Monday, May 12, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
John McCain has some electoral vulnerabilities, but troop-supporting usually is not one of them. It’s a little baffling, then, that he hasn’t signed on to Sen. Jim Webb’s G.I. bill to increase educational benefits for servicemen and veterans. Republicans John Warner and Chuck Hagel are on board. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have signed on, too. And today Obama attacked McCain in West Virginia for failing to support it. Why would McCain open himself up to charges that he doesn’t care about putting troops through school?
McCain says the problem is "incentives." He complains that Webb’s bill gives the same benefits to servicemen whether they serve three years or 20 years, with no added benefits for those who serve longer. Instead, he has proposed legislation that would raise benefits over a longer period of time.
That would be a valid excuse, if McCain’s bill provided as much as Webb’s bill did from the start. After all, there’s nothing wrong with giving more to people who serve longer. Incentives to stick around are only a problem if they come at the expense of soldiers who don’t make military service their career.
But, looking at the numbers, McCain’s bill appears to pay a lot less from the get-go. It gives active-duty members education benefits of $1,500 a month, which shakes out to $13,500 for a nine-month school year. That’s better than the current G.I. bill, which provides only $6,000 a year. But Webb’s version goes further, providing the maximum tuition at your state’s public university system—roughly $14,000 in many states—plus $1,000 a month to cover living costs. All of that totals more than $20,000.
But wait! McCain’s bill raises benefits down the road, right? Yes, but that’s only if you stick around for 12 years of service. And even then, benefits only get raised up to $2,000 a month, or $18,000 over nine months. That’s less than Webb’s bill gives to troops who have served three years.
There are other points of contention. For one thing, Webb’s bill isn’t cheap—estimates put its price tag anywhere from $2.5 billion to $4 billion a year. But that’s not McCain’s complaint. (You can’t really complain about supporting troops too much.) He’s concerned it will make soldiers leave the military before they otherwise would. He might have a point if his bill provided as much as Webb’s for starting servicemen. But that’s not the case.
It’s easy to see how this stance could become a general-election liability. McCain’s background makes him nearly untouchable on military issues, but refusing to give troops benefits could become a gap in the armor. You can see the attack ads now: John McCain says he’s willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years. So why doesn’t he want our soldiers to go to school?? That may be unfair, but the core point stands: If McCain is going to tether himself to the war, he should be willing to pay for it.
-
sponsorship
Former Georgia congressman and Clinton impeacher-in-chief Bob Barr announced today that he will be seeking the presidency as a candidate of the Libertarian Party. The first name that pops to mind is Ralph Nader. Republicans fear a repeat of 2000, with Barr siphoning votes from John McCain (although it’s also possible he’d sabotage Obama). Others wonder how Barr’s candidacy will play with Ron Paul supporters.
The Texas Republican, who has slowed his candidacy to a crawl in recent months—but hasn’t dropped out!—has come under pressure to make a third-party run for the presidency. Barr’s announcement appears to have closed the door on a Paul run, at least on the Libertarian ticket.
So what does Ron Paul think of Barr’s announcement? "Our thoughts are that Bob and Ron are friends and remain friends," said Paul spokesman Jesse Benton. You can see why. Some of Barr’s words today sounded as if they could have come out of Paul’s mouth: He accused both parties of "running a charity called the United States of America" and slammed Hillary Clinton for saying she’d "obliterate Iran" if they attacked Israel.
But whatever their similarities, Benton says Paul has no plans to endorse anyone—including Barr. "Ron Paul is a Republican and he’s going to be a part of the Republican party," he says.
Paul is still campaigning in upcoming primaries, including West Virginia and Kentucky. "He’s not going to be the nominee," Benton says. But the congressman maintains a "strong following" of 6 to 8 percent in most states and plans to continue running, he says.
-
sponsorship
Be it resolved: John McCain's proposal for a series of unmoderated debates with Barack Obama throughout the summer is “a great idea.” That's what Obama called it, but others aren’t so sure. TNR’s Noam Scheiber argues that free-for-all debates would help McCain overcome his inherent weaknesses against Obama:
They'll draw big crowds and generate lots of buzz. They'll help him get his message out for free. And, just by virtue of appearing frequently at Obama's side and having a civil debate, they'll make him look much more moderate than the Obama campaign wants him to look.
That may all be true. But it discounts what’s guaranteed to be a stark physical contrast: McCain’s shriveled firecracker standing next to Obama’s lanky coolness. Remember the 1960 presidential debates, when John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon less by out-arguing him than by out-dashing him. Nixon, still recovering from a leg injury, looked pale and gaunt; Kennedy was tan after campaigning in Southern California. Nixon, unfamiliar with the new medium, refused makeup and wore a suit that blended into the background. Kennedy, meanwhile, looked fit and telegenic. We’ve learned a few things since then about broadcast debates, but from an aesthetic perspective, “appearing frequently at Obama’s side” is just about the worst thing McCain can do.
Then there’s the mental factor. McCain has not performed particularly well in debates this past year. (As opposed to 2000, when he wiped the floor with Bush.) He tends to harp on points even after his opponent has parried them. (See his dogged (and incorrect) insistence at the Reagan Library debate that Mitt Romney had proposed timetables for withdrawal from Iraq.) And his best lines—such as his quip about missing Woodstock because he was “tied up at the time”—usually sound canned.
Obama isn’t about to win any debating medals. But in an unscripted setting, Obama is likely to be much quicker on his feet than McCain. And this goes to McCain’s biggest vulnerability: his age. Anything and everything McCain says will undergo a senility test. Even a whiff of marble loss, and it becomes news. Notice how Obama’s recent claim, “I’ve been in 57 states,” failed to catch on. You can bet that if McCain said that, pundits would cart him off to the retirement community. McCain’s people are hyperaware of this; see Mark Salter’s recent hissy over Obama’s claim that McCain was “losing his bearings.” What better setting for a geriatric moment than a series of unscripted debates? Then again, McCain could use these debates to prove the senility hawks wrong.
-
sponsorship
Clinton is poised to sweep West Virginia, but Obama has finally
surged ahead in the most important contest of all: superdelegates. Dock
Clinton half a point to 1.6 percent.
We've
believed for some time that the day Obama overtakes Clinton in the
superdelegate count is the day Clinton throws in the towel. But
Friday was that day, and the towel is still there, mopping up the
Clinton campaign's blood, sweat, and tears by the bucketful. According
to the Associated Press' count,
Obama now has 277 supers to Clinton's 271. It was the last metric in
which Clinton was leading, and Obama's momentum isn't slowing any: Over
the weekend, he got seven supers to Clinton's one. Clinton campaign
Chairman Terry McAuliffe still claims
she's within "striking distance" of the popular vote. But that's only
if you count Florida, Michigan, and now Puerto Rico, which doesn't vote
in the general election. ...
Read more at the Hillary Deathwatch.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?