Elder Statesman Stiffs Soldiers
MORE
Joe Conason
It is hard to blame John McCain for mocking Barack Obama as an “elitist” following that silly remark about bitter folks who cling to guns and religion. Rarely does the Arizona senator—one of the wealthiest members of Washington’s most exclusive club—encounter such a tempting chance to masquerade as a populist.
Making the most of that opportunity, Mr. McCain, the elder statesman, delivered a brief history lecture to the young upstart from Illinois. “During the Great Depression,” he said in a statement released by his campaign, “with many millions of Americans out of work and the country suffering the worst economic crisis in our history, there rose from small towns, rural communities, inner cities, a generation of Americans who fought to save the world from despotism and mass murder, and came home to build the wealthiest, strongest and most generous nation on earth.
“They suffered the worst during the Depression, but it did not shake their faith in, and fidelity to, America. They did not turn to their religious faith and cultural traditions out of resentment and a feeling of powerlessness to affect the course of government or pursue prosperity. On the contrary, their faith had given generations of their families purpose and meaning, as it does today.”
Now this is all standard-issue rhetoric, designed to insinuate that Mr. Obama disdains traditional American culture and religious piety (although he probably attends church at least as often as Mr. McCain). Harking back to the era of the Depression and World War II, the Republican may have unintentionally emphasized both his own advanced age and the perilous condition in which his party and president have left the country and the world.
The inspiring story of the “greatest generation,” in which he seems to be claiming honorary membership, is not only a narrative of faith and patriotism. The brave men and women who rose from America’s towns and cities to defeat fascism had a stake in a democratic society “worth the fighting for,” to borrow the title of Mr. McCain’s last best seller. Despite the terrible rigors of the Depression, they remained confident in democracy’s future because a progressive government acted vigorously on behalf of them and their families—and acknowledged their service when they returned from war.
When those soldiers came home to build the nation that dominated the American century, they achieved unprecedented prosperity and security thanks not only to their own work and faith, but to liberal policy that guaranteed their education, their health care and their access to credit. The original G.I. Bill of 1944 ranks among the greatest legislative works in American history, with beneficial effects on the U.S. economy that repaid its cost many times over. (Incidentally, the benefits of the original bill included low-interest mortgages with no down payment—not so different from the “subprime” loans that working-class homeowners are now criticized for signing.)
Of course, Mr. McCain knows all this history, which raises the hard question of why he refuses to support Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with commensurate benefits. Having built his own career on his service and suffering in Vietnam, he surely must be aware that the new generation of vets receives nothing like the assistance made available to those who served with him, because the landmark bill has not been updated for so many years. The current level of benefits doesn’t cover even half the cost of state college tuition for most soldiers.
That is why Senators James Webb of Virginia and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska wrote the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, whose cost is estimated at less than $4 billion, or approximately one-tenth of 1 percent of the total expense of the current war. They have gathered 53 cosponsors, including nine Republicans and three of the four other Vietnam veterans in the Senate, but they need 60 to defeat a likely filibuster by conservatives who never served.
Incredibly, Mr. McCain has so far refused to add his name to the sponsors. His startling excuse is that he has not had any time to read the bill during the past year or so. He has time to barbecue sausages for journalists. He has time to take a bus tour glorifying his own service. And he has time to hold fund-raisers in Atlanta, New Orleans, Phoenix, St. Louis, New York, Boston, Chicago, Las Vegas and even London.
But he has no time for today’s soldiers. If that isn’t the worst kind of elitism, what is?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
I don't know about this story Joe. It seems short on substance. It seems more like you are digging up a reason to beat on McCain. You should have added some more comments from other senators or something to make the story seem substantial.
McCain is in the middle of a presidential campain so his absence is excusable. What about the rest of the senators who haven't signed up yet?
PS: I don't like McCain at all but I thought this article was transparent and without substance.
The elitist label won't stick to McCain because it's simply inaccurate. McCain's non-commitment on one veteran's bill doesn't qualify him as an elitist, in fact I would bet most veterans would trust McCain and support him over Obama in record numbers. It's just hard to paint someone as an "elitist" who spent 6 years in a Vietnamese POW camp and voluntarily turned down the chance to come home because his fellow soldiers didn't get the offer.
It seems to me that Hillary made much more of Obama's derogatory comments regarding small town Americans than McCain. Perhaps, Conason could find some reason to attack her - selling pardons, cashing in on the post-Presidency, duplicity on NAFTA and other trade deals, lying about sniper fire in Bosnia, her remarkable commodity trading abilities - something must be available that's more substantive than this weak and tortured story.
But I was glad to learn that Hillary's daddy taught her how to shoot when she was a little girl. And she can chug a beer and do a heck of a whiskey shot just like regular small town folks. Am I the only one who wants to barf? It's worse than John Kerry in camo.
Back in 2000, according to Karl Rove Mr. McCain chose to stay in Viet Nam rather than face a possible court martial for getting his plane shot down.
Now that Mr. McCain has joined the ranks of the "Bush" elitists, he doen't have to worry about being "swift boated"..and can dain to read the New Veterans Bill at his leisure..how nice.
I, for one, don't find Obama's comment "silly"--inelegant, perhaps. The fact is that Republicans have used wedge issues like gun control, immigration, abortion rights to distract people from realizing that, economically speaking, they're being screwed over and our country taken over by tax-evading corporations. People can't afford to ignore this any longer as, what some 15%(?) of the population is signing up for food stamps. What surprises me is how many members of the elite MSM continue to criticize Obama in view of the polls and comments that show that many working class people LIKED his statement. You pundits need to get out more.
As for McCain not being elitist, he's a guy with 8 homes, for god's sake, whose wife is worth more than $100 million and whose campaign staff is filled with high profile lobbyists. Get real.
McSame is the quintissential Great American Hypocrite as Glenn Greenwald has so eloquently argued in his new book. McSame continues to get a free ride from the media even though he is in absolute policy lockstep with the worst president in our history. His hypocrisy over GI benefits is very consistent with his hypocrisy over torture, his pandering to the religious right, as well as his "regular guy" image which is totally at odds with the gang of lobbyists on his bus and his flamboyant wealth. Never mind that he has a ferocious temper and is extremely thin skinned-even going so far as to call his own wife a c***. Oh-that's right-it's ok if you're a republican.
This is a scary, unhinged individual who will invade Iran if elected. As Pat Buchanan said about McSame; "less jobs, more wars".
McCain=Bush; we can't afford even one second more of that.
Elitism is an attitude, not a characteristic of wealth. Reciting a list of assets which John McCain owns is irrelevant. Many extremely wealthy people, such as Warren Buffet, are demonstrably NOT elitist.
John McCain has indicated he will accept Obama's challenge to run their general election campaigns under the spending restrictions that go along with accepting public financing. This will level the playing field and significantly reduce the spending free-for-all we've seen in recent years. Obama's decision on whether he keeps his end of the bargain will providing interesting insight to his character. As someone once said, "Situations do not determine character, they reveal it."
We all know something about John McCain's character - I wonder if Obama will impress us more or less each day we get to know him?
All this talk of 'elitism' makes me barf. It's such a pointless word.
Out of the six BILLION people in the world only THREE are now in the running for President of the United States. They're ALL 'elites' in that sense.
However, if I were to play this game I'd say that Obama was the LEAST 'elitist' of the bunch. For McCain with his millionaire wife or Clinton with her millionaire husband to call Obama 'elitist' is the height of absurdity.
Douglas:
McCain financed a loan using the prospect of matching election funds as collateral. He's also already spent MORE this past quarter than he was supposed to. Already he's run afoul of federal election laws TWICE. You're right. We already know something about John McCain's character.
Taking a loan using matching funds as collateral is not a violation of campaign finance laws. No charges have been filed. McCain's spending has been two-thirds less than Barack's.
The pertinent question is, "Will Obama keep his promise regarding his stated support of publicly financed campaigns and their requisite spending limits?"
We'll see if Obama's word means anything or if he's arrogant and elitist enough to break his pledge and hope the "small town" Americans are too dumb to notice.
You're all missing the point. No one disputes that John McCain served honorably and deserves to be considered an American war hero. As a soldier, he's an undisputed icon.
As a presidential candidate, however, he's a disaster. He's wrong on the issues that most effect ordinary people, and he carries water for the economic elites of this country. I don't care at all about whether a candidate drinks shots or goes trap shooting; it's puzzling to me that we even spend time discussing this crap. Conason is simply pointing out that when you move beyond McCain's military service, the rest of his career is an unbroken record of support for bad policies.
McCain supports the crackpot theories of supply-side economics (drawn up on a cocktail napkin by the lunatic Arthur Laffer); he supported the disastrous Iraq war and wants to continue to throw away lives and money on this travesty. His healthcare plan is an unmitigated disaster. He wants to continue the Bush tax cuts that are helping to bankrupt our country. He favors further deregulation of the financial industry (Gee that's worked really well, hasn't it?). I could go on and on, but it's too easy.
Joe understands that all of the public grandstanding means nothing if you continually make bad policy choices that favor the richest people in our country and refuse to even throw a bone to our veterans. Republicans should be ashamed of their terrible record in neglecting our veterans, sending them into the wrong war, and refusing to admit their mistake. Wearing a flag pin on your lapel doesn't make up for the profound lack of patriotism that your awful policies represent.
Regarding supply side economics, didn't you forget Milton Friedman - one of Reagan's economic advisors? The demand-siders in the Carter administration did such a fabulous job with the economy. Did they create stagflation or just improve it? Under the supply siders in the 80's, interest rates fell from 18% to 8% and inflation from 13.1% to 5%, 18 million jobs were created, GDP more than doubled and even tax revenues increased from %540 billion to over a trillion - I could go on but it's too easy.
The Laffer Curve simply points out the obvious - at some point raising taxes further doesn't produce additional government revenue AND lowering them further doesn't produce additional revenue. To illustrate, if we imposed a marginal tax of 100% on incomes over $1 million, no one would earn that much and no tax revenue would be generated. Conversely, if we imposed no tax on incomes over $1 million, people would earn as much as they could but no tax revenue would be generated. Laffer simply pointed out that there is an optimal tax range (obviously between 0% and 100%) where people still had incentive to earn and government revenues were maximized. But he's a lunatic?
McCain does support allowing the people to keep more of their own money rather than turning it over to the government. I personally believe that 35% marginal tax rates are still too high and certainly wouldn't support increasing them back to 39.6%. And I love the Bush child tax credit of $1,000 per child which significantly reduces the tax burden of low income families. And I also like my healthcare plan and wouldn't want the government to take it over. McCain's policy choices are good for many Americans.
Obama wishes to remove the income cap on Social Security taxes. I would be infuriated if my benefits remain capped at their current meager level yet my contributions became unlimited. Sounds like a blatant redistribution plan rather than the egalitarian system we have today.
"Taking a loan using matching funds as collateral is not a violation of campaign finance laws. No charges have been filed. McCain's spending has been two-thirds less than Barack's."
Typical right wing straw-man here. No one has suggested that using matching funds to collateralize a campaign loan is a crime. But when you accept public funding or use it to get loans, you agree to strick spending limits that McCain has convieniently ignored. He will be held accountable for his actions, but it will be long after the election is over because of the politics on the board that enforces the law.
When a candidate accepts public funding, they agree to adhere to strict spending limits. This is true.
When a candidate uses the anticipated receipt of public funds as collateral for a loan but then chooses to opt out of the publicly financed campaign system, it is unclear as to whether their use of those anticipated public funds as collateral is a violation of law. If McCain's campaign does not repay the loan then it could be construed as benefitting from the public financing. If the campaign repays the loan and/or collaterally assigns another asset in lieu of the public funds, then I don't see a problem. Does any reasonable person honestly think this is a big issue?
Obama's commitment to use public funds in the general election was originally meant to trap McCain and discredit him as the maverick of campaign finance reform. It will be illuminating to see if Obama has the character to keep his promise and live up to his lofty rhetoric concerning clean, fair elections.
Douglas (not verified) has parroted a Republican talking point that Obama is somehow this double-talking liar because he chooses to finance his campaign with the contributions of millions of Americans. Whether you like his politics or not, Obama is changing the way we finance presidential campaigns and you are not going to put the genie back in the bottle.
Republicans are right to be scared. Obama is going to out spend McCain two or three to one in the general and much of that money will be used to define him and his campaign. They can waste their time trying to discredit Obama for changing his mind, but campaign finance laws are complicated and he will not have enough money to make any of this stick.
Sorry Douglas (non verified).
Conservatives fought against the GI bill after WWII. They are sure to do so again. McCain was an officer and as such would know this bill is aimed at helping the poorer enlisted members which is another reason not vote for it or support it.
Ever since he decided that torture is OK for Cia use, I have given up all hope that he has retained a shred of sanity, morality or any sense of ethics.
Like prolife activists who support of fetuses but not breathing babies, children or adults, he supports the military but not the veterans, wounded or ambulatory.
I actually agree that Obama should be able to raise as much money as he can raise. I think Americans should be able to contribute to the candidate of their choice. I am not sure why he made the pledge to accept public financing if his rival accepted the same but he did make the pledge - let's see if he keeps his promise.
McBush may very well have broken HIS OWN LAW. Using FUTURE federal matching funds for collateral on a loan means you accept spending limits. He then overspent those limits in the first quarter of the year by at $3M. The only reason he needed the loan was because his campaign was tanking. Now he's stuck accepting federal matching funds yet doesn't seem concerned abiding by a law he co-wrote. What a hypocrite.
Secondly, his spending is less because his campaign has FAR LESS to spend. All across America, up and down the ticket, Republican coffers have been in deep trouble, dollar-wise. People know a lemon when they see one, and McBush's Republican Party is this generations lemon.
So, because the advantage you had for the past 12 years in fundraising is GONE, NOW you want the presumptive Democratic nominee to "level the playing field"?? Screw you.
Obama should flat-out "flip-flop" on that one and bury McBush come the fall. Even with a 10-1 advantage in campaign donations, Obama will still have a hard time winning. Why? because you Neocon nit-wits will have some rich scumbags start up the fear and smear campaigns. That's all you got; no policy initiatives, no bold visions for a better America, no concrete plans to fix problems. Just fear and smear, lies, "Swift-boats" and hypocracy.
I don't care if the Democrat presumptive nominee levels the playing field as I think every candidate should be able to raise all the money he can attract - I love our "free market" system of campaign finance. But Obama did unequivocally make the commitment to accept the spending limits if the Republican nominee accepted the same conditions. We"ll see if Obama is truly a new kind of politician or simply the same old lying crap with pretty new rhetoric. I think I know the answer but I give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
One other point, John Kerry did not lose in 2004 because of the swift boat ads. Negative ads do not change votes but they can suppress turnout due the resulting lack of enthusiasm in that candidate's supporters. Our country had record turnout in 2004 and John Kerry received more votes than any Democrat candidate in history. George Bush received 3 million more votes than Kerry because he was the better candidate. The collective wisdom of the American people once again proved correct.
Yeah, but it's not just one veteran's bill is it? And if people would do their homework before blindly following any one party they would know that.
How about voting against S2020 which was for additional funds for Veterans? This was back in 2005 when he wasn't so busy. Oh, and how about S Amdt 2735? All that bill wanted was to ensure funding for veterans health care took inflation into consideration. This was also in 2005. Both those pieces of legislation died because the Senate pretty much voted along party lines. If McCain and a just a couple of more republicans had broken from the ranks we could have had more protection for the vets.
People need to acutally quit listening to the what politicians and the media are saying and look at how they are voting. It's often completely at odds with what they pretend to be.
But no, you want to squel about Hillary claiming to have shot a gun with her father as a child. Give me a break. No wonder we are in the state we are in when this is the sort of stupid non-issue we would rather pretend to be outraged about, rather than face up to the hard facts.
"Typical right wing straw-man here. No one has suggested that using matching funds to collateralize a campaign loan is a crime."
Hey reading-comprehension-impared commenter, he was refering to the following:
"He's also already spent MORE this past quarter than he was supposed to. Already he's run afoul of federal election laws TWICE."
You Dims aren't very good at this whole truth-in-debate thing, are ya?