Contributors

Friday, June 06, 2008

A Special Dedication

It seems that quite a lot of hoopla has developed as a result of my post regarding GI Bills. In fact, this was a recent comment left regarding said subject.

How can any of you can even listen to what markadelphia says after his embarrassing post regarding McCain's position on the Webb GI bill?

I have to say that this comment is correct. I really didn't do my homework. In fact, I left out several key points and I thank God that someone else out there is more on top of this story than I am. Why doesn't everyone go take a peek at Edward Hume's recent piece on McCain and where he stands on GI Bills and realize how pedestrian my post was?

Some key points:

Over the Memorial Day weekend, Sen. Barack Obama expressed some well-timed astonishment at McCain's opposition, and the two have been feuding about it ever since. The media and pundits seem perplexed, collectively suggesting: That's not the John McCain we know. Which is true: It is the John McCain they don't know. If the media weren't so mesmerized by the McCain image they have long promoted and instead got to know the McCain record, they would realize that there is nothing surprising or inconsistent about his position on the GI Bill.

For years he has opposed legislation that veterans and their advocates deem vital. In doing so, he is simply being true to the contemporary conservative wing of the GOP and its leader, George W. Bush, in opposing social programs and benefits for individuals, even if those individuals happen to be veterans. The only surprise is that anyone finds this surprising.

And facts?

So let's take McCain up on his invitation. Here is how he has stood on recent legislation supported by major veterans organizations:


* On Webb's GI Bill, he expressed opposition, and he was AWOL when it was time to vote on May 22.

* Last September, he voted against another Webb bill that would have mandated adequate rest for troops between combat deployments.

* On a badly needed $1.5-billion increase for veterans medical services for fiscal year 2007 -- to be funded through closing corporate tax loopholes -- he voted no. He also voted against establishing a trust fund to bolster under-budgeted veterans hospitals.

* In May 2006, he voted against a $20-billion allotment for expanding swamped veterans medical facilities.

* In April 2006, he was one of 13 Senate Republicans who voted against an amendment to provide $430 million for veterans outpatient care.

* In March 2004, he voted against and helped defeat on a party-line vote a $1.8-billion reserve for veterans medical care, also funded by closing tax loopholes.

I stand corrected. My post was embarrassing as it left it these key facts. I humbly apologize and fully admit that my writings were lacking in depth. You know what...I....ah....I'll just let Hume finish...

Webb pointed out that there really was no compromise in McCain's proposal because it would have excluded most veterans by offering full education benefits only to those with multiple enlistments, even though 70% to 75% of enlistees leave after one tour.


Compare McCain's stingy standards with the original GI Bill: Any veteran who served 90 days during World War II, in combat or not, earned full benefits. It is Webb's bill that represents the reasonable compromise between the gold standard set for the "greatest generation's" original GI benefits and what is doable in today's economy: a GI Bill that will truly pay for a college education after three years of service, without the onerous payroll deduction.

So here is where the McCain image and reality part company. It is certainly true that his affectionate and respectful rhetoric for America's servicemen and women takes a back seat to no one. But when it comes to improving the health and education of our veterans, McCain's record leaves them stranded by the side of the road.

Oh...no...that's going to leave a mark.


Seriously, though, if you want to bring it to me, as Junior Soprano once said, you're going to have to come heavy, that is, do your fucking research and leave your confirmation bias at the door.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a truly...um, enlightening posting Markadelphia. Thank you. I'm sure you and your fans actually do believe that this proves your point. More's the pity.

What would be even more refreshing than the supposed new era of politics we are entering is if you would actually admit on your blog that perhaps issues are more complex than a surficial "let's spend more money on it" solution. Perhaps an actual analysis of somebody's position on the issues should extend beyond a box score reading of their voting record, which is really all your "heavy" regurgitation of somebody else's work is.

A week ago on this blog McCain's opposition to the GI Bill was predicated on his preference for a "stop-loss" measure. But now we're to believe that his opposition to the bill is simply another event in his apparently long-standing tradition of not wanting to spend money on veterans. Which is it?

I also notice that according to this argument McCain is simply being loyal to the conservative wing, even though that particular group of people is arguably the most uncomfortable with the prospect of a McCain Presidency. (But it did offer a convenient opportunity to use an association to George W Bush.)

Frankly, in my opinion, the only mark that your posting leaves is the impression that you have a total lack of ability or interest in actually seeing another perspective. Do you even know why McCain opposed any of the measures that you [Hume] cite in your [Hume's] posting? Or is this falling under the umbrella of your "no middle ground" quixotic approach to the world?

On this 40th anniversary of a tragic event, this sort of shallow approach to assessing the state of the nation reminds me of what was actually a very astute quote attributed by NBC News to the charlatan Robert F Kennedy (God rest his soul). I paraphrase below because I can't actually find any reference to this quote myself, so for all I know it's no more factual than much of the stuff you post here. But because I'd like to find something positive to say about the man I'll assume that he did actually say something like the following:
People on welfare are looking for husbands and fathers and we're busy writing them checks

Wow. What a refreshing breath of reality that would be coming from this caste of enlightened liberals we have today. Instead we're stuck with the following logic:

Veterans and advocates see a need
=>
Legislation is created
=>
Senator opposes said legislation
=>
Senator is therefore opposed to helping veterans

By that very same logic I can say unequivocably that Barack Obama does not support our troops because he has a consistent history of opposing legislation that provides additional funding that our troops deem vital. Barack Obama would rather see our troops die, apparently for the sake of proving a political point, rather than provide them with the funding for sorely needed equipment that they need to stay safe. I always considered you to be a person of high moral character, Markadelphia. But based on the facts Obama is clearly a man who wants to score political points by facilitating the murder of our troops on the battlefield, and that's a disgusting belief to have.

Anonymous said...

"Do you even know why McCain opposed any of the measures that you [Hume] cite in your [Hume's] posting?"

Well, PL, I think it is pretty obvious why he opposed those bills. He only supports the troops as long as it fits within his political agenda, something I think you, of all people, would disdain.

Anonymous said...

"Barack Obama does not support our troops because he has a consistent history of opposing legislation that provides additional funding that our troops deem vital."

Wait. I thought conservatives were ripping Obama this week for voting yes on all the major Iraq funding bills. So which is it?

Anonymous said...

OK, let's run with that.

Obama supports the murder of our troops as long as it fits within his political agenda, something I think you, of all people, would disdain.

Anonymous said...

Sandra,

I'm just using Markadelphia's argument against him. I make no claim it makes sense. (For the record, any claim that Obama has voted for all major Iraq funding bills is inaccurate.)

Anonymous said...

This is fun. I can see why Markadelphia enjoys this.

Anonymous said...

The fact that McCain voted against all these bills doesn't surprise me. As I have said before, the Republican Party has been the worst thing to happen to the armed forces. The author is correct in stating that it is just pure rhetoric on McCain's part and from what I have seen in the last few years from the Democrats, they support the troops in a more consistent way.

That's not to say that what they are doing is perfect. They could also improve on their bills. I don't know if we will ever see the kind of commitment we saw during WWII. We don't have the same reverence for veterans that we did then.

Much of the problem also has to do with the DoD is run and its mountain of bureaucracy. They wasted or mismanage money more than any other government agency.

Anonymous said...

Here's a question for PL and SW: Based on available evidence, including this latest post, do you think McCain is genuine in his support of the troops?

Everyone has been dancing around this central question and I think it speaks to the very core of conservatism which basically holds as its credo that they are more pro troops than liberals. Well, are they or aren't they?

Anonymous said...

I think McCain is as genuine in his support of the troops as a politician can be. (There, how's that for dancing?) I would respectfully disagree that this question, as you've phrased it, is the "central" question, and I also don't know that I agree that it "speaks to the very core of conservatism". To believe that the issue simply boils down to a black-and-white reckoning of votes on various legislation is to grossly over-simplify the reality of the world as it exists today and as it existed at the time that legislation was on the table.

Speaking only for myself, there's no way I could care any less if one side is more "pro troops" than the other. I consider that to be the sort of ridiculous braggadocio that should be reserved for ESPN discussions of who the best athlete is.

And Markadelphia.blogspot.com

The fact that Obama proves himself to be quite adept in this arena is even more evidence - for those who are willing to see it - that he's nothing more than a typical politician.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn’t call it "a whole lot of hoopla". It was just 1 post by 1 guy and apparently you still don’t think you misrepresented McCains position on ths issue of the GI bill one bit as you just googled a couple words and cut and pasted an article.

And Jeff, that is not the central core of conservatism. While that issue is important...conservatism and liberalism are much greater than only 1 issue.

From his most recent "support the troops post" - "Rather than agree that changes needed to be made, many conservatives decided it would be better to use Walter Reed fiasco as an example of how government run health care doesn't really work.".

The health care they get is top-notch because my company does lots of business with the health care providers that work at Walter Reed. Those outpatient facilities have looked like that for 30 years and you came on this blog and said that this was something new and that it was all GWB’s fault. As someone who works with those facilites I can tell you that that declaration you made, that this was something new and all GWB’s fault, was a lie. I have plenty more examples of what happens under universal health care. When you have universal healthcare you will be dealing with 1 bureaucrat who really doesn’t have to answer to you because there really isn’t anywhere else you can go to get your healthcare. I can give dozens of stories from European universal healthcare models about the rationing of services that happens over there. Did you know that the government in Germany will not allow children to have pediatric prosthetic arms? Why? Because they will soon outgrow it and will need a new one eventually. The policy is the same in the UK as the UK government actually pays parents to not have prosthetic arms and legs put on their children. Lovely huh? Why doesn’t someone tell me where the innovations in the field of health care are coming from these days. Hint – they aren’t coming from Eastern Europe. They are coming from the USA where companies can patent and benefit from their innovations. Things have to absolutely improve with regards to health care in this nation which is why I proposed a limited universal healthcare plan for this nation. Just be sure to provide a more complete picture of universal healthcare models that exist already because if you don’t then I will absolutely call you on it.

More from that post - "Adding insult to injury was the vote of no support from John McCain and President Piece of Shit himself regarding Jim Webb's GI Bill. Take a look at what the bill has to offer and tell me....how can anyone honestly say that these douche bags support the troops?"

If you have read this blog at all you will know that Mark is very sensitive and reactionary any time someone puts forth the line that liberals don’t support the troops, liberals hate America or anything that hints at anyone questioning his patriotism. Mark has never served in the military and he sure seems to give himself free reign to say anything about our military, the state of the world, exactly where OBL is, and now he has given himself the authority to decide who supports the troops and who doesn’t by insinuating that a POW doesn't support the troops(read – "how can anyone honestly say that these douche bags support the troops?"). Mark knows people who served in Iraq and by golly that is good enough for him and the rest of you better know your place!! My cousin is at Camp Echo right now. That can only mean that I have absolute moral authority to officially make declarations about who supports the troops and who doesn’t.

"....how did some conservative react? They accused Obama of mis-characterizing McCain's position, stooping down to a low level, being naive and stupid, and blah blah blah...we are going to hate him no matter what...blah blah blah...."

That is exactly what Mark did – mischaracterize McCains position.

Ben – I happen to think that one of the differences between WWII and our current situation is that during WWII our entire country was at war. Nowadays it seems as if only our military is at war while a good chunk of the population today fixates themselves on nascar, Desperate Housewives, the latest electronic gadget, the NFL, American Idol, Britney gaining 20 lbs, poker, the latest Christmas toy, the Oscars, their 65 hour workweeks, their nagging spouse, keeping up with the Jonses’, etc.

Before any of you come back with your predictable responses ripping into GWB – that’s not what we’re talking about here so save your cyber ink. I have a somewhat lengthy post coming up about GWB very soon.

Madness takes it’s toll, please have exact change ready.

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid I don't understand your position, last, vis a vis Bush and Walter Reed. While I agree with you that the health care conditions were bad before, don't you think Iraq made them worse?

There wasn't any adequate planning for the injuries to the troops, both mental and physical, and to say "See? This is what happens when you have universal health care" fails to take into account the responsibility of this administration in causing the Walter Reed crisis.

Anonymous said...

Much of the problem also has to do with the DoD is run and its mountain of bureaucracy. They wasted or mismanage money more than any other government agency.

Yeah, the DoD is fully populated by evil, wasteful people. Only people who care about people and work in HHS or Education are really careful about how the tax-payer's money gets spent.

You do realize little boy that it is the SAME civil service in the DoD, the CIA, and State as it is in Commerce, SocSecAdmin and Agriculture? Yes, it really is. And there isn't an iota of difference in dedication or competence between the people working in ANY gov't agency. You get the full gamut no matter where you look.

Mark Ward said...

"Yeah, the DoD is fully populated by evil, wasteful people."

No, I didn't say that. I said there are plenty of people that are fighting the good fight but when the people running it are corrupt (e.g. Donald Rumsfeld) there tends to be more acceptance of thievery.

Look at the budgets. We spend the most money on health care and defense. I have said before I don't doubt that there is corruption in Medicare and Medicaid but at a much smaller level than in defense.

I will say this though, juris, you still have your paradigm backwards. Currently and for pretty much most of history, government having an adverse effect on industry has not been the problem. It is the opposite. Look closer at the people who complain about government interfering with corporations. They have an ax to grind and are lying.

Anonymous said...

I said there are plenty of people that are fighting the good fight but when the people running it are corrupt (e.g. Donald Rumsfeld) there tends to be more acceptance of thievery.

First off, it was Ben's remark that I was commenting on.

However your statement above is flat out false. That's like saying that if a school administrator happens to be a pedophile, then pedophilia will be more accepted by the faculty. Somehow I don't think you'd buy into that logic in THAT situation.

Mark Ward said...

Oops, sorry Juris. I thought I wrote something similar in another thread and was responding here.

Of course, Ben does have a more informed opinion than I do. He is currently serving his fifth tour of duty in a war zone (3 in Iraq, 2 in Afghanistan). In addition to being informed, I would bet his opinion is quite biased regarding the DoD.