Fetishizing the uniform
In yet another manifestation of the "maverick's" fealty to a failed president, John McCain is stuck trying to explain why he and Bush remain united in their opposition to a new, bipartisan G.I. Bill that would
Fetishizing the uniform
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
In yet another manifestation of the "maverick's" fealty to a failed president, John McCain is stuck trying to explain why he and Bush remain united in their opposition to a new, bipartisan G.I. Bill that would benefit our returning troops.
McCain felt compelled to defend himself again yesterday, during his Memorial Day speech, and no wonder. This is quite the political dilemma. By standing with President Bush, he risks being perceived as standing against the soldiers - which is not exactly the ideal profile for a Republican candidate.
In his speech yesterday, he at least tried to argue his case on the merits - as opposed to what he did late last week, when he launched a demagogic attack on Barack Obama that bears closer scrutiny. And I will provide that scrutiny, in a moment. But first, a little background:
During the runup to the holiday weekend, some of you might have missed the news about the collapse of Bush's congressional support, the exodus of 10 Senate Republicans on a key military issue. This is a milestone of sorts, although it's fair to wonder why it took so long to happen.
On Thursday, the Senate passed - by a veto-proof margin of 75 to 22 - a new G. I. Bill that would essentially offer full tuition at in-state public universities to returning soldiers who have served at least three years since 9/11. The chief sponsors, Democrat Jim Webb and Republican Chuck Hagel, are military vets. Of the 10 Senate Republicans who supported the measure, at least two (Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Roger Wicker of Mississippi) are facing tough re-election campaigns and did not want to be perceived as not supporting the troops.
The House has already passed its own version of this bill, by a similarly veto-proof margin. And the concept is strongly supported by both the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Yet Bush is threatening to veto it anyway. And the "maverick" stands with him.
Bush and McCain say that the benefits are too generous, that the lure of better college benefits would dissaude many soldiers from re-enlisting. (Of course, if Bush and McCain were not such strong advocates for an endless war that is needlessly killing soldiers, perhaps there would be no need to worry about the re-enlistment rate. But that's another story.)
The Congressional Budget Office partially rebuts their concern by concluding, in a report, that the promise of enhanced GI Bill benefits would actually draw new people into the military, boosting boost overall recruitment by as much as 16 percent. But McCain remains concerned - as he said in his speech yesterday - that lower re-enlistment rates would result in a decline in the number of non-commissioned officers. Those people are drawn from the ranks of those who sign up for new tours, and, as McCain argued yesterday, "they are very hard to replace. Encouraging people to choose to not become non-commissioned officers would hurt the militaryt and our country very badly."
As I noted earlier, at least McCain sought yesterday to argue on substance. This is a big improvement over his behavior last Thursday, when he went nuclear in the wake of being criticized by Obama. The near-presumptive Democratic nominee had merely observed that McCain was standing with Bush and that he couldn't understand why McCain considered the bipartisan G.I. Bill to be too generous to our veterans.
To which McCain exploded: "I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lecture on my regard for those who did." (Italics mine.)
In rebuttal, let's give the "maverick" a little history lecture:
Woodrow Wilson, one of the great war leaders of the last century, never served our country in uniform. Franklin D. Roosevelt, who, last I checked, did a pretty fair job during World War II, never served our country in uniform. Neither did Martin Van Buren or Grover Cleveland or Warren G. Harding or Calvin Coolidge or Herbert Hoover or William Howard Taft or Bill Clinton. As for McCain's political hero, Ronald Reagan, he had an Army ranking - but he fought World War II on the Hollywood backlot.
And, by a different measure: virtually none of the neoconservatives who plotted and launched the Iraq war served our country in uniform. Yet McCain still supports their handiwork.
Putting aside the ahistorical underpinnings of McCain's demagoguery, here's the real problem: He seems to think that his status as a vet should immunize him from political criticism, and that Obama's failure to join the volunteer army should automatically invalidate whatever Obama might want to say about the military.
This is a dangerous argument, particularly since, in this country, civilian presidents are supposed to have the final say over military matters, and there has never been a requirement that those civilians first serve in uniform. If that was mandatory, then the non-serving John Adams would never have gotten his HBO series...and the non-serving Thomas Jefferson would never have been enshrined in his own memorial in Washington, D.C.
McCain helps his cause by what he did yesterday, trying to argue the G.I. Bill issue on the merits. Fetishizing the uniform, using it to protect himself from political criticism, only hurts him.
Comment removed.
Well, once his temper died down after a few days, he's ready to make his case.— SteveMG- The CBO's report in no way rebuts McCain's argument. Its factual distortions like this that make people think you're a liberal hack, which I don't believe. His concern on this issue is people staying in the service once they are already enlisted. The CBO is saying enhanced benefits will lure more people in the service (stunning!). We really paid for that study? Keeping people in beyond their first term has always been a huge problem for the service, and I understand why McCain would be concerned about another strong lure out of the service, because I left the Marines to go to college on the GI Bill myself. He's right, NCO's are the backbone of every service, and its exruciating to see good one's leave to go to college. Politically this is an extremely difficult time for him to take this stand, but his position is not without merit. In that sense, let's give the Dems some credit for tabling this bill at just the right time to hold his feet to the fire.— celtic_13
- "Fetishizing". Poor choice of words, but I'm sure it will get some clicks that it would have gotten otherwise...which I guess was the point.— Patrick M
As a conservative, I disagree with the President and Senator McCain on this one. Our soldiers who serve in combat should get the college tuition. That said, it's funny how libs attempt to undermine the mission of those very same soldiers while their fighting, then support showering them with benefits when they return. What could be the libs motivation for supporting the GI Bill? Same as always: Never, ever agree with President Bush.— jmc- Celtic_13, here's the thing, this means the military would have to offer a meaningful reenlistment bonus/incentive available to Non-coms. As a former non-com myself from a different era, had I had there been a meaningful incentive, financially or otherwise, I would have gladly stayed, instead, like you I chose to go to college and served my country as a federal civilian. For the last 30 or so years, the DoD has had the luxury of picking and choosing their recruits and then not having to really compete in the marketplace to have them reenlist. It's just another example of funding for this war being off the books and the hidden costs of this war.
- It does appear the Dem Congress has finally started to get rolling. I am also disappointed it has taken them t-h-i-s long to get the GOPers to break the ranks from such a clearly unpopular lame duck President. This was the perfect type of bill to get them to do so. As difficult as some of Obama's obstacles (to winning) are, I still believe McCain has the much steeper mountain to climb. As we're (being shielded from) seeing tonight, McCain can't separate himself from Bush because he needs his Midas touch with the financial people. Carrying the anchors of Bush-Cheney, the overwhelmingly unpopular Iraq war (which arguably has hurt the justified one in Afghanistan), the cost of that war, the foundering economy & more than a few Administration ethics/competency issues will make him a bigger GOP hero if he can win than what he did in 'Nam. If he does pull off a victory, his campaign strategist should hit Vegas & donate some of his winnings to the DNC.— yobill626
- Great comments today, though JMC couldn't hold back from firing away at Liberals while offering not a shred of evidence to back it up. It's the Conservative mantra that liberals undermine the government, so it must be true. If the Dems really want to play hardball, they need to insist that any further spending for the two wars is part of the federal budget. As Frankg962 said, it's off the books and hidden away in the footnotes. Time to ratchet up the pressure to balance the budget and pay for this war out of actual revenue --- try selling war bonds to Americans. Just stop printing fiat currency and nudging our America Equity position closer to financial ruin.— JeffA
- McCain's position on this issue is based on principle, not politics. The original GI bill for the WWII vets was based on the fact that GIs were in for the duration of the war-retention was not an issue. When the war was over,they got to go home and giving them college educations was the right thing to do without hurting our defense. Retention of qualified, trained soldiers is a problem especially in the technically demanding specialties. The alternative bill offered by McCain was never voted on thanks to Harry Reid. The alternative would have offered transferability of benefits to spouses and dependents and a sliding scale of increasing benefits. McCain's angry response to Obama was only based on the suggestion that McCain didn't support the vets, not whether Obama was qualified to be President based on a lack of military experience.The Republicans have more than enough arguments to attack Obama's qualifications and positions on the issues without that.— quanski
- JMC;......Do you think not supporting a foolish war automatically means not supporting the mission soldiers are on or the soldiers themselves? Afganistan was a just war. After all, that's where the majority of terrorists were (and are). I'm a 'lib' and I supported that war. I saw no sense in the Iraq war and I still don't. It's well known that the reasons we went there haven't held up. I don't support soldiers getting killed over nothing. Bush and his administration hasn't supported injured soldiers since day one of these wars. Even now, he doesn't support the troops like he should. These men and women have sacrificed a large portion of their young lives and that's fine to Bush, but if they get injured he's willing to ignore them, apparently unwilling to support the cost of their care. Now.... whose not supporting the troops, Bush or liberals? Soldiers should get the new benefits. How come the most hawkish Republicans like Bush and McCain can't see it that way? I would think greater benefits would attract new people to the military. Isn't that a good thing?— James TL
- McCain should never be seen as voting against Vets. The Bush Admin. has been cutting vets benefits, and as the Washington Post award-winning series showed the situation at Walter Reed was awful. McCain sounds shrill to me. Only I can talk about Vets affairs. This is beginning to sound like a Bob Dole, Bill Clinton election where the military hero did not get the Veterans vote and also went down to defeat.— politicod
- As quoted in the article, "As I noted earlier, at least McCain sought yesterday to argue on substance." Ok folks, I am confused, I read all the reasons he wasn't in support of Sen. Webb's bill a week ago. Sen. McCain has proposed a separate bill, attempting to improve the retention of NCOs, it will reflect a scale for service time which means the longer you serve the higher the benefits for a soldier. How many of us have the same benefits after 10 - 20 years as a newbie on the job? Sen. McCain's bill also provides for the transfer of said benefits to the spouse or children to use in order to earn an education. These issues were not addressed in Sen. Webb's bill, it was a flat rate for only the soldier to use. How do people keep getting this wrong? Go to realclearpolitcs.com and pull up the article, dated May 22nd, titled McCain responds to Obama on Veteran's Bill. And I would hope once all of you learn the truth you would pass it on to others. Thank you.— Genevieve01
- I have a typo on the site... sorry it is realclearpolitics.com or you can use this direct link. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/mccain_responds_to_obama_on_ve.html— Genevieve01
- I agree with Genevieve01 - I also read the reasons he didn't support the Webb bill last week (and knew about his own version well before that). The sideshow came after Obama tried to score points by saying he simply couldn't understand why McCain didn't care enough about the troops to support the Webb version of the bill. Fetishing the uniform? Puleez - that's just another attempt at trying to paint McCain as a militaristic warmongerer. Poor show Mr. Polman...— PhillyPhoton
- PhillyPhoton - What is going on here? I have read multiple articles the last two days which are clearly passing misinformation with no mention to Sen. McCain's initial response. I don't know how many sites I have had to post to, to at least allow the readers to see for themselves what McCain has actually said and done.— Genevieve01
- McCain and Bush have done more to support troops, improve their benefits, and restore pride & strength in our military than any leftist ever did. Unlike liberals, conservatives don't just hand out benefits. We consider the ramifications and the costs. Having served 21 years in the Army, I can tell you that our educational benefits are extremely strong. As an economist and someone who has seen education programs for National Guardsmen, that this ill-conceived election year ploy WILL affect reenlistment rates. We'll lose our best and most experienced soldiers (who, by the way, can attend school with 100% tuition payments WHILE on active duty). We will get, in return, green recruits with misplaced priorities. In the Illinois Army National Guard where they pay 100% of state school tuition, many people joined just for the college money - no commitment whatsoever toward serving. In Colorado where they paid only 50% of tuition, people had to weigh their desire to serve versus the benefit. And those soldiers were much more committed to both their military service AND their schoolwork. That which we gain too cheaply we esteem too lightly! Standing next to President Bush doesn't make anyone look anti-soldier. I served in the Army throughout the Clinton Administration. That fool cut our military every year for 8 consecutive years. In Kosovo, we were cannablizing vehicles for spare parts. The Army which marched into Baghdad ill equipped was the Army that Billy Jeff left us. McCain will not say it, but I will: Obama and Hillary are hopeless cowards. Neither one has ever risked life or limb for another human being. Neither one has any military expertise and neither deserves to lead our military. I got an A.A. degree while on Active Duty. I got a B.S. degree with my GI Bill. I got a Ph.D. with National Guard tuition assistance. Soldiers get plenty of education benefits as it is! You liberals have never cared about soldiers before. Don't pretend you care now!— rmmiller44
- Wow... It's amazing to me that nowhere in the article is ANY mention of the fact that McCain sponsored his own bill which gave veterans even GREATER benefits, but the DEMOCRATIC leaders wouldn't allow it to come to a vote! Either Polman is ignorant or just plain old manipulative. I can't help but wonder which it is...— truthsayer
- Polman you really are an Obama cheerleader. How the hell did you actually get a job? Go blog at the Daily Kos with the rest of the mental midgets.— beeron
- You know, I am sick and tired of conservatives thinking they have the market cornerd on care for the troops. So RMMiller44 don't presume to tell me or any liberal whether or when they can care. I was a liberal when I served and I'm a liberal now. The person who truly cares about the troops uses them as a last resort.
- Our government has failed our troops. Many of the young people fighting in Iraq right now signed up because they wanted to get the guys that perpetrated 9/11 (which Iraq wasn't involved in) and to get a college education. Meanwhile, our government has allowed college costs to skyrocket. This bill should be passed immediately - it's the least our government can do for getting kids barely out of high school involved in this unnecessary disaster. President Bush is such a piece of s**t.— p-diddy
- To rmmiller44, While I appreciate your military service during the Clinton years, I served during the Vietnam war and was stationed in country in Qui Nhon. I must take issue with your characterization of Senator Clinton and Sentor Obama as cowards, "Obama and Hillary are hopeless cowards. Neither one has ever risked life or limb for another human being. Neither one has any military expertise and neither deserves to lead our military." I would remind you that President Lincoln never served in the military, nor did President Roosevelt, and both did a fine job when it came to managing our military resources. You really have no idea about how much courage either of these people has. Every day that Senator Obama goes out on the campain trail he is probably a little afraid of being shot. And that is probably not a fear that McCain has. He has proven his courage, and I think that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have proven theirs as well, but perhaps in different ways. Lowell Copeland, New York— lococope
- Miller, you may have a Ph.D., but that don’t necessarily make you bright, arguing that Bush has done more for the military than any leftist. First of all, what’s a leftist? Anyone left of Bush? Second, Bush has just about ruined the military by fighting a war without the troops needed to win it (after he’d been told). Ask those guys going back three or four times, and their families, how thankful they are to the CIC. Not to mention how he’s savaged the National Guard and hurt readiness at home. And fewer people are bigger cowards than those like Bush who send others to die after having ducked fighting themselves (but he did give up golf). Your cursing of Obama and Hillary in a diatribe that could easily be aimed at Bush reveals you as a partisan fool. Next time you go to war, leave your helmet on.— Djoko Pritza
- rnmiller, you certainly did get a BS degree, because that's about all your comments are. The Guard and the military are always promoting college money to get people to sign up, as well as promising recruits all kinds of positions they will never get. Troops are opting out because they don't want to keep going back to Iraq. They are sick of being bush's pawns. Anyone who has faced guns and bombs should be entitled to those benefits, I don't care how long they served. The original GI Bill favored those who fought Nazi Germany and Japan, two nations that declared war against us. Today, our troops are being used as Iraqi policemen, not fighting a belligerent nation. Had we not cut and ran in Afghanistan at bush's behest, most of our troops would be home by now. The majority never would have gone over. bush and mccain are frauds.— mike l
- rnmiller, you certainly did get a BS degree, because that's about all your comments are. The Guard and the military are always promoting college money to get people to sign up, as well as promising recruits all kinds of positions they will never get. Troops are opting out because they don't want to keep going back to Iraq. They are sick of being bush's pawns. Anyone who has faced guns and bombs should be entitled to those benefits, I don't care how long they served. The original GI Bill favored those who fought Nazi Germany and Japan, two nations that declared war against us. Today, our troops are being used as Iraqi policemen, not fighting a belligerent nation. Had we not cut and ran in Afghanistan at bush's behest, most of our troops would be home by now. The majority never would have gone over. bush and mccain are frauds.— mike l
- Rmmiller44 sez: "You liberals have never cared about soldiers before." Um, care to specifically call anyone out? Name one who is not grateful for the service of our armed services. Seems to me that stupidity is a non-partisan affliction - but the conservatives have filled encyclopedic volumes the last eight years.— fuggedaboudit
- Rmmiller44: I almost choked when I read "Unlike liberals, conservatives don't just hand out benefits. We consider the ramifications and the costs." What a load of BS! Is that how the national debt has almost doubled on Bush's watch? I'm waiting for the usual "tax and spend liberal" BS to be brought up in the campaign. Conservatives believe it is much better to "borrow and spend"...— johngilb
- To the Bush diehards: We're talking about the same president, right? The one that has allowed over 4,000 of our soldiers to die in Iraq for some ever-changing reasons? Why anyone would defend Bush on this score is beyond me. Rmmiller, what's your field and where did you get your Ph.D.? Acme U? Because if you knew your ass from your elbow you'd know that Rumsfeld wanted to downsize and modernize our military.— p-diddy
- I agree with the posts about McCain's bill. It is no wonder that is never mentioned in today's piece...its author is in the tank for Obama and is anti anything Bush/McCain. If he mentioned McCain's bill, he would then have to illustrate its differences with Webb's, and that would blow up the point of his post. Also, McCain was pointing out that as a Vet himself, he has and always will put their interest high on his lists, and who is Obama to question his loyalty. After all, when that was done to Kerry back in 2004 (recall his testimony when he returned from Nam), people said Kerry was being unfairly attacked. So why is Obama allowed to question McCain? I would like to see a post about Obama and his many gaffes. First he is campaigning in all 57 states; then he gave a speech for Memorial day honoring all of America's "fallen hero's, many of whom I see in the audience today"......"fallen hero's" in the audience. Third, he said his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz when A. he does not have an uncle; and B. Auschwitz was liberated by the Russians. This is after he said one day Iran was a tiny country and threat, then the next day referring to Iran as a grave threat. And this it the guy you all want to be our President? If Bush had made those statements, we would be reading every day about how he is an idiot. But Obama...nary a word.— tom - wilmington, de
- Tom, people were saying that one of Kerry's Purple Hearts was bogus. Different issue.— p-diddy
- Johngilb --- You are so wrong about the conservatives not handing out benefits. Other than the Oil Crowd, no one has received more benefits from the Bush Conservatives than Halliburton & Defense Contractors. 1-20-09 will truly be a sad day for a few people...— yobill626
- diddy, I am not talking about the swift boaters. I am talking about people simply chastising Kerry for his testimony before Congress about atrocities being committed. Recall many of those "winter vets" turned out to be phony, and they are who Kerry based his testimony. But mentioning that was being critical of a man who served his country and was wounded in battle....touted as unfair. it is not a different story.— tom - wilmington, de
- If Polman and hundreds of others slant their reporting in any way that results in America getting out of Iraq, I'm all for it. Clearly they didn't do their jobs and cut through the propaganda in 2002-2003. Anyone read the NYT article exposing the "independent" military consultants as an extension of the Administration's propaganda machine?— JeffA
- Comment removed.
- BOHICA --- "FDR gave away Eastern Europe"? They were fully in-control of the region & since they were attacked, could justify their stance that they weren't leaving anytime soon. After already being in a war, do you think we were in a position in 1945 to start a war with someone who never attacked us? How dumb is that? Oh, yeah, sorry...— yobill626
- Tom, do you really believe your own posts? Kerry was essentially being called a cowardly traitor - all while being awarded some of the highest military honors we have. The GI Bill debate is a policy disagreement.— p-diddy
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- rmmiller needs to return to third grade civics to see where the military budgets originate. It is quite sad when an obvious neo-con tries to blame the wrong party for a given situation. Ph.D. or not, THIRD GRADE CIVICS shows that congress sets the budget and spending priorities. See, that is a function of the constitutional powers set forth in the three part check and balance system. The president can only veto or recommend changes; the individual in that position has no authority on funding levels. So, if you would care to argue facts, you would see that rmmiller's beloved repubs are the actual party that cut military funding.....Slick only signed the bills.— 77volks
- yobill, I could not believe what you wrote. Stalin, at Yalta, stated that "It is necessary that Poland be free, independent in power." Stalin promised free elections in Poland, and wanted to compensate Poland for land Russia annexed by extending their Western border into Germany. FDR basically gave away the store to Russia at Yalta in order to get Russia's entrance into the United Nations (how has that worked out) and their help in the Pacific war.— tom - wilmington, de
- BOHICA - Kerry took a bullet for this country. He wasn't blogging, he took a bullet. How's Kerry a traitor? Because he spoke out about the Mai Lai massacre?— p-diddy
- Comment removed.
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
