CA-50: Yet ANOTHER Deadlocked Congressional Race - Third of the Week

Adding to Bill Durston in CA-03 and Debbie Cook in CA-46, now Nick Leibham has some poll numbers showing a virtual tie:

You can now add Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA 50) to the new heap of GOP incumbents who should be suddenly very worried. A new poll, conducted for atty/ex-San Diego City prosecutor Nick Leibham's (D) camp, shows him trailing Bilbray by a miniscule 44-42% margin.

This may feel like deja vu for GOPers. In the '06 special election to fill imprisoned-Rep. Duke Cunningham's (R) term, Bilbray needed $4.5M from the NRCC to skate by a relatively lackluster Dem. What's worrisome for Bilbray is that the cash-starved NRCC can't afford to put anywhere near that amount in his CD to save it this year. And the DCCC has enough cash, if it chooses to enter the contest, to make a difference. The NRCC simply can't afford to overwhelm Dem efforts here like they did in '06.

This is particularly acute in CA-50. Leibham beat Bilbray in fundraising in the third quarter, and they are almost even in cash on hand. Which means that, barring a life raft from the national party, Bilbray is largely on his own. And he doesn't have much to run on. Here he is whining about that powerful ad from Leibham supporter Joe Hoar, a retired Marine General, which ripped Bilbray for voting against the new GI Bill:

Bilbray said he was one of the GI Bill's original co-sponsors, but voted against it after congressional Democrats loaded it up with extraneous goodies, including a "massive tax increase" and a foreign aid package for Africa and Mexico.

"That's the kind of cynical tactics we said 'no' to," the Carlsbad Republican said. "We forced it to come back as a clean bill and we were able to pass it and it was signed into law in June."

Actually, it wasn't a clean bill at all, it was folded into an Iraq appropriation. And he objected to it initially because it was funded by a tax on millionaires.

Liebham supporters have put up an attack website called Wrong Way Bilbray highlighting his votes. Now that the campaign has settled into attacking Bilbray on the issues, with the Democratic wind at their backs, they are gaining traction.

And more than CA-50, what we're seeing is an across the board re-evaluation of Republican incumbents, with multiple GOPers in trouble.

McCain's Policies Being Brought Out Of The Shadows

John McCain was perfectly content for this election to be about Sen. Obama's readiness and to remain invisible as the alternative in the corner. Unfortunately for him, it's not shaping out that way.

He was hammered by a veteran yesterday, forced to explain his rejection of the new GI Bill and his continued opposition to improving veteran's health care.



McCain tried to backpedal and obfuscate and claim that he has "received the highest award from literally every veterans organization in America". The problem is that's not true.

The recognition McCain has received from veterans groups is not "high awards" but failing grades:

• Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a grade of D for his record of voting against veterans. (By contrast, Obama got a B+.)

• Disabled Veterans of America noted McCain’s dismal 20 percent voting record on veterans’ issues. (Obama had an 80 percent.)

• In a list of "Key Votes," Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) notes McCain "Voted Against Us" 15 times and "Voted For Us" only 8. (Obama voted for VVA 12 times, and against only once.)

Today, McCain showed up at a meeting of the League of United Latin American Citizens, got a polite response, and then watched as Barack Obama lit into him for failing immigrants with his duplicitous votes:

Now, I know Senator McCain used to buck his party on immigration by fighting for comprehensive reform, and I admired him for it. But when he was running for his party's nomination, he abandoned his courageous stance, and said that he wouldn't even support his own legislation if it came up for a vote. Well, for eight long years, we've had a President who made all kinds of promises to Latinos on the campaign trail, but failed to live up to them in the White House, and we can't afford that anymore. We need a President who isn't going to walk away from something as important as comprehensive reform when it becomes politically unpopular.

He also made a detailed economic argument that struck at the heart of the matter - that McCain is offering the same failed policies that have brought us to the brink of recession and created massive income inequality, and that we need a leader who will remember the common man and give them a fair chance to realize their goals. And the crowd loved him for it.

Obama also put together an ad fighting back on McCain and the RNC's dishonest claims about energy policy.

"McCain and Bush support a drilling plan that won't produce a drop of oil for seven years," the announcer says. "McCain will give more tax breaks to big oil. He's voted with Bush 95% of the time."

McCain is whining today about this being a "negative ad" because anything that actually addresses his record ought to be out of bounds.

(It's a small point, but I wish the ad said "reduce the drip of OIL" and not foreign oil. Drilling it ourselves won't solve the problem, as he says in the ad.)

This is not the calculating Obama we have seen in recent weeks, but a strong one working to draw major contrast and shine the spotlight on the terrible record of failed conservatism being put forth by this year's standard bearer.

More Of That Outright Lying Thing

"Assembled guests, friends of the President, I (who opposed the GI Bill) want to thank Sen. McCain (who oppose the GI Bill) for helping to pass the GI Bill."

Shameless. Just totally shameless. But I won't criticize veterans Bush and McCain because that would be demeaning the troops.

...Jim Webb is not mincing words:

Neither of them really did get on board ... I think it’s safe to say there was a good deal of cooperation between Republicans and Democrats. It just didn’t include the administration ... I think George W. Bush made a real bad mistake in terms of our trying to show full respect for military service. I think he blew it.

Understatement of the century.

Let's See What You've Bought

So a deal has been reached on no-strings-attached war funding well into the next President's first year, and all the Democrats get out of it is a GI Bill that isn't paid for (they had to drop the tax on millionaires), some appropriations for flooding in the Midwest and Gulf Coast and modified unemployment insurance for an additional 13 weeks. That's not nothing, but given that it's a signing of a death warrant for tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, it's perverse to even talk in terms of what you "get" out of the deal.

But it's worth looking at the country we've bought for another year or so, just to kick the tires and see where it's going. Turns out that the "political progress" that is continually touted by war defenders is more like a press release than actual progress that gets implemented:

When the Iraqi parliament passed a law in January aimed at rehiring former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party, U.S. President George W. Bush praised it as a step towards national reconciliation [...]

But five months later, implementation of the law is bogged down by infighting between politicians, and the committee once tasked with hunting out Baathists in government has found itself in the odd position of overseeing the process of rehiring them or offering them state pensions.

The government has still not appointed a seven-member panel to replace the deBaathification Committee, whose enthusiastic purge of Baathists from government posts prompted minority Sunni Arabs to accuse them of conducting a witch-hunt [...]

The committee has received 14,000 applications from former Baathists asking for either reinstatement or for pensions, he said.

But Iraq's presidency council -- which comprises Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, and his two deputies -- and a separate Accountability and Justice Committee in parliament have ordered [the committee's head] and his colleagues to freeze their work.

This is merely an example of a persistent pattern where the ruling government makes a show at reconciliation and then uses their power as a tool of repression. The root causes that presage all the sectarian violence we have seen remain and will certainly be acted upon at some juncture.

In other news, we are reminded that this was not a war for oil but a war for oil services contracts.

Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

Gee, I wonder how the US oil companies got the upper hand and those no-bid contracts? It couldn't be the consequence of a decision made at the initial moments of the invasion that the "victor" in Iraq would get the spoils, could it?

As Secretary of State Colin Powell told a congressional panel on Wednesday, "We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant, dominating control over how it unfolds."

And there are similar quotes from that time, freezing out Germany and France from the plunder. Not that any country should profit from the natural resources of Iraq except for Iraq.

So, for the low low price of $162 billion dollars, we have secured a ready-to-explode colony in the Middle East, full of black gold that we will pump out of their sand and mainline directly into the bank accounts of Big Oil.

Awesome.

Al Qaeda Is Not A Dump Truck, It's A Series Of Tubes

Ted Stevens is digging an even deeper hole than John McCain did when he tried to sneak this one past the goalposts.

We expect Al Qaeda to come out some time today with a new manifesto where they ought to be using weapons of mass destruction against the United States. That means that they're realizing they can't win in Iraq. I think they're going to change their way of doing business. And I think we have to be on the alert. These people are all over the world. Al Qaeda's not just in Iraq. They're in Iran. They're in the Philippines. Sen Inouye and I went down to [indistinguishable]. They're over in Indonesia. They're all over.

While Al Qaeda is a decentralized network, the Sunni militants are not in the Shiite Islamic Republic of Iran. Sorry, Ted. No sale.

And when politicians above a certain age make elementary mistakes, particularly when they're running against younger opponents, the contrast of which tends to emphasize their advanced years, mistakes like this are even more damaging. Because you start to believe that the politician in question doesn't know what he's talking about. Because he doesn't.

(Stevens voted against the GI Bill, too. That's going to help him.)

Food Fight Over The GI Bill

Old Man McCain decided to yell at a cloud today. See, he isn't allowed to vote on legislation while there's money to be raised on the campaign trail, so he wasn't allowed to give his opinion that lucky duckie Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are getting too many education benefits. But Barack Obama did on the Senate floor, saying that McCain's opposition to the Webb-Hagel GI Bill is unconscionable, and in response, McCain got really ornery, on the "how dare you disagree with me on veteran's affairs policy" tip:

"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim.

"I know that my friend and fellow veteran, Senator Jim Webb, an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously, has offered legislation with very generous benefits. I respect and admire his position, and I would never suggest that he has anything other than the best of intentions to honor the service of deserving veterans. Both Senator Webb and I are united in our deep appreciation for the men and women who risk their lives so that the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. And I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

See, only members of the military have earned the right to give members of the military education benefits.

They used this "he didn't serve his country" crap against Bill Clinton, too, and it didn't work. Obama hit back pretty forcefully.

"I am proud to stand with Senator Webb and a bipartisan coalition to give our veterans the support and opportunity they deserve. It's disappointing that Senator McCain and his campaign used this issue to launch yet another lengthy personal, political attack instead of debating an honest policy difference. He should know that this is not about John McCain or Barack Obama -- it's about giving our veterans a real chance to afford four years of college without harming retention. Senator Webb's bipartisan bill will do this, and the bill that John McCain supports would not. These endless diatribes and schoolyard taunts from the McCain campaign do nothing to advance the debate about what matters to the American people."

It's just not rational for McCain to claim some kind of support for the troops while essentially saying that we can't let them leave because there wouldn't be enough people willing to fight in multiple wars that he'll authorize. Go ahead and keep talking about it. I'd LOVE to have this debate play out in public.

...also, John Cornyn, who voted against the bill today, decided to call those who want to honor veterans' service "the antiwar crowd." Man, that's the wrong way to go with this. Cornyn is in deep trouble in November.

GI Bill Passes Senate

By a pretty robust 75-22 count, as well. Of course, it's folded into the broader war funding bill, which extends the blank check all the way to the next President, so it's a bittersweet day. Russ Feingold is absolutely right.

“I am deeply disappointed that Congress is considering another Iraq spending bill that does nothing to end the war in Iraq,” Feingold said. “There’s a lot of tough talk from Democrats and even some Republicans about ending the war but not enough real action to do so. Democrats took control of Congress last year pledging to work to bring an end to the war. But now, five years into this war, with 4,000 Americans killed, over 30,000 wounded, and over $10 billion per month being spent in Iraq, we’re actually moving backwards in our goal to end the war. This is a retreat from responsibility.”

That's true. But we also have a responsibility to our veterans to honor their service, and that's what the Webb GI Bill provides. Here's the roll call, and there are a few dead-enders who don't subscribe to that belief, and their vote will be highlighted for years to come. On the other hand, several endangered Republicans got the message and voted to give vets the education benefits they deserve.

John McCain was fulfilling his duty as a non-voting member of the Senate and campaigned out of town. What's interesting is that he tried to blow this whole thing up by offering a crappy "compromise" and completely lost the bulk of his party. What fine leadership!

UPDATE: Are people really going to fall for this again?

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in the war in Iraq, said that he expects this fall to recommend additional cuts in U.S. troop levels there.

He said that he plans to make an assessment by September, when he would move to take over the U.S. Central Command, if he is confirmed for that position, as is expected.

"My sense is I will be able to make a recommendation at that time for further reductions," Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee today in a hearing to confirm him for the Centcom post. He said he didn't know how large those cuts might be.

Yes, just wait until September again. Why are you people so impatient? Five and 1/2 years is a perfectly respectable time to downshift into a commitment of 100,000-plus troops occupying a foreign country.

Anyone who believes this will be at all meaningful and not just a stunt is out of their minds. This has been a constant refrain since the beginning of the war.

You Don't Mess With The VoteVets

I am kind of dumbfounded with John W. McCain's insistence that the GI Bill only get passed on his terms, with minimal benefits, instead of honoring the service of those he finds so honorable. I don't see the positives behind McCain going into states with large military populations like Virginia and North Carolina and proudly telling them that he cut down on their education benefits. It's not a large expense and it's part of the cost of war. It certainly makes more sense that some Cold War weapons system with a massive cost overrun.

Turns out that McCain has a history of shortchanging veteran's health care.

"Times have changed since McCain needed veterans services so urgently. And for many of those thirty-five years, McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, the candidate who talks the best talk on veterans issues, has demonstrated a tendency to work against veterans' interests, voting time after time against funding and in favor of privatizing services--in other words, of rolling back the VA's improvements by supporting some of the same policies that wrecked Walter Reed.

During a March 2005 Senate budget debate, McCain voted to kill an amendment that would have "increase[d] veterans medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006." That amendment lacked an assured funding stream, but lest one mistake this incident for a maverick's stance against budget-busting, there's more. Just a year later McCain voted against an amendment that would have "increase[d] Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes." Two days after it failed, he voted to kill "an assured stream of funding for veterans' health care that [would] take into account the annual changes in the veterans' population and inflation to be paid for by restoring the pre-2001 top rate for income over $1 million, closing corporate tax loopholes and delaying tax cuts for the wealthy." That amendment died quietly, forty-six to fifty-four.

In September 2006 McCain voted to table an amendment to a Defense appropriations bill that would have prevented the department from contracting out support services at Walter Reed. The amendment was indeed tabled--by a vote of fifty to forty-eight, the sort of margin a true veterans' senator might have been able to flip if he really cared about veterans' healthcare.

Hilzoy has a lot more and comes to the same conclusion by checking through votes from the past several years.

The reason you don't cut people off unless they serve 12 years, as McCain wants to do, is that those who suffer physical or psychological infirmities still deserve the rewards that ought to come with service. The GI Bill is an economic engine, but it's also a moral imperative.

McCain has made a big mistake here. He's raised the ire of VoteVets.

Sen. Barack Obama, McCain's most likely general election opponent, already has raised objections to McCain's resistance. And on Tuesday, a veterans' group that has been critical of the war in Iraq is launching an ad in Washington to pressure McCain to change his mind.

By taking issue with McCain on the subject of veterans, Democrats hope to weaken one of his biggest assets — his personal biography as a former Navy pilot who became a prisoner of the North Vietnamese and endured torture at the hands of his captors [...]

Other veteran's groups--from Veterans of Foreign Wars to the American Legion--support the Democratic bill. But VoteVets, which has been aggressive in its criticism of Bush's war policies, is the first to take McCain on directly.

"He's trying to run interference for the White House with a watered down bill," said Jon Soltz, an Iraq war veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org. "How could this not be an issue in the presidential campaign if he doesn't vote for this bill? There is no way for this to go away if he votes against it."

The ads are here. They're powerful.



There's a separate ad targeting John Cornyn in his race against Afghanistan vet Rick Noriega.

This was just stupid. McCain's twisted vision of bipartisanship, where everyone has to line up behind him, is coming back to bite him in the ass.

CA House Races Roundup - 5-16-08

I'll have another House roundup probably by Monday, but I wanted to toss out a few items of note:

• CA-26: I have to applaud Russ Warner's rapid response team for jumping on David Dreier's voting record immediately and choosing the issues where he can reveal that Dreier is not the moderate he portrays as being to his district. On the heels of yesterday's House vote on the GI Bill, Warner released this:

David Dreier voted against a bill to increase educational opportunities for veterans today. The legislation expands the education benefits veterans receive under the GI bill to restore the promise of a full, four-year college education. It passed the House with broad bi-partisan support, 256 to 166.

“I would have voted differently on this bill,” said Russ Warner, a successful small businessman and the Democratic candidate for Congress from California’s 26th district. “It’s important to make the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan part of an American economic recovery, just like the veterans of World War II were. They put their lives on the line for us, and deserve to be able to come home and go to school if they so choose. We need new leaders with new priorities in Washington, and that’s why I’m running for Congress.”

Russ Warner’s eldest son, Greg, is in the U.S. Army and served in Iraq for 17 months. Upon his return, he challenged his father to make a difference by running for Congress.

Down With Tyranny has more, including a great pic of Warner and his son Greg.

• CA-41: Please take some time to read IndieinSF's piece introducing the community to Dr. Rita Ramirez-Dean, a progressive candidate running for slimebucket Jerry Lewis' seat in the San Bernardino area. It's also linked at DWT. The post talks about the picture on the ground and the changing demographics in the district. Our growth potential in California is dependent on winning seats like this. I've met Dr. Dean and found her to be someone of character. She has also endorsed the Repsonsible Plan To End The War in Iraq, elements of which passed through the House yesterday (Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington even mentioned it on the House floor).

• CA-42: Next week, Ron Shepston has two fundraisers with Amb. Joseph Wilson. One is in Oak Canyon Park near Irvine on Wednesday, May 21, (purchase tickets here), and one is in Santa Monica on Thursday, May 22 (info here). Ron also snagged the endorsement of DFA Orange County.

• CA-24: Mary Pallant's interview at Blog Talk Radio is worth a listen.

• CA-04: Try to get the logic of this: by taking welfare payments in per diem checks from the state, Tom McClintock was denying benefits to soldiers. That's the premise of Doug Ose's new ad. Quite a logical leap, but potentially effective.

The Beginning of the Iraq Withdrawal

I've been cooped up all day, but I did notice that Republicans basically stopped the war funding bill in the House. The ostensible reason is the added domestic spending, but the real reason is that they don't want to have anything to do with funding Iraq - it'll be poison for their electoral chances. So a bunch of them voted present.

Stoller has a good post on this:

Today, about 100 House Republicans refused to vote for more war funding, voting 'present'. They are trying to hand off the war to the Democrats, but even Democrats were able to increase their 'no' vote number on funding from 141 to 149; the bill failed. In a separate bill, Republicans also voted against timelines, for torture, and accountability for military contractors, including various elements of a Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. This bill passed with 227 votes; last year, it passed with only 218 votes, for a gain of 9.

Finally the GI bill passed with overwhelming margin of 256 votes in the House, including 32 Republicans. It included a war surtax of one half of one percent on people making over $500k a year to pay for the GI bill, at the behest of Blue Dogs. This might actually be the most remarkable piece of the votes today; conservative Democrats agreeing to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for educational benefits for veterans. Bill Foster and Don Cazayoux both voted well on the new GI Bill and on the Responsible Plan bill with timelines, but were 'yes' votes on war funding. So yes, they are conservative, and I expect Childers to be conservative as well. Still, the MS-01, the IL-14 special election result, and the LA-06 special election result - all red seats picked off by Democrats - are devastating Republican discipline in the House.

Republicans know that they're cooked, and it's every man for himself. Bush has lost his human shield, and Democrats ought to take advantage of this by making him veto every popular program they can think of, making him more and more hated and reflecting badly on McCain and the GOP. While war funding will probably return in the Senate (but doesn't it have to start in the House?), this is a moment of more leverage than I thought possible. The string of special election losses has demoralized House Republicans. There is now a path to ending this war if the leadership chooses to take it.

And those foolish Dems that voted for funding or against education benefits for veterans are going to be hammered over it. Here's Russ Warner already pouncing on David Dreier's vote:

David Dreier voted against a bill to increase educational opportunities for veterans today. The legislation expands the education benefits veterans receive under the GI bill to restore the promise of a full, four-year college education. It passed the House with broad bi-partisan support, 256 to 166.

"I would have voted differently on this bill," said Russ Warner, a successful small businessman and the Democratic candidate for Congress from California's 26th district. "It's important to make the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan part of an American economic recovery, just like the veterans of World War II were. They put their lives on the line for us, and deserve to be able to come home and go to school if they so choose. We need new leaders with new priorities in Washington, and that's why I'm running for Congress."

Warner added "I believe that fully equipping our soldiers, providing them with good medical care and paying them a fair wage should be considered costs of war, but David Dreier seems to believe that we don't owe our veterans anything."

The general election in the House started today, and badly for Republicans.

Worst. Messenger. Ever.

The short version of this is that your policy isn't worth a damn if you're so embarrassed by it that you have to get Larry Craig to make the amendment.

Huffington Post reports that Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) “quietly created presidential campaign ripples on Tuesday” when he “announced that he would offer an amendment to the forthcoming Iraq war supplemental that would strip the legislation of Sen. Jim Webb’s [D-VA] GI Bill.”

The Republicans already tried to insert their crap version of the GI Bill into a bill that would strengthen the collective bargaining rights of first responders. They got shot down.

Republicans, it should be reminded, support the troops.

Obama Jumps On The GI Bill Issue

The Webb GI Bill could come up for a vote this week, and it's putting Republicans in a tough spot. The least we can do for all the veterans we've created during the Bush Administration is give them a full ride to the public university of their choice. It's most definitely part of the cost of war. The Pentagon and some Republicans consider it too expensive. How is a veteran supposed to feel when they her that their service is not worth a big enough dollar amount to educate them?

The dodge that John McCain and others are using is that this will reduce the size of the volunteer army because vets will go scurrying to use the benefits instead of making the military a career. It's an extension of the "welfare queen" argument. Because Republicans are so greedy, they can't imagine not taking advantage of an opportunity immediately. But there's a 15-year time horizon in the bill to use the benefits, enough of a spread to manage that concern. Also, typically the way the world works is that incentives and benefits ENCOURAGE people to join, as the American Legion understands.

“This bill would encourage young men and women to join the military,” [National Commander Marty] Conatser said. “As far as retention goes, the CBO estimates that a simple $8,000 bonus to personnel at their first enlistment point would increase reenlistments by 2 percentage points. Another way to encourage mid-level servicemembers to stay in the military is to transfer GI Bill benefits to family members so the servicemember can remain in the military and still benefit from the program.”

This debate has now jumped into the Presidential race. John McCain, a product of the GI Bill who attended the Naval Academy at taxpayer expense, has tried to weasel out of the bill by endorsing a far more modest version. This puts him on the wrong side of the public (look at all of those op-eds), and in the crosshairs of Barack Obama, who hit McCain hard on this yesterday.

And when our loved ones do come home, it is time for the United States of America to offer this generation of returning heroes the same thanks we offered that earlier, Greatest Generation – by giving every veteran the same opportunity that my grandfather had under the GI Bill.

There is no reason we shouldn’t pass the 21st Century GI Bill that is being debated in Congress right now. It was introduced by my friend Senator Jim Webb, a Marine who served as Navy Secretary under President Ronald Reagan.. His plan has widespread support from Republicans and Democrats. It would provide every returning veteran with a real chance to afford a college education, and it would not harm retention.

I have great respect for John McCain’s service to this country and I know he loves it dearly and honors those who serve. But he is one of the few Senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it’s too generous. I couldn’t disagree more. At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue the American Dream.

Now, this of course is being packaged with continued war funding into the next Presidency, so it's a bitter pill. But in theory, the men and women serving in Iraq and elsewhere deserve these benefits. McCain Republicans are denying them. It's a pretty simple construction.

Bush Dogs Dig War, Can't Stand Veterans

So the House was supposed to vote on war funding today, which I didn't exactly support. What I did support was extending unemployment insurance and veteran's benefits in a new GI Bill, and since the Democrats were so cowardly about giving a blank check to the President on Iraq, they might as well get something in return, and anyway vet benefits ought to be part of military expenditures anyway. But it turns out the Bush Dogs want that blank check for war to be blank.

A small group of fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats is threatening to block the emergency war spending bill over a program for veterans’ benefits not offset with tax hikes or spending cuts.

Because of that problem, and the efforts by House Republicans to stall floor action with procedural motions, the vote on the carefully crafted supplemental measure could be delayed until Friday or next week.

“Some of us oppose creating a new entitlement program in an emergency spending bill, whether it’s butchers, bakers or candlestick-makers,” said Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), a founding member of the Blue Dog Coalition who serves on the House leadership team as a deputy whip.

The so-called GI Bill of Rights, authored by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), would give veterans money for college and cost $720 million in its first two years. But critics say that could grow to billions in future years.

Bush Dogs want fiscal responsibility while giving the President $200 billion dollars OFF THE BOOKS for an unnecessary war. Their hard fiscal line softens in the face of American imperialist adventures.

According to CongressDaily the Bush Dogs are also whining because one of their members, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, didn't get HER GI Bill to the floor in favor of Jim Webb's. So this is about turf wars, too.

The Pentagon has said that the new GI Bill would be bad because it would "reward" soldiers who haven't served six years, because apparently 5 years in combat zones isn't enough of a commitment to service. But what the Bush Dogs are saying is worse. They're hiding behind a twisted notion of fiscal responsibility to deny veterans the honors they deserve no matter how long their service. And this is because they're Bush's biggest allies in Congress, desiring only to please him by offering a clean bill funding the Iraq debacle well into the future.

Last Chance For Accountability In Iraq

Democrats are priming for the kill tomorrow.

After a flurry of last-minute number changes, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) unveiled a three-step process Tuesday for the House consideration of an emergency $183.7 billion wartime spending bill, possibly as early as this week.

In a press conference, Obey said the House will hold three votes related to different components: the first on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the second on conditions to be imposed on the defense funds, and the third on a set of domestic initiatives, not all of which are reflected in the chairman's price-tag.

Chief among these are an extension of unemployment insurance benefits, expected to cost between $11 billion to $12 billion over 10 years, and a landmark expansion of education benefits for veterans who have served since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Extending unemployment insurance is the most effective economic stimulus you can offer, and we need a new GI Bill for the 21st century. So the third bill is fine. But this decoupling essentially writes a blank check for military operations in Iraq, extending even into the next Presidency.

This is unacceptable and it's no secret why this is being done basically in the dark. Despite Michael O'Hanlon's pleadings, the military is broken. There are no troops left to deploy, and continuing to grind the same ones into the dirt just breaks their souls - with veteran suicides on the rise. If this destruction of the volunteer military was in service of some kind of noble goal, defending the nation from enemies or some such, that would be one thing. But they're serving in an occupation that has no military solution, one where reducing violence to then-unacceptable 2005 levels makes you a hero, one where we rationalize national resentment and resistance to occupation as part of the Iraqi honor code , and one where continued involvement and even widening of the war is based on half-truths and useful fictions.

The notion of "special groups"--JAM factions that supposedly have close ties to Iran's Quds force--is, in many respects, a useful fiction. Now there is no doubt in Dr. iRack's mind that there are some JAM elements that deserve the title, but the U.S. military has made a habit of describing all JAMsters who violate the "freeze" on armed activities declared by Moqtada al-Sadr last August as "special groups." In many respects, this is useful to provide slack in the system and prevent the Sadr ceasefire from completely shattering under strain. Yet it also creates a false impression that the majority of JAMsters fighting U.S. forces take their orders directly from the mullahs in Iran (much as the use of the label "Al Qaeda in Iraq" as a catch all term for a disparate and very loosely aligned collection of Sunni insurgent groups creates the false impression that most Sunni insurgents take their orders from Bin Laden or the foreign leadership of AQI).

More than ever, as fighting has escalated in Sadr City, the fiction of special groups has seemed especially fictional. It's been clear throughout the recent conflict that rank-and-file JAM have entered the fray. Now, to be clear, some of these regular JAMsters also receive Iranian weapons, but they are not trained, directed, or controlled by Iran. They are simply opposed to the U.S. presence in Iraq and are willing to take weapons from anybody who will help them fight Americans.

The war is a strain on our resources and does not make us safer. The Democrats want to deep-six any accountability until the elections. I believe that would be a fatal mistake. Things can always get worse in Iraq, and allowing the situation to muddle through for the next eight months decreases any hope for even the least worst option to succeed. This is a betrayal.

McCain's Bipartisanship Results In Nothing

This week, on the same day that veterans groups rallied in support of the Webb GI Bill, James Inhofe, who was browbeaten into supporting the bill, quietly dropped his name off the co-sponsor list. This is a direct consequence of John McCain's twisted vision of bipartisanship. Because in his mind, no bill can pass muster without his support, he had his minions construct a competing bill (talk about passive-aggressive) and suddenly, conservatives who were won over to the concept started splitting off. The end result is that no veteran will end up receiving increased education benefits, because the two camps will splinter and the whole thing will devolve into a typical Washington clusterfuck. And the only man responsible will be John McCain.

This is the legacy of John McCain's "leadership" - real people suffer.

For their part, Oklahoma veterans have taken him to task.

"Senator Inhofe is undermining America's heroes, as they reach for the American dream," said Miranda Norman, a veteran of the war in Iraq, from Norman, Okla. and a state captain for VoteVets.org. "It’s insulting and a slap in the face. Not only has Senator Inhofe turned his back on legislation backed by every veterans’ group, but he signed on to a sham bill, because he thinks veterans are fools who won’t be able to tell the difference." [...]

"A fair education benefit is a sacred promise made to America's military after World War II," added Norman. "That promise has been allowed to become outdated and tarnished. Only the Webb-Hagel bill will restore its luster. And, for that reason, it is the only acceptable bill to America's veterans. By removing his name from that bill, Senator Inhofe has made it clear. He does not support our veterans, and we will make sure all Oklahomans are well aware of that fact."

There's a better sway for Oklahoma - Andrew Rice for Senate.

A Question of Character

Hey, look at this: John McCain is lying about his role in creating public policy! Doesn't that sound to you like a character issue?

An Arizona Republican, McCain has all but locked up the Republican presidential nomination and is preparing for a fall campaign in which his support of the Iraq war is sure to be a major issue. Yet the former Navy pilot and Vietnam POW makes himself a target by refusing to endorse Webb’s new GI education bill and instead signing on to a Republican alternative that focuses more on career soldiers than on the great majority who leave after their first four years.

Undaunted, Webb, who was a Marine infantry officer in Vietnam, is closing in on the bipartisan support needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate, where the cost of his package — estimated now at about $52 billion over 10 years — is sure to be an issue. But McCain’s support would seal the deal like nothing else, and the new Republican bill, together with a letter of opposition Tuesday from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, threatens to peel off support before the Democrat gets to the crucial threshold of 60 votes.

“There are fundamental differences,” McCain told Politico. “He creates a new bureaucracy and new rules. His bill offers the same benefits whether you stay three years or longer. We want to have a sliding scale to increase retention. I haven’t been in Washington, but my staff there said that his has not been eager to negotiate.”

“He’s so full of it,” Webb said in response. “I have personally talked to John three times. I made a personal call to [McCain aide] Mark Salter months ago asking that they look at this.”

Put aside for a moment the fact that McCain's bill would basically hold soldiers hostage inside the military the same way employees are held hostage at their jobs for health care benefits. Put aside that the goal of the McCain bill is not honoring the service of our veterans but making sure enough people are locked into the military to fight all the extra wars he wants to wage. And put aside that the current benefit levels, which McCain's bill seeks to for the most part freeze, are insufficient to the task of covering the cost of higher education.

This is McCain's shtick. He looks to control the stakes of bipartisanship and define it as "everyone agree with me," and he'll lie about your intentions if you dare to defy him. Webb's GI Bill has 57 co-sponsors, pressure is being applied (good on Alaska Senate candidate Mark Begich to trap Ted Stevens on this), and then McCain barrels in, offers his own competing measure and threatens to blow up the whole deal, all because he didn't come up with it himself in the first place.

Now, aren't those VALUES we could all use as a guide to making our choice in November? The fact that McCain puts his ego above the treatment of veterans is one thing, but the idea that he has no faithfulness to the truth and will take credit and impute bad motives at the drop of a hat, all in the name of receiving glory for himself - aren't those QUALITIES that we should consider when making a choice for President?

Or should we just send him to a bowling alley and see how he does, instead?

...oh yeah, and where is McCain on the horrendous condition of our stateside military barracks like the one at Fort Bragg? Has anyone bothered to ask him? Or any of the Democratic candidates? This happened in the upcoming primary state of North Carolina, fercryinoutloud!

x + y/2 = McCain

So a bipartisan group of Senators led by Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel presented a new GI bill for Afghanistan and Iraq veterans. They achieved enough consensus on it that 57 Senators signed on, which in this Congress is fairly rare. But John McCain wasn't in on the bipartisanship, so he had to build his own GI Bill which rewards career military officers (like he was) instead of the young infantrymen who actually need the help. Brandon Friedman and the gang at VetVoice see through this. This is a good run-down.

The Republican bill would increase monthly GI Bill payments for active duty servicemembers from $1,100 to $1,500 as well as provide a yearly $500 book stipend (S22 would provide a $1,000 yearly book stipend). The Republican bill would also allow the servicemember to transfer up to 18 months of benefits to his or her spouse or child after 6 years of service or 36 months of benefits after 12 years of service, something that S22 lacks. Lastly, the bill makes military academy and ROTC graduates eligible for these benefits if they serve an additional five years beyond their initial service obligation.

Clearly the goal of the Republican bill is to provide enhanced benefits for servicemembers who make a career out of the military.

Senator Webb's bill, S22, however, seeks to bring the modern GI Bill in line with the spirit of previous GI Bills by expanding benefits for veterans regardless of whether they choose to stay in after their initial service obligation. Thus, unlike the Republican version, there are no "strings attached" to the GI Bill expansion of benefits. It also tries to ensure that these veterans have the means to actually USE these benefits--something the majority of contemporary veterans cannot do because tuition costs generally exceed GI Bill payments and there is no housing assistance.

Simply put, McCain's bill seeks to lock people into the military so that the pool of soldiers needed for his continued wars remains constant.

But this of course is McCain's modus operandi - creating a "bipartisan solution" that appears to address the legislative problem while having no teeth. It's "bipartisanship" on his terms, with his conservative beliefs intact. In other words, there's nothing particularly bipartisan about it at all. No wonder his media spinners lap it up.

Cornering The Market On Bipartisanship

Shorter John McSame: the key is to trap the troops:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, seemed to give a thumbs down to bipartisan legislation that would greatly expand educational benefits for members of the military returning from Iraq and Afghanistan under the GI Bill.

McCain indicated he would offer some sort of alternative to the legislation to address concerns that expanding the GI Bill could lead more members of the military to get out of the service [...]

Officials in charge of Pentagon personnel worry that a more generous and expansive GI Bill would create an incentive for troops to get out of the military and go to college.

And while that might be great for the individual troop, it could be bad for the military, which is already under stress after more than five years fighting two wars.

On his campaign plane this afternoon, McCain said he and allies in the Senate are working on an alternative to the bill, but would only support something that included incentives to stay in the military.

"We are working on proposals of our own  I'm a consistent supporter of educational benefits for the men and women of the military," McCain said. "I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military as well as for people to join the military. ... I've talked a lot about veterans' health care, so we'll continue to talk about those issues and how to care for vets. I know I can do that, having been one."

This sets up the false choice that we can either give troops the educational benefits they deserve or have a military that isn't broken. Quite a few people enter the military for the educational benefits anyway, so an expanded GI Bill would help on the recruitment side, which is just as important as retention. Second, McCain's proposal is premised on the idea that you should make it virtually impossible to leave the military, forcing the economically disadvantaged to re-up. Republican policies have already made civilian life a struggle for the lower and middle classes; this is a proposal to break the trust of promising aid in exchange for national service. It's a symbiotic relationship that made this nation the most prosperous on Earth in the 1950s.

The way to repair the broken military is by leaving Iraq, not by holding current troops hostage by lessening their prospects in civilian life, or bribing mercenaries in foreign countries to sign up. And education benefits is not some sort of handout like welfare.

"We owe them something," Flavin said of his comrades. "They've given life, limb, everything there is to give. The people who bore the most pain and suffering are the people who could use these benefits."

McCain's figuring that he's going to need more soldiers for all those wars he's planning to start while in office. A military that makes good on its promises and is only used when absolutely necessary, after all, wouldn't be in Iraq. But what this shows, in the final analysis, is that the only "bipartisan" solutions that matter to McCain are his own solutions.

Two sources (neither at Common Cause) who spoke on condition of anonymity told me about McCain's attempts to remove former president of Common Cause, Chellie Pingree, from her job. Common Cause, a non-partisan group devoted to open government, was in some ways the field operative for McCain-Feingold in the Senate. But soon, according to my sources, Pingree saw that this regulatory scheme was too full of loopholes; in particular, she realized that it would lead to too much confusion about what various sorts of organizations could do or not do.

Like many others at the time, Pingree concluded that straightforward public financing was the answer. This wasn't what McCain wanted to hear. In an effort to remove Pingree, McCain's operatives made phone calls to Common Cause board members, funders, and anyone else they thought they could persuade or intimidate. McCain's efforts failed, but they showed that he was willing to attack an ally the moment her judgment veered away from his own [...]

One point to add to Cliff's account is that the line that McCain's agents took in trying to oust Pingree was that she had hurt the organization's "bipartisan credibility." Yet what constituted a loss of bipartisan credibility? It was McCain alone. If McCain was happy with the organization, they could call themselves bipartisan; if he turned on them because they didn't follow his agenda, they lost their bipartisan cover, because even if there were other Republicans who supported reform, he occupied the entire space. This was a staggering amount of power for one politician to have over an organization that was meant to be a watchdog on politics, and McCain used that power ruthlessly.

This is where I lost my admiration for McCain. And as I've watched McCain's modus operandi on other issues, such as the torture legislation, I've continued to see echoes of the Common Cause episode: Corner the market on bipartisanship. Move to claim the position of bipartisan intermediary, and then use that position ruthlessly to serve his own purposes or sell out his allies, because they are dependent on the reality or perception of bipartisanship. As a study in the art of exercising power, it's quite impressive. Until people see through it.

This works when you have a power center and are in demand. It's less effective when you're running a partisan campaign. Those bipartisan allies on military issues won't be bullied into supporting his vision of the GI Bill. Bipartisan allies on the environment know that McCain is shamelessly pandering to voters by calling for a gas tax holiday that would increase driving and greenhouse gas emissions. Bipartisan allies on campaign finance reform won't look kindly upon his campaign manager making the rounds of top lobbyists in DC. McCain's perception as a bipartisan leader will fade with these continued policy shifts, and he will morph into the picture of the current figurehead of the Republican Party.

Nice Hedge You've Got There

After a weekend of total radio silence on the revelations that the American President approved and designated torture tactics on detainees, a reporter finally got up the gumption to ask John McCain a kind of oblique question about it at the Associated Press annual meeting, without referring to the President. And in his answer, McCain got all mixed up again.

Reporter: Why doesn't the same principle apply to detainee enemy combatants, don't we stand for something better...

McCain: Yes, and I’ve made it very clear, I’ve made it very clear in my statements and in my support of the Detainee Treatment Act, the Geneva Conventions, etc., that there may be some additional techniques to be used, but none of those would violate the Geneva Conventions, the Detainee Treatment Act…And we cannot ever, in my view, torture any American, that includes waterboarding.

The "American" slip-up may have been a slip-up. But the weasel language of "there may be some additional techniques to be used," there, my friends, lies the rub. Considering that McCain already voted against banning the CIA from using waterboarding, which he very specifically describes as torture, then that must be one of those additional techniques. And I'm guessing they wouldn't violate those international agreements and American laws because... the President says so.

McCain is essentially setting out exactly the same position as the President has - forcefully stating that we do not torture in public, while authorizing and directing torture techniques in private, and finding lackeys to write legal opinions indemnifying the conduct. The consequences of those techniques has been nothing short of murder, dozens of homicides of prisoners while in US custody. Let's pick a couple at random:

Detainee was found unresponsive restrained in his cell. Death was due to blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease.Contusions and abrasions on forehead, nose, head, behind ear, neck, abdomen, buttock, elbow, thigh, knee, foot, toe, hemorrhage on rib area and leg. Detainee died of blunt force injuries to lower extremities, complicating underlying coronary artery disease. The blunt force injuries to the legs resulted in extensive muscle damage, muscle necrosis and rhabomyolysis. Electrolyte disturbances primarily hyperkalemia (elevated blood potassium level) and metabolic acidosis can occur within hours of muscle damage. Massive sodium and water shifts occur, resulting in hypovolemic shock and casodilatation and later, acute renal failure. The decedent's underlying coronary artery disease would compromise his ability to tolerate the electrolyte and fluid abnormalities, and his underlying malnutrition and likely dehydration would further exacerbate the effects of the muscle damage. The manner of death is homicide [...]

Cause of death: Closed head injury with a cortical brain contusion and subdural hematoma. Manner of Death: Homicide. Iraqi male civilian detainee died in US custody 12 hours after a reported escape attempt. Physical force was required to subdue the detainee, and during the restraining process, his forehead hit the ground. Closed head injury: subarachnoid hemorrhage over brain, cortical brain contusion, right subdural hematoma. Additional injuries: fractured rib, multiple contusions and abrasions to head, torso and extremities. Abrasions on wrists and ankles consistent with restraint. Hemorrhage of right muscle of neck. No evidence of natural disease. DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 closed head injury - died 12 hours after escape attempt."

This is, after all, typical McCain. He says that US troops require significant educational benefits but won't sign on to support a 21st-century GI Bill. He attacks Democratic groups that are "funded by George Soros" and has taken hundreds of thousands from Soros himself. He promises "straight talk" and gets kicked off the Project Vote Smart board for refusing to answer the questions in their "Political Courage Test." He calls himself a public financing champion and attacks Barack Obama for possibly opting out of the Presidential public financing system, while he illegally spends money for the primary despite not being taken out of the public financing system by the FEC. And on and on.

The press loves McCain (for the honor of speaking to him, they handed him the gift of coffee and donuts today) so this massive hedge on torture, combined with recent votes allowing the CIA to continue to engage in it, will probably go unnoticed. The elephant in the room, George Bush's admission of guilt in violating domestic and international laws regarding toture, has gone almost completely unnoticed, after all.

John McCain Hates Our Troops

Via Digby, I can't tell whether this is a campaign ad for John McCain or an epsiode of "Why We Fight":



War is a force that gives us meaning.

It's interesting that McCain frames war as something soldiers engage in for the sake of their compatriots, not for any cause or ethos or any reason at all. Which makes sense, since McCain strongly believes in the nobility and bravery of the American soldier but doesn't believe in giving them an education.



S.22 and H.R.2702 would update the GI Bill for the 21st century and reward those who do fight for causes in our name with the world-class education they deserve. John McCain doesn't support it. He says that he hasn't examined it. The truth is that he doesn't want to get in trouble with his anti-public education conservative base who think that soldiers who protect them are some kind of welfare queens.

McSame cannot credibly talk about supporting the troops. He rejects providing them with anything once they return home. He thinks they're automatons, sausage, killing machines. Nothing else.