Competent Government

Steve Benen has a good report about FEMA working diligently on the ground in Georgia to manage a once in 500 years flood that's ravaged the area. Even Georgia's conservative Senators are praising the emergency management effort. And then there's this nice story from the Veterans Affairs Department:

WASHINGTON - Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki announced the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has authorized checks for up to $3,000 to be given to students who have applied for educational benefits and who have not yet received their government payment. The checks will be distributed to eligible students at VA regional benefits offices across the country starting Oct. 2, 2009.

"Students should be focusing on their studies, not worrying about financial difficulties," Secretary Shinseki said. "Education creates life-expanding opportunities for our Veterans."

Starting Friday, Oct. 2, 2009, students can go to one of VA's 57 regional benefit offices with a photo ID, a course schedule and an eligibility certificate to request advance payment of their housing and book allowance. Because not all these offices are located near students, VA expects to send representatives to schools with large Veteran-student bodies and work with Veteran Service Organizations to help students with transportation needs.

A list of those VA regional offices is available at www.vba.va.gov/VBA/benefits/offices.asp.

We're unused to this kind of government, which manages emergencies effectively and cleans up mistakes with efficiency and speed. This stuff only makes headlines when there's a screw-up, and not when government does its job. But we shouldn't take it for granted, as we saw in the Bush era.

Inside Governor Hoover's Budget Revise

When you go beyond the headlines, there are several interesting elements of the Governor's May Revise - which by the way, was illegally delivered, under the February budget agreement, but hey, what's the law, right?

We know some of the major portions of the Governor's plan - cutting education, thousands of state employee layoffs, lots of borrowing (something like 40% of the gap through revenue anticipation warrants), selling public landmarks, etc. First of all, with respect to selling off public property, easier said than done.

Case in point: the governor's plan a while back to sell EdFund, the state's student loan guarantee fund. It was projected to bring in $1 billion, but still hasn't been sold (and was last valued at 50% of its original estimate). I mention that because in this proposal, the governor suggests $1 billion for selling off part of the State Compensation Insurance Fund. Maybe it's an easier deal than EdFund (and others in the past), but...

Some other interesting pieces:

• Despite the fact that Schwarzenegger adamantly insisted there will be not tax or fee increases as part of any solution, there in fact are new fee increases included. The Governor seeks higher fees, but significantly, those fees would hit some of the most vulnerable citizens in the state. For example, he raises fees for residents living in veterans homes throughout the state, adding $2.8 million dollars. What's important here is that he betrays his own rhetoric by raising some fees inside his own revised plan.

• While the budget deficit exists because of an historic drop in revenue during this Great Recession, instead of temporarily cutting various services, the Governor's revised budget would cut them permanently, particularly in programs like Medi-Cal, In-Home Supportive Services, SSI/SSP, regional centers, Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants. This despite, once again, the Governor reconciled his raid of local governments by saying that "hopefully the economy comes back." But even if it did, the permanent cuts to programs serving the most vulnerable elements of society would remain. The vast majority of those cuts would be implemented regardless of the outcome of the May 19 ballot measures.

• Never one to let an opportunity in crisis to slip by, the Governor would also allow the first new offshore drilling off the California coastline in 40 years, putting a major dent in any possible depiction of Schwarzenegger as some kind of environmentalist. Despite not being able to tax the severance of oil from California land, the Governor would lease new offshore drilling sites to bring in $100 million from the state. And this would nullify a ruling by the State Lands Commission that denied further oil leases. As recently as last summer, Schwarzenegger vowed not to allow new drilling off the California shore.

You won't read much of this fine print in the discussion of the budget, or the glorifying media profiles of the "Governator." But it's important, because every aspect of this reveals him as a cheap fraud.

Quick Work

Approximately nobody liked the plan floated by the Obama Administration to send wounded veterans out onto the private insurance market to pay for treatment of injuries obtained during their service. It sounded positively Bush-like, and the meager cost savings were more than outweighed by the immorality, not to mention undermining the VA medical system, which actually does a fine job keeping down costs. I believe the White House learned their lesson:

This afternoon, Speaker Pelosi met with leaders of veterans’ service organizations and announced that the Administration is no longer considering the plan:

I’m pleased to announce that we have some good news of the past several days, President Obama has listened to the genuine concerns expressed by veteran’s leaders and veterans service organizations regarding the option of billing service connected veterans insurance companies. Based on the respect that President Obama has for our nation’s veterans and the principled concerns expressed by veterans’ leaders, the President has made the decision that the combat-wounded veterans should not be billed through their insurance policies.

Veteran's Committee Chair Bob Filner had already announced he would not take up the proposal in his committee, so it was already DOA, making the Administration's decision somewhat easier. I just cannot understand why you would even start down this path, causing cracks in the shaky trust built up over the years between Democrats and veterans. But at least there will be no larger scuffle.

Neutralize Lieberman - Jim Martin For Senate

Today is Veteran's Day, and six years ago, Saxby Chambliss perpetrated one of the more cowardly and despicable attacks on a veteran in recent political history, accusing multiple-amputee Max Cleland of disloyalty and producing an ad connecting him to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden (the core of the charge was because Cleland favored union rights for Department of Homeland Security employees, by the way - so it was an anti-union smear as much as it was a national security smear). Here's what one prominent politician had to say about it:

"I'd never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield -- it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible."

That was John McCain, who is later this month headed to Georgia to campaign with Chambliss in his runoff election against Jim Martin.

At least he still has his principles, right?

I will say that Saxby Chambliss is at least consistent. His contempt for veterans in the political arena is matched by his opposition to them on the floor of the Senate, voting against funding for the new GI Bill, traumatic brain injury research, proper amounts of time between deployments, and dozens of other initiatives.

Now, Chambliss is facing Jim Martin, an Army veteran who served one tour of duty in Vietnam. Neither candidate reached 50% in the November election, so there is a December 2 runoff scheduled. Barack Obama is sending aides to Georgia to work on the campaign, which will undoubtedly come down to turnout, and now it's our turn. On Veteran's Day, bloggers are having a national day of action to raise money and awareness for Martin. There are scattered events planned across the country, but you can visit this ActBlue page and give to Martin directly. Considering that not just McCain but Mike Huckabee and even Sarah Palin are scheduled to rush to Chambliss' aid, it's a chance to humiliate them once again.

But I want to look at it another way. The Georgia seat was not expected to be Democratic this year. Picking this one up in extra innings adds a vote on a variety of substantive issues - Martin looks to be pretty solid. And so all the wonder about Joe Lieberman's status in the caucus would be made somewhat irrelevant. His bad vote on the war? Cancelled out by Martin's? Veteran's issues? The same. His bad positions on economic stimulus and other progressive issues? Martin would likely nullify those as well. His chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee? Lieberman shouldn't have it, but Democrats are nearing a tipping point where they would gain extra seats on these committees (they are proportionally distributed), and thus it's possible that adding Martin to the Senate would put enough Democrats on that committee to vote down any frivolous subpoenas Lieberman might be itching to issue.

The best way we can neutralize Joe Lieberman is to put more Democrats in the Senate and marginalize his voice. Help out Jim Martin today.

Bloggers for Martin

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.

CA-04: Brown Leads, McClintock Follows

(You guys are awesome. Thanks so much for getting us to our goal. But there's still more work to be done before midnight; we need to get $500 raised for each candidate. Right now 4 of our 5 candidates need a little more. Visit our ActBlue page and donate!)

Calitics Match candidate Charlie Brown is facing California's Alan Keyes, perennial candidate Tom McClintock, in the most hotly contested Congressional race in the state. And I think the pressure is getting to McClintock.

He put together a website called "Vets for Tom" which has a page with a list of resources for veterans. There is substantial evidence that McClintock's team plagiarized the resource list from Charlie Brown's website.

Campaign manager Todd Stenhouse said that not only did a list of resources on the site exactly match what was on Brown's site, but one link that was broken on Brown's site had the same problem on McClintock's site.

When visitors clicked on the "AmVets" link on McClintock's site, Stenhouse said, the broken address took visitor to a site with an address from Charlie Brown's site, in what Stenhouse called "a smoking gun."

"Everything he's learned about veterans and the military, he's apparently learned from Charlie Brown," Stenhouse said, referring to Brown's criticism of McClintock, a state senator, for voting against legislation related to veterans. McClintock established the veterans' site late last week.

There's really not much more to say on that. Some people lead and others follow.

Meanwhile, Brown and McClintock are strating to meet in forums and debates. Last week Brown called into a Sacramento radio show where McClintock was appearing, and last night they discussed the financial industry bailout. As expected, McClintock favors the exact same failed solutions which brought us to this crisis in the first place, like suspending the capital gains tax. Brown's position is more nuanced, supporting enforceable standards on executive compensation and returning proceeds from selling assets to taxpayers, while concerned about the consequences of doing nothing (which is McClintock's specialty).

The larger point is that McClintock is an enthusiastic supporter of the failed policies of the past, while Brown would reliably represent the future and lead on key issues.

California Campaign Update

Things are happening very quickly in the most hotly contested campaigns in California. Here's an update:

• CA-04: Watching himself falling behind in the race to replace John Doolittle, perennial candidate Tom McClintock decided to borrow one of his predeccesor's smear campaigns and release an ad claiming that Charlie Brown dishonored servicemen by appearing at an anti-war rally.



The idea that wearing a camouflage jacket constitutes being "in uniform" is ridiculous, and so is the idea that a retired military officer has no free speech rights. But the idea is to smear Charlie as some kind of radical leftist and anti-military, despite Brown's long record of supporting veterans and McClintock's longer record voting against them.

The ensuing press conference put on by the McClintock campaign was a wild affair.

SACRAMENTO - A press conference on congressional candidate Charlie Brown's actions in 2005 at the home of an anti-war display nearly descended into conflict itself, with disruptions before, during and after the event and a near-appearance by police officers [...]

But before the event even began, a handful of Brown supporters - accompanied by Brown's campaign manager, Todd Stenhouse - were asked to leave so that they wouldn't cause a disruption.

One man loudly protested that as a military veteran and the father of an active-duty U.S. soldier, he felt he could stay. "This is not Russia," he said.

McClintock campaign consultant John Feliz and Stenhouse eventually got the man to agree to leave, but not before security at the Hyatt hotel where the press conference took place made calls to Sacramento police to remove the man [...]

But a third man who was with the veterans pointed out that Brown was within his First Amendment right to do so, prompting Feliz to ask him to leave as well, while also saying Brown should re-enlist and face a court martial for his actions.

The man, who gave his name as Bret Sherlock, said afterward that he attended because he was tired of non-veterans like McClintock smearing veterans like Brown.

"Did he do anything illegal?" Sherlock said of Brown, adding that if anyone should be able to protest the war, it should be Brown, as both a veteran and a father of a soldier who has served four tours of duty in Iraq.

McClintock campaign spokesman Bill George said the video came from a "concerned citizen." Neither McClintock nor Brown appeared at the press conference.

After the press conference concluded, Stenhouse tried to give McClintock's campaign a pledge to join a Brown program that donates 5 percent of Brown's campaign contributions to nonprofit community groups that work with charities.

Feliz angrily took it and threw it down without looking at it.

They don't want to talk about issues. So McClintock tries to smear a decorated veteran to win an election. Typical.

• CA-11: We've talked before about Dean Andal's embarrassing fall from Congressional contender to also-ran, but it's just getting worse and worse. The questions over Andal's role in a botched construction project at a local community college have continued, and he's also been caught lying about his claim that he's raised more money than any Congressional challenger in the country. Now his mailers are hitting mailboxes throughout the district, and they've been revealed as lies.

What it says: "Instead of taking action to fix America's energy crisis, ruling Democrats shut down Congress this month (August) for a five-week vacation — with Democratic Congressman Jerry McNerney casting the deciding vote to adjourn."

Is it true? No. The vote was 213-212 in favor of adjournment. Under Andal's argument, all 213 members of Congress who voted in favor of the annual summer break were the "deciding vote."

Besides, party leaders don't let freshmen decide anything.

It's almost sad how bad Andal is doing. The NRCC isn't even spending in the district.

• CA-50: The latest registration numbers for the district are in, and while Republicans continue to hold an 11-point lead, the trend is in Democrats' favor. Republicans are also perilously close to the 40% registration line, under which it becomes harder for them to win, as more independent voters lean Democratic. I don't know if Paris Hilton ads and chicken suits will get it done for Nick Leibham, whose campaign is clearly just trying to get in the headlines. But there are lines of attack on Bilbray, particularly over his single-minded focus on immigration and not the pocketbook issues that affect people's lives, though Bilbray is enough of a nut to say that the two are functionally equivalent.

• CA-26: There's another smear campaign going on in this race, where David Dreier and the NRCC are trying to hold onto this seat by dredging up old news about Russ Warner and old tax liens and business license payments. These are incidents from as far back as 1992, and Warner's business license has since been reinstated. It's a pretty negative mailer considering that Dreier sounds so confident about victory. Warner is now out with his own mailer highlighting Dreier's many ties to special interests (like the $200,000 he's received from oil and gas companies). The fact that Dreier and Bush agree 94% of the time makes an appearance as well. The fact that this race is getting so nasty so early suggests that Dreier has seen some polling that has him worried.

• AD-80: Manuel Perez has snagged the endorsement of the Sierra Club. They also have an ad up on the air, which is notable for an Assembly candidate.

Disconnected Thoughts

• The media narrative of this convention is that Democrats aren't doing enough, they're being too boring, they're not giving enough specifics, they're not attacking McCain enough, they're attacking McCain in the wrong way, they're too divided, Michelle Obama mentioned Hillary too much... I mean it's all over the map. I wish we had an adult campaign for serious, adult times, and everybody quit with the blather. Republicans, by the way, will not have to do anything at their convention.

• This was very good from Hillary Clinton:

Mrs. Clinton, preparing for her own speech Tuesday night, appeared before emotional members of her home state delegation this morning. She urged the party to come together while taking a shot at new campaign commercials by Senator John McCain that seek to foster division between Clinton backers and those of Senator Barack Obama, the soon-to-be nominee.

“Let me state what I think about their tactics and these ads,” she said in an appearance at a downtown hotel. “I’m Hillary Rodham Clinton and I do not approve of that message.”

This PUMA thing is the most media-savvy non-story in history. Celebrilawyer Gloria Allred was at the California delegation today claiming that she had been "gagged," and she had a gag around her mouth and everything.

• Steve Benen has more thoughts on Jim Leach.

• The recent polls I've seen, none of which really matter before the convention, are somewhat mixed, but it is notable that McCain can't win his own state handily and will probably have to campaign there.

• McCain, who thinks candidates shouldn't talk about their military service, continues to... talk about his military service, using his POW time as a convenient excuse (even though CBS edited it out of yesterday's newscast). McCain, meanwhile, has a crappy record on veteran's issues.

The POW Card

This really is quite amazing. I didn't imagine that every response, every excuse by the McCain campaign would be tied to his POW service, all the while keeping up the fiction that he's reluctant to talk about it. But that's exactly what's happened, to an embarrassing degree.

Speaking to the Washington Post, aide Brian Rogers, in full damage-control mode, acknowledged that his boss had "some investment properties and stuff," but added: "This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison."

That the McCain campaign could incorporate his service in Vietnam into a campaign spat over his property portfolio is not so surprising. The Senator has, rightfully or not, used his history as a POW shrewdly and repeatedly throughout this campaign. Earlier this week, for instance, amidst speculation that the Senator may have received in advance the questions to a values forum between him and Obama, spokeswoman Nicole Wallace declared: "The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous."

When Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of former Senator John Edwards, ridiculed McCain's health care policy, his aides didn't respond with a substantive retort. Rather, they declared that their boss knew what it was like to get inadequate care "from another government." Even earlier, when the topic was about earmarks, McCain criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton for proposing funds for a museum celebrating Woodstock. He didn't know what there was to celebrate, he said, because he was "tied up" during the music festival.

The Senator has even brought his military record into discussion of his music tastes. Explaining that his favorite song was "Dancing Queen" by ABBA, he offered that his knowledge of music "stopped evolving when his plane intercepted a surface-to-air missile." Dancing Queen, however, was produced in 1975, eight years after McCain's plane was shot down.

There are a dozen more of these. And it's actually offensive at this point. Brandon Friedman at VoteVets has had enough.

1. Being a POW is not an excuse for everything.

The bottom line is that we're sick of hearing about this as a justification for everything John McCain does or doesn't do. This instance is only the latest example, as others have noted.

The fact is, John McCain's service during Vietnam was honorable and he sacrificed a great deal. But his service to the country carries no more weight than that of any other POW. Likewise, while McCain has given so much to his country, thousands of veterans--past and present--have given as much or more. In this war alone, thousands of troops have lost limbs, been paralyzed, and been burned beyond recognition. So to see McCain resort to playing the POW card when answering legitimate questions, in my mind, cheapens that experience. And by cheapening his own experience in war, he degrades all of our experiences in war. He turns the horrific incidents we've all seen, touched, smelled, and felt into a lame excuse to earn political points. And it dishonors us all [...]

But there's also another issue here:

2. Thousands of veterans are homeless--that is, they have ZERO homes.

John McCain seems to forget that while he and his wife own at least eight houses, there are currently over 150,000 homeless vets on America's streets. The only "houses" they own are cardboard boxes under a bridge. Many of these vets served alongside John McCain in Vietnam. Some might have even been POWs. Either way, thousands of them have suffered immeasurably overseas, in the service of their country.

It's really crazy and it's reaching the level of out-and-out parody. Every time anything happens to McCain, troll liberal blog comments and you'll get half a dozen "but he was a POW!" If that acerbic stance goes mainstream, forget it. McCain is shot. I can't believe he's still trying this.

But it's just like a loudmouth pundit to have absolutely no self-awareness.

...I guess some in the media are defending McCain on this, and that's no surprise: he's one of them.

Why do the media idiots love him? Because he’s one of them.

Why do they give him a pass on his totally fraudulent references to elitism? Because they do that shit all the time.

Why do they love his insanity-based foreign policy? Because he says all the absurd, superficially strong-sounding stuff that makes good TV.

They love him like Chris Matthews loved Tim Russert. They love him like David Brooks loves Tom Friedman loves Richard Cohen loves Fred Hiatt. They love him like the Slate editorial board loves any idiot with a contrary position. They would go to bat for him because it’s tribal, because they get him, on a fundamental level. He’s good TV people. He’s one of them.

Keep defending him, guys. And make sure you repeat the quote when you do it. Because you don't actually have a whole lot of credibility anyway, and as long as you mention clearly that John McCain doesn't know how many houses he has, people will get the message.

Fighting For The Franchise In Ohio

In 2004, Ohio's election system was run by Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (R-Crazytown). We know how that turned out. In 2006 Democrat Jennifer Brunner was elected, and we're already seeing the positives of that.

Ohio has created a window in the election calendar that would allow residents instant gratification — register one minute, vote the next. It's also given the campaigns of Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain a chance to bank thousands of first-time voters during that Sept. 30 to Oct. 6 window.

The move will benefit Obama, who enjoys a 2-to-1 lead over McCain among 18- to 34-year-olds, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released last month. If Obama's campaign were able to tap into college campuses with one-stop voting, it would add thousands of votes to his tally in a state where, in 2004, John Kerry lost to President Bush by only about 118,000 votes, putting Bush over the top in the electoral count.

Actually, the move will benefit America. Increased participation in the political process is a universally desired result, and same-day registration has been shown to increase turnout significantly. The same with early voting. And the same with permanent absentee balloting (a new feature in Ohio this year). Making the process easier benefits the country by allowing the widest possible range of voices to be heard.

Of course, Republicans don't want more voters, so they're trying to muddy the waters and raise fears of non-existent voter fraud.

In Ohio, Republicans are clearly not pleased with same-day registration and voting and have not ruled out a lawsuit against Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's office.

"You have to wonder, when they look at what they consider a loophole with such excitement," said Jason Mauk, the Ohio Republican Party's executive director. "That would suggest manipulating the process, and I think opens the door to suspicion."

What's hilarious is that state lawmakers created this early voting window in 2006. When the governor was a Republican. And he signed it into law. So it's not a loophole.

Republicans want to open the door to suspicion as a pretext to suppressing the vote. Amazingly, they're engaging in the same tactics at veterans homes.

WHAT is the secretary of Veterans Affairs thinking? On May 5, the department led by James B. Peake issued a directive that bans nonpartisan voter registration drives at federally financed nursing homes, rehabilitation centers and shelters for homeless veterans. As a result, too many of our most patriotic American citizens — our injured and ill military veterans — may not be able to vote this November.

I have witnessed the enforcement of this policy. On June 30, I visited the Veterans Affairs Hospital in West Haven, Conn., to distribute information on the state’s new voting machines and to register veterans to vote. I was not allowed inside the hospital.

Outside on the sidewalk, I met Martin O’Nieal, a 92-year-old man who lost a leg while fighting the Nazis in the mountains of Northern Italy during the harsh winter of 1944. Mr. O’Nieal has been a resident of the hospital since 2007. He wanted to vote last year, but he told me that there was no information about how to register to vote at the hospital and the nurses could not answer his questions about how or where to cast a ballot.

I carry around hundreds of blank voter registration cards in the trunk of my car for just such occasions, so I was able to register Mr. O’Nieal in November. I also registered a few more veterans — whoever I could find outside on the hospital’s sidewalk.

There are thousands of veterans of wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and the current campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan who are isolated behind the walls of V.A. hospitals and nursing homes across the country. We have an obligation to make sure that every veteran has the opportunity to make his or her voice heard at the ballot box.

Connecticut’s attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, and I wrote to Secretary Peake in July to request that elections officials be let inside the department’s facilities to conduct voter education and registration. Our request was denied.

It's not such an incredible story, when you look at both candidates' record on veteran's funding issues (Obama is far better), and when you learn that troops deployed abroad have given money to Obama by a 6:1 margin.

This really is the electoral battleground: whether the organization of the Obama campaign can overcome the institutional barriers to participation thrown up by Republicans.

(At Least) 22,000 Suicide Calls

Actually the number is probably higher - 22,000 identified themselves explicitly as vets. Over 55,000 called the special line set up through the VA in its first year of operation. Some are friends and family of vets, which makes sense, as watching someone close struggle with PTSD or worse must be unbearable. These statistics are gruesome.

Calls to the VA’s hotline more than doubled this calendar year going from a total of about 21,000 in January to more than 55,000 by the end of June, averaging about 250 calls a day.

Out of 55,469 calls that the VA’s suicide hotline has received in the last year, 22,044 callers identify themselves as veterans. Callers can remain anonymous if they choose. About 3,000 (2,966) identified themselves as a family member or friend of a vet. Six hundred (621) said they were on active-duty. The VA rescued 1,221 callers with emergency responders while 2,911 received help in what the VA calls a “warm transfer.” More than 4,500 (4,592) callers were referred to a VA suicide prevention coordinator in their local area. The VA says they don’t know of any individuals who committed suicide after using the 1-800-number. A spokesperson for the VA told CBS News that “there are none that we are aware of that have occurred when they called the hotline.”

We simply don't know that answer, and I would gather that it's probably too hopeful.

This hotline was set up in 2007, after Democrats like Harry Mitchell urged its implementation after seeing the sorrowful statistics on veteran suicides.

A recent RAND Corporation study found that nearly 20 percent, or about 300,000 veterans out of the approximately 1.64 million who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, currently suffer from major depression or post traumatic stress disorder. A news report last November by CBS News Chief Investigative Correspondent Armen Keteyian discovered that in 2005 more than 6,200 veterans had committed suicide at a rate twice that of non-veterans. A series of internal VA emails, which were exposed earlier this year, confirmed CBS’ findings as well as revealed that about 1,000 vets seeking care from the VA attempt suicide every month for a total of about 12,000 a year.

(CBS and NPR have been very good at tracking the story of veteran suicides)

So now we have 20%, at a minimum, of our soldiers coming home with PTSD or some mental health issue, and around 2% driven to thoughts of suicide, 1% driven to actually attempt it, and about half that succeeding in the attempt. That is an epidemic.

The VA's efforts to offer help to troubled veterans is fine, but if they diagnosed these cases during soldier's tours and on discharge rather than hiding the scope of the problem, they wouldn't have to hire hundreds of mental health professionals as call screeners to inadequately address the problem on a suicide hotline. This is a textbook example of how early detection in health treatment saves lives and money. But the VA's modus operandi is to avoid diagnoses at the outset, because then we would have to factor the human toll into the real cost of war.

It's really heartbreaking but there is a better way which requires minimal competence at the VA.

Meet Mark Begich, Alaska's Next Senator

This is really good to see.

Alaska’s U.S. Senate race between Republican incumbent Ted Stevens and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich has been a toss-up for several months now, but the Democratic challenger is now ahead 50% to 41%. When “leaners” are included, Begich leads 52% to 44%.

Begich began running his first television ads of the campaign on July 8 and the survey was conducted nine days later.

I've blogged about those ads previously, but this week I got to know Mark Begich as a person. He held an informal event with a bunch of us bloggers on Thursday at Netroots Nation, and because of the whirlwind of events I haven't gotten around to it until today. Begich, the mayor of Anchorage, which has 43% of the population of the state (and 70% of the media market), got into the campaign late for very calculated reasons. First of all, media is cheap, and an ad buy like he's started can have an immediate impact. Begich outraised Series of Toobz Ted Stevens in the second quarter, so he will have the needed resources. He had the same strategy in 2003, when he beat the sitting incumbent mayor of Anchorage in a close vote, and then went on to manage the city out of fiscal crisis and got them on better footing. The key, to him, is to be direct - to shoot straight with people and tell them what you believe. He calls in to any conservative talk show and even engages with random commenters on the Anchorage Daily News blog - so much so that his campaign staff has had to rein him in a bit!

Alaska is really a different kind of state, one that relies on help from the federal government because of its proximity and relies on the oil and gas industry for its wealth. Ted Stevens has cynically used this to steer contracts to his political friends and allies, but as Begich said "his clout is no longer working for Alaskan families," and there's a disconnect between the state's needs and the rhetoric in Washington. The one question I got to ask him was about oil exploration, because it's interesting that his first ad, in Alaska, was about his commitment to wind energy. "I couldn't have run that ad a couple years ago," he said, "but things are changing. Alaska is starting to view itself as an energy state, not an oil and gas state. He gave the example of salmon fishers off the coast (about 50% of our salmon come from this area) not being able to ice down their catches because it's now too expensive to pay for the energy to generate the ice. So their solution was an ice barge for all the ships and boats, powered by tidal energy. Alaskans are feeling these problems every day, and it's a common thread that unites them. And it can be the spur to real innovations and diversification of our energy future. That comes with a comprehensive energy policy, and while it's clear that Begich would vote for drilling in ANWR - although he said that a lot of the oil could be sucked up by nearby existing fields if they bent their pipes a little bit - he would use it as part of a comprehensive energy policy, which we currently don't have.

There are other issues in the campaign as well, including the SCOTUS (the reduction of the fine necessary for Exxon to pay in the Valdez aftermath weighs big with voters) and veteran's issues (11% of the state are vets, and yet there's NO VA HOSPITAL up there). The good numbers notwithstanding, this race isn't over - Begich described a 3-4 point "rubber band effect" where voters often come back to the GOP in the last week, and the local press is notoriously soft on the legendary Stevens. But there's a real opportunity here to send a pragmatic progressive to Washington who has the competence, the ability and the principles to lead Alaska in the Senate. I was pretty impressed.

Bill Scher at Liberal Oasis and CAF also interviewed Begich and has the video to prove it. That's below. See in particular his thoughts on protecting our fundamental constitutional rights from the politics of fear, and his beliefs about the netroots.

This Is Why McCain's Avoiding The Press

Because whenever he says anything out loud it's an embarrassment.

The Politico looked into his claim that 300 economists support his budget plan. They, um, don't.

Upon closer inspection, it seems a good many of those economists don’t actually support the whole of McCain’s economic agenda. And at least one doesn’t even support McCain for president.

In interviews with more than a dozen of the signatories, Politico found that, far from embracing McCain’s economic plan, many were unfamiliar with — or downright opposed to — key details. While most of those contacted by Politico had warm feelings about McCain, many did not want to associate themselves too closely with his campaign and its policy prescriptions.

Howard Beales, an economist at George Washington University, explained that he signed the letter as "an expression of support for [McCain], not necessarily each and every detail of his plan, which I may not have had time to study closely." [...]

Constantine Alexandrakis, a professor at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, expressed second thoughts about signing.

"I would describe myself as an Obama supporter," he explained. "Maybe I shouldn't have rushed into signing the letter."

(I'm signing up for Prof. Alexandrakis' class at B-school, sounds like he doesn't read the papers too closely.)

The New York Times looked at McCain's health care plan and found that sick people are pretty much left out.

If Senator John McCain’s radical plan for remaking American health care is to work, he will have to find a way to cover people like Chaim Benamor, 52, a self-employed renovator in this Baltimore suburb. Mr. Benamor never found it necessary to buy insurance before having a mild heart attack last year and now, 13 years shy of Medicare, has little hope of doing so.

In late April, Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, announced that if elected president he would seek to insure people like Mr. Benamor by vastly expanding federal support for state high-risk pools like Maryland’s, or by creating a structure modeled after them. But as Mr. Benamor’s case demonstrates, even well-regarded pools have served more as a stopgap than a solution.

Though high-risk pools have existed for three decades, they cover only 207,000 people in a country with 47 million uninsured, according to the National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans. Premiums typically are high, as much as twice the standard rate in some states, but are still not nearly enough to pay claims. That has left states to cover about 40 percent of the cost, usually through assessments on insurance premiums that are often passed on to consumers.

(His pre-existing condition plan is really disaster capitalism at its best - or worst.)

The AFL-CIO looked at his veterans record and found that he doesn't much give a damn.

He wants us to keep spending $10 billion dollars a month in Iraq, just like Bush... he even took sides with Bush against increasing health care benefits for veterans.

The Democratic Party again took a look at his ad buys and noticed some illegal coordination:

The short-story is this: on July 2, the McCain campaign placed $1.5 million in advertising in the Virginia area. The next day -- July 3 -- the McCain campaign canceled that media buy. On the very same day -- July 3 -- the outside group made a large media buy in the same region, filling the gap created by the McCain campaign's cancellation.

It's possible this was all just a coincidence, but given the close connections between the McCain campaign and this particular group (Vets for Freedom, also known as VFF), I have my doubts. In May, VFF attacked Barack Obama with swiftboat style ads. This created a bit of controversy, because at the time both Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman were on VFF's board of directors. Each has since quit the group, but it's hard to imagine that the McCain campaign has cut ties with the outfit altogether.

And Republican economic hack Larry Kudlow took a look at his energy policy, and was delighted to report that any meaningful step to combat climate change has been totally eliminated, in a sop to the right-wing.

I went back last evening and carefully read his 15-page policy pamphlet called “Jobs for America.” Here’s what I found: There is no mention of cap-and-trade. None. Nada. There is a section about “Cheap, Clean, Secure Energy for America: The Lexington Project.” But that talks about expanded domestic production of oil and gas, as well as the need for more nuclear power and coal along with alternative sources. Then it has the $300 million battery and flex-fuel cars. But nope, no cap-and-trade.

So I picked up the phone and dialed a senior McCain official to make sure these old eyes hadn’t missed it. Sure enough, on deep background, this senior McCain advisor told me I was correct: no cap-and-trade. In other words, this central-planning, regulatory, tax-and-spend disaster, which did not appear in Mac’s two recent speeches, has been eradicated entirely — even from the detailed policy document that hardly anybody will ever read.

So, like I said, no wonder he's ducking the press. Although, I doubt they'd have much to ask him beyond how awesome it was to have served his country and "Would you like another donut?"

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.

Military Declares War On Obama, VoteVets

The close relationship between top officials in various branches of the military and Veterans Administration has been disturbing for some time now. If two unrelated events today are any indication, they're about to reach the breaking point.

First off, the Army's public affairs unit is broadcasting pathetic Obama smears from milbloggers, contravening direct orders from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to stay out of partisan politics:

The Army's public affairs office publishes a daily roundup of Army-related news called "Stand To" -- named for the set of procedures combat units do just prior to dawn, when they go to full alert for a possible enemy attack. The daily wrapup contains links to mainstream media articles, Army press releases, foreign media stories and blogs. It's similar to the Defense Department's Early Bird -- but much briefer, and obviously more focused on the Army.

Tuesday's edition contained an entry under "WHAT'S BEING SAID IN BLOGS" that struck me as unusual -- both for its headline and its patent political bias:

Obama: World peace thru surrender (KDIHH)

This is coming from a military address, and they're broadcasting partisan political statements. It's the digital equivalent of showing up to a partisan event in full uniform, as far as I'm concerned.

This appears like yet another example of the unusually cozy relationship which has developed over the last generation or so between the military and the right wing of American politics -- an unhealthy development, to say the least.

Last time I checked, soldiers and civilian officials didn't swear an oath to either political party or to their current president. Rather, they swear their fidelity to the Constitution, and the ideals it embodies, including the subordination of the military to civil authority. Adm. Mullen is right: As we enter a contentious election year, where issues of national security are likely to dominate the debate, the military needs to stay on the sidelines.

But they are not staying on the sidelines, and the next example shows that their partisanship is having real-life consequences, more concerned with making a political point than saving a veteran's life.

The VA rejected an Afghanistan veteran's disability claim for PTSD last month, citing his membership in VoteVets.org as a reason for the denial.

Staff Sergeant Will King retired from the Army in late 2003, after serving in both the first Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan. As one of the first troops into the Afghan theater after 9/11, Will had been awarded a Bronze Star after participating in fierce fighting in the Shah-e-Kot Valley in March 2002 [...]

As the months turned to years after his retirement, however, Will started having problems as the Iraq War dragged on. Depressed and unable to sleep, he thought it might be PTSD. Because, as those who study PTSD know, this is perfectly normal: The symptoms of PTSD frequently have a delayed onset that can take months or years to fully materialize. That's why, in April 2007, Will filed a claim with the VA for combat-related PTSD. The VA eventually agreed with Will and diagnosed him with mild PTSD. But Will felt like his condition was worse than that. And to boot, he thought it was getting worse. So Will appealed, and filed another disability claim with the VA in November 2007: He felt his symptoms were serious enough to warrant an increase in his disability rating from "mild" to "moderate."*

Unfortunately for Will, the VA denied his claim six months later, in May 2008. And while I won't challenge the VA's ultimate decision (I'm not a doctor), I find it repulsive that they cited Will's membership in VoteVets.org as a reason to deny his claim [...]

Faced with the fact that Will was unemployed, occasionally suicidal, and failing out of school, the VA had to come up with a reason to deny Will's claim that his PTSD was worthy of a higher disability rating. To do that, they minimized (his) "troubles." Then, they brought up his membership in VoteVets.org:

"you are currently involved with VoteVets.org"

"you are currently involved with a veteran's advocacy group and have traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with and lobby members of Congress on behalf of this organization"

The VA then used his membership with VoteVets.org to tell Will:

"you are actively involved and able to control and manage your symptoms sufficiently to engage in activities required by your involvement."

This soldier is not even a high-profile member of VoteVets, just someone who spent 2 days with them in Washington several months ago. I don't know what's more troubling - that the VA KNOWS who shows up to political rallies (must be that new panopticon they've been testing), or that they're willing to use participation in an organization as the reason for denying care to the sick. We send these soldiers off to war to supposedly defend Constitutional freedoms, and then when the soldier upon returning home tries to exercise one, namely the freedom of speech, he is denied treatment.

The mission creep of multiple branches of the military from a nonpartisan force which carries out orders to a partisan arm of the Republican National Committee endangers democracy. It has no place in the culture or organization of the military, and it must be denounced whenever it rouses itself. This is completely outrageous.

Support The Troops' Drug Habit

It's just touching what this government does for our men and women we send into battle. If they have concerns about the overextended tours of duty, or the multiple deployments, or the lack of body armor or safety equipment, and the undefined mission, our boys in uniform get the best blue pills money can buy:

For the first time in history, a sizable and growing number of U.S. combat troops are taking daily doses of antidepressants to calm nerves strained by repeated and lengthy tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The medicines are intended not only to help troops keep their cool but also to enable the already strapped Army to preserve its most precious resource: soldiers on the front lines. Data contained in the Army's fifth Mental Health Advisory Team report indicate that, according to an anonymous survey of U.S. troops taken last fall, about 12% of combat troops in Iraq and 17% of those in Afghanistan are taking prescription antidepressants or sleeping pills to help them cope. Escalating violence in Afghanistan and the more isolated mission have driven troops to rely more on medication there than in Iraq, military officials say.

At a Pentagon that keeps statistics on just about everything, there is no central clearinghouse for this kind of data, and the Army hasn't consistently asked about prescription-drug use, which makes it difficult to track. Given the traditional stigma associated with soldiers seeking mental help, the survey, released in March, probably underestimates antidepressant use. But if the Army numbers reflect those of other services — the Army has by far the most troops deployed to the war zones — about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq were on such medications last fall. The Army estimates that authorized drug use splits roughly fifty-fifty between troops taking antidepressants — largely the class of drugs that includes Prozac and Zoloft — and those taking prescription sleeping pills like Ambien.

And if the combination of psychotropic drug use and the horrors of a war zone prove too much for them upon return to the states, that's OK - they just stick them in the back of the base by the firing range:

FORT BENNING, Ga. -- Army Sgt. Jonathan Strickland sits in his room at noon with the blinds drawn, seeking the sleep that has eluded him since he was knocked out by the blast of a Baghdad car bomb.

Like many of the wounded soldiers living in the newly built "warrior transition" barracks here, the soft-spoken 25-year-old suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. But even as Strickland and his comrades struggle with nightmares, anxiety and flashbacks from their wartime experiences, the sounds of gunfire have followed them here, just outside their windows.

Across the street from their assigned housing, about 200 yards away, are some of the Army infantry's main firing ranges, and day and night, several days each week, barrages from rifles and machine guns echo around Strickland's building. The noise makes the wounded cringe, startle in their formations, and stay awake and on edge, according to several soldiers interviewed at the barracks last month. The gunfire recently sent one soldier to the emergency room with an anxiety attack, they said.

"You hear a lot of shots, it puts you in a defensive mode," said Strickland, who spent a year with an infantry platoon in Baghdad and has since received a diagnosis of PTSD from the military. He now takes medicine for anxiety and insomnia. "My heart starts racing and I get all excited and irritable," he said, adding that the adrenaline surge "puts me back in that mind frame that I am actually there."

It's like they're TRYING to create another generation of strung-out homeless veterans.

CA-04: Serving The Veteran Community

If you have a moment, do go to Calitics and read this diary by Charlie Brown's online campaign director.

You want them to hear the desperate cries of the Iraq Veteran who contacts the campaign to say he is contemplating suicide. Or the e-mail from the married father of two who already tried. You want them to meet the Gold Star mother who calls for gas money, so she can afford to take one of the guys from her son's unit to the VA for rehab. Or the Vietnam Vet who has weeks to live because of Agent Orange exposure, and has had his VA benefits denied for years. And the list goes on, and on and on...

Every day, these are just some of the people who are reaching out-from across the country---to the Charlie Brown for Congress Campaign.

They're not calling to volunteer, contribute, schedule a meeting or inquire about a policy position. They aren't even calling to express their support or opposition to Charlie's candidacy.

They called to ask for help.

It begs the question, why would anyone call a Congressional Challenger who has never held public office before for help? [...]

Charlie's making history not by virtue of who he is (though one could argue that a Congressman who is a career military officer, husband of a veteran, and father to a son who has done 4 rotations in Iraq is far from typical these days), but what he is doing to address one of the many OLD problems on which politicians have over promised and under delivered for years-the plight of America's war veterans.

I came back to fight for Charlie because I knew that this campaign took a different approach to solving problems---leadership by example. With Charlie's "Promises Kept Veteran's Charity Challenge," we're seeing community based organizations that fill in the gaps for veterans get the support they so badly need. The 5% of campaign contributions that Charlie is giving these groups helps to keep the lights on at shelters, supply those places with blankets and food and office supplies, and help pay for qualified counselors to do outreach on the streets.

This is an issue that's starting to reach critical mass, and Charlie Brown is at the forefront of it. Between recent reports about record numbers of veteran suicides and foreclosures in military towns tripling the average rate, the care and treatment of our veterans is an absolute disgrace. And it has fallen to leaders like Brown, BEFORE reaching Congress, to show the compassion and wisdom to get those who serve this country what they need.

I can't have more pride in how he's running this campaign. Particularly compared to the two Republicans who are engaging in a slap fight and spending $4 million dollars in a game of character assassination. Who's the real leader here?

Support the Troops

I finally got around to seeing The Ground Truth last night, part of my mini-Iraq documentary film festival I've put together on Netflix (become my movie friend!). Because much of the film is devoted to how these soldiers tried to put their lives together once they returned home, through bouts of depression and PTSD, through divorce and anger and arrests for disorderly conduct, it was fitting that this study was released today.

Army soldiers committed suicide in 2007 at the highest rate on record, and the toll is climbing ever higher this year as long war deployments stretch on. At least 115 soldiers killed themselves last year, up from 102 the previous year, the Army said Thursday [...]

"We see a lot of things that are going on in the war which do contribute — mainly the longtime and multiple deployments away from home, exposure to really terrifying and horrifying things, the easy availability of loaded weapons and a force that's very, very busy right now," said Col. Elspeth Ritchie psychiatric consultant to the Army surgeon general.

"And so all of those together we think are part of what may contribute, especially if somebody's having difficulties already," she told a Pentagon news conference.

The tricks that the military uses to get out of treating these soldiers are recounted in The Ground Truth. They'd offer treatment but only if you stayed on the base away from your family after returning home from a year in Iraq. They'd ask you if you had PTSD, and if you said no, you'd end your rotation, but if you said yes, you'd stay in Iraq. These were the allegations, and considering that the VA Secretary related PTSD to football injuries the other day, and that VA officials were pressuring their colleagues not to diagnose the disorder to save money on veterans health care, I believe every word of it.

I guess that veterans aren't treated particularly well after any war; go all the way back to the Bonus Marchers if you don't think so. They're broken down in basic training, taught to be dehumanized and desensitized to killing, used on the battlefield and then expected to be stowed away like any other munition. But they're people, changed by war, and without some care and treatment those without the strongest constitutions find it hard to adapt. This is a residual cost of war and these suicides should be treated as casualties. Furthermore, any future war should include this blight as a part of the calculus for making the decision.

And if anyone starts to make the argument that these men and women would have committed suicide anyway, as some make to the soldiers in the film, they can kiss my ass.

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.