Ahhh, so you HAVE been there. :D

As to 2000, I wasn't much into politics back then so I don't recall much of what was going on... I'll accept your version of events as accurate..

I agree that McCain's positions are, on the surface, contradictory.

But, again if the needs of the military preclude both, there IS logic in it.

I am too lazy to do the analysis myself, but it makes sense that if the mission of the military is compromised then it DOES make sense to oppose both.

Michale.....

Ignore the "As for the troops, you do the simple deflect and attack that the Repubs do (and why I changed over to Dem recently, and why I feel they are losing)." remark. After rereading your post I read a tone into it that wasn't likely there.

My apologies.

First, you can not pay me enough to go to Taylormarsh.com, and again, they are no more venomous than McCain supporters were of Bush after SC in 2000.

As for the troops, you do the simple deflect and attack that the Repubs do (and why I changed over to Dem recently, and why I feel they are losing).

The problem you aren't addressing is the blatantly contradicting argument McCain is making in his opposition to both bills.

1) He's saying he won't support the GI Bill because it's too much incentive for people to leave.

2) He's won't support the pay raise. Which is an incentive to stay.

Even if you assume the faulty argument McCain is making, that it will reduce troop levels by using a 16% figure from a report, even though he's intentionally ignoring that the same report said that the 16% would be offset by new enlistments....

If the reason for voting against the GI Bill is to not give the troops an incentive to leave... then you should be giving them an incentive to STAY... aka pay increase.

But he's voting against a pay increase... which that in of itself would be an incentive for troops to NOT stay. Troops have the highest rate of foreclosures in the country. They need the money.

But it really has nothing to do with the troops. It has everything to do with John McCain sucking up to the conservatives by trying to cut spending. He knows they'll just stop-loss anyone anyway.

I'd buy McCain's argument on the GI Bill IF he had voted to increase pay and bonus to stay IN the military, but he didn't.

His own arguments doesn't hold up under even the basics of logic.

Yea, but you know the attention span of most Americans.. In general, the look at the accusation and then the response and that's it..

And in 2000, McCain's supporters refused to support Bush. As we all saw, that eventually changed.

You should really check out taylormarsh.com You will be amazed at the hysterical nature of the Clinton camp. While I am on record as stating their support may be over-estimated, it's clear that there WILL be an effect on the General Election. While it may not be enough of an effect to warrant a "slam dunk" for McCain, I am sure it will be felt and will give the Dems some sleepless nights... Maybe not in Seattle, but... (yuk, yuk, yuk)

And if John McCain really cared about retention so much… why is he opposed to the pay increase that was proposed for the troops? If you want to keep people around, paying them more is the best way.

Again, would such a pay increase negatively impact the mission of the military??

While it's noble to put the needs of the troops as paramount, you simply cannot compromise the mission for ANYTHING...

So, if it can be 1000% assured that the pay increase and the GI bill and other troop oriented aspects can be done without compromising the mission, then I imagine that McCain would be for it...

I mean, honestly... Do you think McCain is thinking, "Screw the troops!!"... Honestly...

Michale.....

Michale.....

"2. Again, I am constrained to point out that all the GOP has to do to refute this one is to display all the headlines of Democrats praising McCain for being a "maverick" and going against Bush. This talking point is a factcheck.org issue just waiting to happen."

- And all the Democrats would have to do is show those headlines, then show current clips of McCain flip flopping on those very issues back to the George W. Bush side.

"3. Isn't it hard to bash McCain when 30% of Democrats have stated they are going to vote McCain over Obama??"

And in 2000, McCain's supporters refused to support Bush. As we all saw, that eventually changed. As for WV/KY... those aren't Democrats. They are by registration only.

"4. As callous as it is to say, the mission of the military comes before the needs of military personnel. This is something that the troops understand going in. So, if the bill has provisions that would harm the ability of the military to complete it's mission, then McCain is right to oppose it."

The problem with that argument is that McCain and Bush are only quoting HALF of the results found by the study done on the bill... that retention would be reduced by 16%. They conveniently omit that enlistment would go up by an amount to offset, if not out weight, that amount.

With college costing what it does, there are a lot of young people that can't afford college that would sign up for 3 years with this new GI bill. There isn't much incentive to do so with the current plan because it's not worth it.

And if John McCain really cared about retention so much... why is he opposed to the pay increase that was proposed for the troops? If you want to keep people around, paying them more is the best way.

http://xboxman.us/temp/election_math.png

Michale

Yeah, it's surprisingly a lot of fun to play with. You can do a "pessimistic" one, a "realistic" one, and a "landslide for Obama!!" one, just to see the differences.

My comment about OH and FL were mainly to counter the argument "you can't win without Ohio and Florida!!" Surprisingly, you can. There are four states that I would identify that Obama needs to win any two of to win the whole Magilla (MI, OH, PA, FL). You can work it several different ways. Now, he could squeak by if he won only one of those four, but it'd be a lot tougher. If he wins three of them, victory is all but assured. But there are plenty of other states out there within reach, too, which could wind up being this year's "battleground" (I hate that term) states -- IA, NH, MO, VA, CO, NV, IN, just to name a few.

Anyway, don't have time for other comments tonight, but did want to encourage everyone to check out the electoral map over at USA Today -- it's fun to play!

-CW

But, I would just take issue with the thought that Obama can win in November without Ohio and Florida...win what? I don’t think that’s the way we should be thinking about this. At least, I hope we are not looking at another close election that only keeps the country divided and makes progress on a number of critical issues difficult or next to impossible to achieve.

For this reason, I would suggest that Senator Obama’s choice for his running mate - I’m now assuming that the train wreck scheduled for August will finally derail the Clinton campaign - should be someone who has a proven track record of attracting Independents and Republicans from all corners...someone who has the potential of truly uniting the states and of helping Barack Obama not only win in November, but win BIG with a governable majority.

While I see the humor in such a turning of the tables, I think that the GOP would spin such a claim as making light of McCains POW status and the DEMS would fall over themselves apologizing for and distancing themselves from the statement.

Michale.....

1. Can't argue with this one. Some people just have too much time on their hands.. Like I am one to talk, eh? :D

2. Again, I am constrained to point out that all the GOP has to do to refute this one is to display all the headlines of Democrats praising McCain for being a "maverick" and going against Bush. This talking point is a factcheck.org issue just waiting to happen.

3. Isn't it hard to bash McCain when 30% of Democrats have stated they are going to vote McCain over Obama??

4. As callous as it is to say, the mission of the military comes before the needs of military personnel. This is something that the troops understand going in. So, if the bill has provisions that would harm the ability of the military to complete it's mission, then McCain is right to oppose it.

5. This smacks of nit-picking. Like the time McCain said that he would ask General Patraeus about troop rotations from Iraq to Afghanistan and the Left jumped on him for his "gaffe".. We all know how THAT turned out, eh?? :D

6. Sorry, not a snowballs chance in hell. You know as well as I do how utterly irrational and illogical the Hillary group is.. There is simply no reasoning with them and Obama shouldn't even try. They are like little children throwing a tantrum. And the best parenting technique for that is to ignore them until they calm down and hopefully they will be rational.

7. Couldn't wait for this one. :D If you buy into McClellan's book, then you MUST accept the statement he made that neither Bush nor his administration lied to the public. Anything less would be disingenuous.

Michale

Crossposted to Huffington Post

As an aside... That word limit really pisses me off sometimes!!! :(