Wait a second here.
From **SmartAleq’**s quotes:
So as things stand now, you have to be in for 6 years, and all you get after that is 58% of your tuition (on average)?
And the Graham/Burr bill supported by McCain only gives you enough to fully pay for tuition after 12 years?
Good lord, maybe the real scandal here is how much public school tuition has skyrocketed, and how badly these military benefits have lagged behind.
Where the fuck did Obama question McCain’s patriotism on this matter? Obama couldn’t understand why McCain couldn’t back the bill.
Hey now, let’s get the facts straight here. That little snippet of the speech was about the entire $162 billion package. He never “took credit for its passage” when talking about the G.I. Bill portion in the least. “This is a responsibility all of us in Washington share – not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. And I want to thank leaders of the House and Senate for getting this bill to my office” and “The bill is a result of close collaboration between my administration and members of both parties on Capitol Hill” show the truth. Here’s the text of the whole speech. I don’t see at all where he takes credit for the bill’s passage, actually, let alone the G.I. Bill.
As for thanking McCain…yeah, I agree, that is a true WTF moment I don’t get. Well, I get it, but I think it’s bullshit.
Then Obama is an idiot and no one should vote for him in November. Holding out a vote in favor of a competing version of a bill is normal business in the Senate. I’m sure Obama has done it numerous times. McCain’s reasons for prefering the other version were clearly stated and supporting documentation was provided by studies estimating the impact this version of the bill would have on re-enlistment. Re-enlistment is a critical factor in keeping a strong military and a strong military is something a politician is empowered by their constituents to help achieve. Especially in the case of someone like McCain who has made his support for the military a part of many of his re-election campaigns and gets into office on the votes of people who want him to speak up for a strong military. When two versions of a bill are being debated, why would you get behind the one you feel is less good at doing the job you were sent to Washington to do? Political expediency(the possible versus the desireable) is about the only reason I can think of.
Obama is scoring points against McCain with this statement. He knows damn well why McCain didn’t get behind this bill. As do I, and anyone else who has been paying any sort of attention to the issue.
Enjoy,
Steven
McCain held out for a version that gave less to combat vets. Obama couldn’t understand why a combat vet and former POW would feel that a college education wa too generous a reward to give a soldier who got his legs blown off in a war. McCain does not want to give any more than Obama to longer term vets, he just wants to give less to those who serve only one tour of duty in combat. That actually is hard to justify. Obama is right.
The retention argument is a crock, by the way. It’s easily countered by the increase in enlistment that the Webb bill would bring.
I’d like to clarify something about the thread title: In military parlance, “over the top” tends to call to mind a soldier or group of soldiers rushing out of a trench or a foxhole to engage an enemy/battle for the achievement of an objective.
Is that really what McCain is being said to have done, by missing the vote?
“Over the hill” (again in military parlance) refers to desertion (in my experience, running away from boot camp). Isn’t this the more appropriate description of McCain’s action?
I’d say Obama accomplished his goal here. McCain’s probably right about what he said and his position sounds reasonable. But the issue wasn’t a disagreement over two different veterans benefits plans. Obama took a mild shot at making McCain snap in anger and McCain went for it. If he had just responded to Obama’s question and explained his reasons in a quiet manner, he’d have made Obama look petty. Instead he fed into the image that he can’t control his temper and made Obama look like the reasonable one.
Well, there are tuition assistance plans for those on active duty. Some of those even pay 100% of the tuition (or used to).
And I agree whole-heartedly with you about the real scandal.
That argument would fly if the McCain-preferred version actually gave additional benefits (relative to the Obama-preferred version) for longer service. It doesn’t.
I will give McCain credit for not attempting the bamboozle you suggest he should have employed.
I thought McCain’s response was pretty good. Took too long to get to the point, but what he said seemed fair.
WTF?! Clinton was a Democrat in name only. W is firmly within his party’s mainstream.
Sometimes, war is what happens when diplomacy succeeds. All depends on what are the leaders’ actual goals.
If that’s so, then the entire Republican delegation in Congress are also RINOs, since, outside of Social Security privatization, they’ve rubberstamped pretty much everything Bush asked for in the 6 years they were the majority during his administration.
What I hate, though, is the constant use by the Republicans of “Commander-in-Chief” to refer to the office of the Presidency. Bush is NOT my Commander-in-Chief. I am a civilian. He does not command me. Bush is my president (under protest). Either McCain or Obama will be my president, not my Commander-in-Chief. The creeping militarism that the use of “Commander-in-Chief” indicates is scary.
Garrison Keillor calls him “the current occupant.” I doubt it’s complimentary. 
Agreed. That McCain says he is running for Commander-in-Chief is scary. I would hope he is running for President, of which one duty is commander of the armed forces. Looking around it would appear that domestic economic policy might be a little more important.