bombing, tied to domestic terrorism, and the World Trade Center bombing, tied to Osama bin Laden, both occurred while Clinton and Gore were in office. Gore proposed tougher airport security measures as Vice President in response to the growing threat of terror, then backed off. It wouldn’t be fair to blame 9/11 on Gore’s failure to push those recommendations until they became requirements, but on the other hand, one cannot rule out the possibility that tougher security prior to 9/11 might have at least hindered the terrorists from that particular method of mass murder.

We’re talking about terrorists so willing to kill Americans that the prospect of dying for the cause doesn’t seem like a high price. I really don’t think they are remotely concerned about whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House at the time. Making their point (and accomplishing their goal) would seem to be their main preoccupation.

I thought Cheney’s comment was unreasonable as well. The question isn’t whether one candidate or the other will prevent us from being attacked again by simply being elected, or whether the election itself of one candidate or the other will encourage terrorists to strike again: I think that if a Republican is elected, terrorists will have a motive to strike again to dispel the myth that Republicans will prevent us from ever being attacked again. Likewise, I think that if a Democrat is elected, the same terrorists will have a motive to strike again to demonstrate that we are vulnerable no matter what we do. Either way, an attack would have a demoralizing effect on the country, which seems to be part of their terrorists master plan. The question we should be asking is how each candidate will handle the next attack when it does come.

But in any case, Cheney’s critics said that it was tasteless and inexcusable to have made such a remark. Keep that in mind, too.

Now, back to the draft issue. There are two bills that have been proposed to return the draft. You might be surprised to learn that the two primary sponsors of the two bills are Sen. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, and Representative Charles Rangel of New York, both of whom are Democrats. The bills in Congress are gaining almost no support, but they’re there. And some Democrats aren’t making any bones about the “threat” of a draft:

“Under a second Bush administration, I don’t think we can rule out the fact that the president may try to get Congress to reinstate the draft,” says Representative Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, according to MSNBC.

Political experts say that it would be very unlikely that a draft would get any real political support because politicians know that the voters would hold them responsible during their next re-election bids. Imagine for a moment the sheer horror these Democrats would feel if Republicans suddenly decided to back these measures. Imagine the backlash if the Bush administration announced that this was exactly the thing that needed to happen during such an unpopular war. The fact that the Bush administration hasn’t jumped “on board” with these proposals should tell you something.

But the assumption that the measures won’t go anywhere except into the minds of worried parents isn’t stopping Democrats from using fear as a ploy to attract voters who don’t want to see the draft restarted.

If you’re going to hold Dick Cheney in ill-regard for having tried to play off of voter fears, you must first consider the fact that there are those on the other side of the coin who have no problem doing the same thing. If you’re going to question why the Bush administration would attempt to scare people into voting against Kerry, you have to question why some Democrats don’t seem to have a problem with the same tactic when it happens to benefit their candidate.

After all, why is it not okay to attempt to capitalize on the fears of another terror attack while it is okay to capitalize on the fears of a new draft? Sounds like a double standard to me.

But back to that question on AOL’s poll: which candidate do you think is most likely to reinstate the draft? Many would have you believe that Bush is the only one who offers such a threat. But if the legislation proposed by some of his Democratic brethren is any indication, one cannot rule out the Kerry administration doing so, either. It would seem that if Kerry offered such a suggestion, he would already have some support within his own party!