McCain Goes Over-the-Top (GI Bill)

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Pochacco

McCain has projected an IMAGE of confidence and strength on military and veterans affairs. But he is actually weak in those areas because his actions don’t match his rhetoric. He’s shown poor judgement on Iraq and been less-than-generous to veterans and he can’t make that history magically go away by hiding behind his years as a POW.

Obama is exactly right to attack him on this. It strikes right at the heart of McCain’s argument for why he deserves to be President. Americans have already decided the Democrats know more about military affairs than the Republicans. It won’t take much to convince them that McCain is just as clueless as Bush.

Pochacco, I don’t believe “Americans have already” decided that, and “just as clueless as Bush”? Seriously, is that even posible?

[LilShieste]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

Maybe I’m misunderstanding here, but isn’t McCain in favor of a bill that alters the GI Bill in such a way that the rewards actually increase as a way of enticing career enlisted personnel?

Yes, but in a different way; one that favors certain veterans (according to a “sliding scale”), rather than all.

@FoieGrasIsEvil

I am in favor of that, completely. Obama needs to stick to the things he does best, which already likely outmatch McCain’s skill set. Obama should play to his own strengths rather than shoring up the strengths of his opponent.

Obama is right to point out the flaws in someone’s reasoning, regardless of who that someone, or what their skill set, is.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@LilShieste

That was my main problem with what McCain said. The underlying implication, in his entire response, was that since Obama wasn’t in the military he couldn’t possibly understand.
Here’s a portion of McCain’s response:

So, he does think it’s too generous for our veterans. And seeing as how it would help some veterans go to college, rejecting it does take away some veterans’ “chance to go to college.”

This particularly irks me. Especially since the military is sold so frequently as being a great stepping stone for advancing one’s career. If they want to recruit people for more long-term uses, perhaps they should consider using a different recruiting technique.

Why on Earth would it irk you for the government to extend even more enticements for soldiers to remain in the military longer? That’s always been the goal! They offered me $5,000 in 1994 to reinlist after I’d served five years in the Army in Germany and the Persian Gulf, and I said no thanks.
This is just another creative way to get people to stay!
McCain isn’t trying to take any of the current benefits from single-enlistees away, he’s trying to add more for people as an incentive to stay longer. They don’t have to reinlist, you know, and the current GI Bill will not cover all your college costs as it currently stands.
If McCain came off a bit snarky, well…that’s him I guess. I fail to see an argument against the bill, unless there’s something I’m missing.

The military has and always will need career soldiers/officers, or at least people willing to serve a little longer than four years.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@LilShieste

Yes, but in a different way; one that favors certain veterans (according to a “sliding scale”), rather than all.

Obama is right to point out the flaws in someone’s reasoning, regardless of who that someone, or what their skill set, is.

I interpreted it as still paying out the regular amount to a single enlistee, and more if you reinlist. What’s wrong with that?

[LilShieste]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

Why on Earth would it irk you for the government to extend even more enticements for soldiers to remain in the military longer? That’s always been the goal! They offered me $5,000 in 1994 to reinlist after I’d served five years in the Army in Germany and the Persian Gulf, and I said no thanks.
This is just another creative way to get people to stay!
McCain isn’t trying to take any of the current benefits from single-enlistees away, he’s trying to add more for people as an incentive to stay longer. They don’t have to reinlist, you know, and the current GI Bill will not cover all your college costs as it currently stands.

I understand the reasoning behind these incentives to re-enlist - my main problem is with how the military might be allowed to add fine print to these incentives, ending up as “gotchas” to our veterans. (So, my problem isn’t with the GI Bill, per se, but with how it’s used. I guess that a separate issue, though.)

@FoieGrasIsEvil

If McCain came off a bit snarky, well…that’s him I guess.

He didn’t just come off as snarky - he came off as someone who thought lowly of Obama, just because he hadn’t served in the military.

[LilShieste]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

I interpreted it as still paying out the regular amount to a single enlistee, and more if you reinlist. What’s wrong with that?

Well, when the point is presented in a level-headed manner (like that), not much.

But McCain’s response was more emotional than rational.

[The_Hamster_King]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

Pochacco, I don’t believe “Americans have already” decided that, and “just as clueless as Bush”? Seriously, is that even posible?

Historically in polls Republicans have been more trusted than Democrats on national security issues. That has changed recently. Here are the results of a poll from May that show the Democrats with a 7 percentage point lead over Republicans on national security issues.

It used to be that people trusted Republicans with the guns and Democrats with the butter. Not any more. The Iraq war has destroyed the Republican brand with respect to national security. And it looks like Barack Obama is going to try to destroy John McCain’s brand the same way.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@LilShieste

I understand the reasoning behind these incentives to re-enlist - my main problem is with how the military might be allowed to add fine print to these incentives, ending up as “gotchas” to our veterans. (So, my problem isn’t with the GI Bill, per se, but with how it’s used. I guess that a separate issue, though.)

I would be very surprised if there was any specific language in any new GI Bill contract that would strip a soldier of existing benefits by refusing to reinlist for more benefits. If that came out it would really defeat the purpose, wouldn’t it?

@LilShieste

He didn’t just come off as snarky - he came off as someone who thought lowly of Obama, just because he hadn’t served in the military.

Yeah, I thought he was overly defensive about it, which is one area Obama has him beat hands down, that is, in the “cooler heads prevail” department.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Pochacco

Historically in polls Republicans have been more trusted than Democrats on national security issues. That has changed recently. Here are the results of a poll from May that show the Democrats with a 7 percentage point lead over Republicans on national security issues.

It used to be that people trusted Republicans with the guns and Democrats with the butter. Not any more. The Iraq war has destroyed the Republican brand with respect to national security. And it looks like Barack Obama is going to try to destroy John McCain’s brand the same way.

I don’t doubt that people are sick of George Bush, but then he’s only really been a Republican in name only.
And I do believe that people do still mistrust the Dems and Obama in particular when it comes to guns (outside the military demense, that is).

[descamisado]

@LilShieste

But McCain’s response was more emotional than rational.

Snark, anyone? McCain letter from 2/6/06 to Obama that I mentioned iin post #[32](I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again. ) . I sense bome built up anger there and a make-good on the underlined portion of the quote.

“I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.”

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@5-4-Fighting

Snark, anyone? McCain letter from 2/6/06 to Obama that I mentioned iin post #[32](I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again. ) . I sense bome built up anger there and a make-good on the underlined portion of the quote.

“I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.”

I think that’s a great letter if in fact Obama reneged on an agrement to broker some type of a bipartisan deal on a bill.

[BrainGlutton]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

Maybe I’m misunderstanding here, but isn’t McCain in favor of a bill that alters the GI Bill in such a way that the rewards actually increase as a way of enticing career enlisted personnel?

Cite?

[The_Hamster_King]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

I don’t doubt that people are sick of George Bush, but then he’s only really been a Republican in name only.
And I do believe that people do still mistrust the Dems and Obama in particular when it comes to guns (outside the military demense, that is).

Do you have any data to back that up? The poll I linked to wasn’t measuring how people felt about George Bush. It was how they felt about Republicans in general.

Democrats are more trusted than Republicans on national security, period. If John McCain wants to convince Americans that he’s going to do a better job keeping them safe than Barack Obama, he’s got to start digging himself out of the hole he’s starting in. The thing is, I don’t think he even realizes he’s starting out in a hole. Like you he probably thinks that Republicans have an edge in security issues. But the ground has shifted under his feet.

[BrainGlutton]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

I don’t doubt that people are sick of George Bush, but then he’s only really been a Republican in name only.

As opposed to who? The RINO label sticks much harder to McCain, fairly or unfairly. There are vast swaths of ideological conservatives who despise him.

[descamisado]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

I think that’s a great letter if in fact Obama reneged on an agrement to broker some type of a bipartisan deal on a bill.

I agree, if definite promises were made.

However, if you listen to the news video report the letter is linked to, the facts point to a misconstruing of the facts on McCain’s part.

The anger in the letter and in McCain’s quote above are probably linked. More than that, they are indicative of his level of rationality and level-headedness when things don’t go his way.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@BrainGlutton

Cite?

This thread? McCain favors a sliding scale that further rewards veterans above and beyond the current GI Bill, Obama doesn’t. I’m not sure if I am misunderstanding these positions or if you didn’t read the thread properly (or both).

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Pochacco

Do you have any data to back that up? The poll I linked to wasn’t measuring how people felt about George Bush. It was how they felt about Republicans in general.

Democrats are more trusted than Republicans on national security, period. If John McCain wants to convince Americans that he’s going to do a better job keeping them safe than Barack Obama, he’s got to start digging himself out of the hole he’s starting in. The thing is, I don’t think he even realizes he’s starting out in a hole. Like you he probably thinks that Republicans have an edge in security issues. But the ground has shifted under his feet.

I know it wasn’t measuring how people felt about GWB per se, but that this current trend you cite is in fact directly because of GWB and his admin.

[BrainGlutton]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

I know it wasn’t measuring how people felt about GWB per se, but that this current trend you cite is in fact directly because of GWB and his admin.

Yes, but you can’t escape the fact that Pubs in general are getting tarred with the Bush brush. It might not be so, if McCain had taken pains to distance himself from and repudiate all the current Admin’s policies, but he’s gone the other way; he deserves what he gets as a result, and so does the whole party.

[The_Hamster_King]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

I know it wasn’t measuring how people felt about GWB per se, but that this current trend you cite is in fact directly because of GWB and his admin.

Which was wholeheartedly supported by the Republican Congress. If Bush isn’t a true Republican then why didn’t he need to veto a single bill that came out of the Republican Congress during the first five years of his administration? Congress and the White House moved almost in lock-step until the Democrats took over in 2006.

Would the Republican brand suck so badly if George Bush hadn’t done such a horrible job? No. But did the Republican Party try prevent Bush from doing a horrible job? No, again. They supported him wholeheartedly in his efforts. And now they must reap the benefits.

Americans don’t trust Bush on national security. But they don’t trust the Republican establishment that enabled Bush either.

[grayhairedmomma]

@5-4 Fighting

@FoieGrasIsEvil

I think that’s a great letter if in fact Obama reneged on an agrement to broker some type of a bipartisan deal on a bill.

I agree, if definite promises were made.

However, if you listen to the news video report the letter is linked to, the facts point to a misconstruing of the facts on McCain’s part.

The anger in the letter and in McCain’s quote above are probably linked. More than that, they are indicative of his level of rationality and level-headedness when things don’t go his way.

Here are the letters exchanged by Obama & McCain. McCain’s response is really over the top. There seemed to be an easily corrected misunderstanding that could have been handled by a more sane letter by McCain.

I hadn’t known much about McCain’s temper until this election. If these responses are typical, he’d be a shitty diplomat.

From Obama’s senate website (It’s the only place I saw all three together):

@Obama to McCain Feb 2

Thank you for inviting me to participate in the meeting yesterday to discuss lobbying and ethics reform proposals currently before the Senate. I appreciate your willingness to reach out to me and several other Senate Democrats to discuss what should be done to restore public confidence in the way that Congress conducts its business. The discussion clearly underscored the difficult challenge facing Congress.

You and many in the Democratic Caucus have played a major role in reform efforts in the Senate. In fact, the Indian Affairs Committee hearings you led were instrumental in promoting public awareness of the culture of corruption that has permeated the nation's capital.

As you know, Senator Harry Reid and others in the Democratic Caucus have taken an important step by introducing S. 2180, the Honest Leadership Act, which imposes many of the same disclosure requirements for lobbyists that you have proposed, while also strengthening enforcement, eliminating "pay to play" schemes, and imposing more restrictive rules on meals, gifts, and travel that Members and their staff can receive from special interests that advocate before Congress. This bill, which now has the support of 40 members of the Democratic Caucus, represents a significant step in addressing many of the worst aspects of corruption that have come to light as a result of the Justice Department investigation of Jack Abramoff.

I know you have expressed an interest in creating a task force to further study and discuss these matters, but I and others in the Democratic Caucus believe the more effective and timely course is to allow the committees of jurisdiction to roll up their sleeves and get to work on writing ethics and lobbying reform legislation that a majority of the Senate can support. Committee consideration of these matters through the normal course will ensure that these issues are discussed in a public forum and that those within Congress, as well as those on the outside, can express their views, ensuring a thorough review of this matter.

@McCain to Obama

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.

As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill. 

You commented in your letter about my "interest in creating a task force to further study" this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate.Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate's return in January.

Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public's low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings. 

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.

@Obama to McCain

During my short time in the U.S. Senate, one of the aspects about this institution that I have come to value most is the collegiality and the willingness to put aside partisan differences to work on issues that help the American people. It was in this spirit that I approached you to work on ethics reform, and it was in this spirit that I agreed to attend your bipartisan meeting last week. I appreciated then - and still do appreciate - your willingness to reach out to me and several other Democrats.

For this reason, I am puzzled by your response to my recent letter. Last Wednesday morning, you called to invite me to your meeting that afternoon. I changed my schedule so I could attend the meeting. Afterwards, you thanked me several times for attending the meeting, and we left pledging to work together.

As you will recall, I told everyone present at the meeting that my caucus insisted that the consideration of any ethics reform proposal go through the regular committee process. You didn't indicate any opposition to this position at the time, and I wrote the letter to reiterate this point, as well as the fact that I thought S. 2180 should be the basis for a bipartisan solution.

I confess that I have no idea what has prompted your response. But let me assure you that I am not interested in typical partisan rhetoric or posturing. The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you nor my willingness to find a bipartisan solution to this problem.