WaPo scolds Obama for “striking a pose” on GI Bill
posted at 12:40 pm on May 29, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Did someone leak the results of the Pew study to the press yesterday? Suddenly both the New York Times and the Washington Post have taken a more critical look at Barack Obama. The WaPo’s editors scold Obama for his political posturing on the Jim Webb version of the GI Bill that passed this week, calling it the GI Twist:
“THERE ARE many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.” So pronounced the Democrats’ likely presidential nominee, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, on the floor of the Senate last week. This was a lovely sentiment, marred only by the fact that it came seconds after Mr. Obama’s own partisan posturing. Mr. Obama duly hailed his Republican opponent, Arizona Sen. John McCain, as a war hero, then launched a one-two punch, linking Mr. McCain to an unpopular president and painting him as stingy toward those who served their country.
Referring to Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama said, “I cannot understand why he would line up behind the president in his opposition to this GI Bill [or] why he believes it is too generous to our veterans.” … That does not mean that the measure is perfect or that the concerns expressed by the Pentagon and other critics, including Mr. McCain, should be brushed off as illegitimate or insensitive to veterans.
Unfortunately, McCain’s response distracted from the real issues in the debate, as the Post’s editors rightly note. His lengthy statement actually addressed those issues, but the inclusion of a shot at Obama’s lack of military service became the money quote, and the actual salient points got lost.
The question for the competing bills has nothing to do with “generosity”, but effectiveness and support for the mission. McCain favored a graduated approach to the GI Bill, giving more credit to those who serve longer in active duty. Webb’s bill provides a flat benefit that doesn’t reward longer service, and costs more in the long run. During a period in which the nation needs experienced soldiers to defend the nation in an asymmetrical war, it doesn’t make much sense for Congress to skew the incentives away from re-enlistment. After all, the primary purpose of a military is national defense and protection of American assets, not college scholarship distribution.
The Post acknowledges the legitimacy of that concern even while endorsing the Webb plan. Principled arguments can be made for both sides of this issue, but Obama chose to smear McCain instead — and McCain chose to answer in kind, at least in part. If Obama can’t address McCain’s legitimate concerns on the impact of the bill on current missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror in general, then perhaps he should withhold his criticisms until he learns something about the issue.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
That crazy liberal media for yer. Criticizing Obama just to make conservatives look silly. Ooh, they’re so devious.
Grow Fins on May 29, 2008 at 12:44 PM
McCain’s response distracted from the real issues in the debate, as the Post’s editors rightly note. His lengthy statement actually addressed those issues, but the inclusion of a shot at Obama’s lack of military service became the money quote, and the actual salient points got lost.
Which is why McCain is going to get his clock cleaned.
The intelligent reaction to Obama’s ploy to buy the appearance of supporting our military with Webb’s new GI Bill is not to go off on a long, tiresome and blustery tirade against Webb’s bill. The intelligent reaction is to come over the top and out bid Obama.
Texas Hold’em players and clever politicians know this. McCain does not.
Point: Obama and MSM. McCain is toast.
pabarge on May 29, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Then we will never hear from him; as one other poster so aptly stated…GQ over IQ.
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Nor, would I hope, the GI Bill isn’t considered a primary incentive or motivation for re-enlistment! It is a benefit for serving one’s country and to talk of it as a recruiting/retention tool comes very close to the whole “military as employer of last resort for the stupid” mantra that has been thrown around by the (mostly Democrat) polticians since 2003.
highhopes on May 29, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Speaking of “generosity”, “Thieves for Obama” have been busy donating stolen money to the Obama campaign.
Bicyea on May 29, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Leave it to democrats to screw the military.
abcurtis on May 29, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Haven’t been here much in the last few weeks, but I’m sure someone posted the video that goes along with the cover photo for this story. Either way, it deserves another go ’round as it shows what a jack ass he is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F45rXyuTZjo&eurl=http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com/
Alden Pyle on May 29, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Strange pair of thoughts occur:
Obama’s ignorance and naivete is dangerous to our future.
Obama bores me completely.
silverfox on May 29, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Since Obama acknowledges the legitimacy of McCain’s concerns that this bill will discourage reenlistment, (and thus make it more difficult to run a volunteer army), why does he do nothing to fix the problem? Maybe because he expects a veto that will be sustained and that therefore this is nothing but an election year vote getter, not a serious attempt to do anything for the soldiers?
Military families should not be fooled. The McCain bill on this which will not get a vote would have been passable and helped military families. Thanks to politics, we will defeat the Webb bill (properly so) and the issue will go over to the next administration address.
KW64 on May 29, 2008 at 2:07 PM
On one hand the troops would be told stay in the services longer and you’ll get more benefits (maybe so long you’ll be thirty by the time your in college). And if you leave the service after your two years are up, you will recieve limited benefits.
There are two types of “things” we can give our troops. Lifelong things, which are “benefits,” as we call them, such as Healthcare/Medications, Education/Vocational Training, Home Financing, and so on. Then there are lump sum money payments, which we call (re-)enlistment bonuses. Benefits should be extended to all service memebers irregardless of their service length as long as they serve out their duty honorably. Lump some money payments should be given to soldiers per their merit or service to their country.
By holding back benefits for soldiers politicians are negating the fact that this is a volunteer military and if soldiers wish to voluntarily leave, after contract, they should not be shunned by their government for doing so.
PresidenToor on May 29, 2008 at 2:08 PM
don’t worry about that…
funky chicken on May 29, 2008 at 2:28 PM
The mission? Meaning staying in Iraq? Huh? The “competing bills” are suppose to be about benefits those serving get when they leave the service. Something to “catch them up” to those who were civilians who maybe were going to collage in between being out shopping.
I never heard of previous GI bills working that way. Those who serve longer get more pay and more reenlistment bonuses.
That’s the way it has always worked in the past to the best of my knowledge. Many other things “reward” longer service.
Well hell’s bells, then why “give” anything to anyone who leaves the service? Double hell’s bells why not fine people who leave the service? The primary purpose of a military is also not to provide health care distribution or to take care of a deceased Soldier’s widow or children so why do any of that either? Maybe if there weren’t so damn few guys of military age volunteering for the military these day there wouldn’t be such a problem here. Is it somehow the fault of those who do volunteer to serve an enlistment, but not serve even more enlistments, that such a very small percentage of there age contemporaries do?
Unreal.
MB4 on May 29, 2008 at 2:58 PM
“The Post acknowledges the legitimacy of that concern even while endorsing the Webb plan.”
The Post was for it before they were against it. Now that’s DECISION MAKING!
GarandFan on May 29, 2008 at 3:03 PM
I don’t know if McCain is toast but he will be pretty well done if he said/says anything like –
MB4 on May 29, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Or, as I see it,comes very close to treating military as second class citizens, almost like serfs.
MB4 on May 29, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Well, unless their government thinks of them as serfs of course.
MB4 on May 29, 2008 at 3:17 PM
This is Obama’s attempt at pandering, and its not good for our military force structure, then he complains about forces being stretched to thin. ETC.
(IMHO the guy is bordering on moronic)
Chakra Hammer on May 29, 2008 at 3:23 PM
An Army of
OneSerfsArmy
StrongSerfs- Updates by John McCain?
MB4 on May 29, 2008 at 3:26 PM
How about this, pay the military the equivalent of a UAW worker.
Tom
marinetbryant on May 29, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Right but not just here.
On this, and the environment, and health care, and social security, if only McCain would promise even more spending than Obama does, then he’d be respected as a candidate.
Not by conservatives or Republicans, but maybe the Democrats would like him more. and if we’re really lucky Congressional Republicans would follow their recent statements and follow suit moving the whole party drastically to the left.
That’d be awesome… if I weren’t a conservative.
gekkobear on May 29, 2008 at 4:25 PM
How about we give every soldier who enlists 1 million dollars after just 4years of service(What do you think that would do to retention rates and our overall workforce?)
Chakra Hammer on May 30, 2008 at 12:31 AM
It may be nice to pander for votes but it wouldn’t be good for America in the long run.
Chakra Hammer on May 30, 2008 at 12:33 AM
How about you not acting so damn silly or do you really want mercenary Soldiers now? I don’t want Soldiers to be second class/serfs and I don’t want them to be mercenaries. I want them to be American Soldiers.
MB4 on May 30, 2008 at 3:53 AM
So you think that the troops are pandered to? And pampered too I suppose? Absolutely unreal.
MB4 on May 30, 2008 at 3:55 AM