The key sponsor of the draft bill in the House, Charles Rangel of NYC, voted against it. I think that shows that Democrats are equally good at pushing bills in Congress for political gain. I've gone on record a number of times acknowledging that the only purpose of the FMA was political, to get Democrats on record on the issue for ammunition in the election. This one wasn't as widely supported among Democrats as the FMA was among Republicans, but for that reason it seems to me to be even more devious, because its mere existence has somehow gotten people to think Bush wants to reinstate the draft (and Kerry's feeding into that by insisting that he doesn't know what Bush wants to do, which means he's calling him a liar when he says he will under no circumstances reinstate the draft). Only Democrats sponsored the bill, and the only two who voted for it were Democrats. The thing that really bothers me about this bill is that the guy who initiated it to begin with voted against it. Dan Rather even aided Rangel in this deception, but the one thing Rather's piece showed is that the ploy worked. People really believe Bush is trying to institute a draft.
It's because of things like this that make me not so upset at some of the things Karl Rove has done in the past. It's not as if he's alone or the worst of the bunch. He pales in comparison to people like Rangel. I'm not saying Rove's tricks are morally righteous, but this is politics, and dirty hands are the norm. Those who express outrage at Rove but don't care about Rangel don't seem to me to have much moral weight behind their claims.