Let's Keep 'Em Poor & Uneducated

Updated to add conference call link, below.

This afternoon I participated in a blogger teleconference with John McCain to discuss the statements he made earlier today about how he foresees his first term in office. Because apparently it's very presidential to pretend that you've already won the election before you even officially have the Republican nomination.

First, I have to mention that MOMocrat Joanne Bamberger got a scoop on the call.  In response to her questions and several follow up questions, he stated that he will appoint Democrats to his administration.  (Assuming he has one.  And you know what happens when you assume?  You make an ass out of u and me.)  After listening to her dogged questioning, I can understand why Joanne is such a great journalist.  I bet she was a hell of a lawyer too!

The big news in John McCain's remarks this morning was, of course, his statement that,

By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom.... The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension....

Senator McCain didn't get to my question (although he did answer questions from MOMocrats Erin Kotecki-Vest and Joanne Bamberger).  I couldn't believe that not one person asked exactly how McCain intends to change the course of the war so dramatically in 5 years.  Because, despite McCain's claims that he's going to focus on what's "doable" I'm not seeing victory in Iraq, particularly in 5 years, as "doable."

I forwarded my questions to someone in his campaign in the hopes that he will answer them.  Here they are in full:

1. Senator, you said you agree that the war in Iraq was mishandled for the first 4 years.  Can you give us some specifics about what you perceive as the current administration's mistakes in Iraq and what you would do differently to achieve such a marked decrease in violence in the region by 2013?
2. Do you foresee adding troops or continuing the surge in the area? Or do you foresee implementing a national draft to increase troops with our current forces under such strain?
3. You've stated that you are in favor of increasing GI Bill educational benefits for soldiers.  I've also read that you, and others, believe that the educational benefit as currently implemented, encourages soldiers to leave the military in pursuit of education and that the length of time soldiers should serve before receiving benefits should be increased. Has there been any research on this issue or is this just based on supposition?  It seems to me that any extended length of time might actually discourage some from joining the military.

While, I would love to receive answers regarding the first 2 questions, I don't expect to get back much of substance.  What I really want to know is McCain's answer to my third question regarding GI Bill benefits.

While McCain made a point of mentioning on the call that he is in favor of increasing educational benefits for soldiers, he also indicated that he thinks we should work on ways to retain soldiers.  What he didn't say is that he thinks the benefit should be increased, but soldiers should only be able to get it if they stay in longer.

For those of you unfamiliar with GI benefits, after a certain term in the military, usually 3-4 years, you receive a certain amount of money to use for college, living expenses while in school, and graduate school.  It's definitely worth it to some people, particularly those who can't pay for college any other way.

My husband, in fact, got through college this way.  He joined the Navy at 17, spent 3 years on active duty and then went into the reserves.  He finished college in the 3 years after he got out of the Navy and then went on to graduate school, where he met me.  Even with his GI bill money, he was basically living on Ramon noodle.

So basically, certain people in Congress, and apparently John McCain, want to keep people who can't pay for college in the military to be used as cannon fodder for a bit longer before they hand over the school dough.  They want to keep poor people in the military and out of college.

Think about that for a minute.

The military is already disproportionately made up of men and women from the lower socioeconomic strata in this country.  Why?  Because the military provides training and good benefits, like money for college.  Many people, like my husband (and my brother) join the military specifically so that they can afford to go to college.  So what better way to keep them in the military then to keep them uneducated and relatively poor for as long as possible?

Hey, maybe McCain will get lucky and those kids who might have left for college after 4 years will pick up a spouse and children during the longer wait.  Once a college education becomes economically impossible with a family to support, they'll have them for life. 

Bravo.  Brilliant plan.

I admit that this post is snarkier than usual because John McCain managed to really piss me off during the call.  Why?  Erin asked him a hard question he didn't want to answer, so he was patronizing and condescending to her, telling her she either hadn't read or didn't understand his statement earlier today and, "I'll try to clear it up for you." But I'm sure Erin will have plenty to say on this topic over at BlogHer, so I'll leave it to her to tell the whole story.

Here's the entire call if you'd like to listen.

****You have no idea how much I had to fight the urge to name this post, "McCain you ignorant slut!"

Cross posted at Lawyer Mama.

Comments

[John J.]

"I couldn't believe that not one person asked exactly how McCain intends to change the course of the war so dramatically in 5 years." Well, John McCain will be greeted as a liberator from the Bush dictatorship. The Iraqis will hold parades and throw roses to him.

At least that's what Cheney told me...

[Lawyer Mama]

John, if you keep making me laugh I'm going to have to steal you from your wife! (-;

[cynematic]

LawyerMama, you asked kickass questions that deserve serious answers. I'd be hugely surprised if McCain answered with any substance.

He's too busy "clinging" to his buddy Bush in the picture above!

PS I think his crystal ball is broken. Didn't anyone tell him that President Obama was in charge? ;)

[Karoli]

I started to write a comment here and it got too long. Looks to be a blog post instead, linking back here.

Suffice it to say, he's serving up the same warm bullshit with a side of snark.

[Brenda]

Erin asked him a stupid question. Anyone who's actually read the speech would KNOW the answer, and if that pissed you off, you're as stupid as she is.

[Lawyer Mama]

Ooh, look a troll! Hi, down there under the bridge, "Brenda!"

Actually, it wasn't a stupid question. If you peruse most of the headlines in the MSM, you'll see that Erin is certainly not the only one who interpreted it that way. And frankly, what he said on the conference call wasn't any different. Saying you'll have won the war by 2013 and most of the troops will be gone? Sounds like a timeline to me. Must be some sort of bizarre Republ-o-think that allows people to think it's anything but one.

[JayMonster]

1. I wonder if he realizes that his snot-nosed brown nosing Joe Lieberman is no longer a representative of the Democratic Party (not that he was much of a Democrat to begin with).

2. How come when he speaks of the lingering effects, he doesn't mention a decade of occupation by the United States?

3. Why does anybody actually believe he would answer a tough question? He can't handle the softball ones most of the time.

4. I must give Brenda credit to actually take the time to seek out this post and take additional time to make a comment, when she actually had nothing to add to the conversation. That my friends is dedication.

[Brenda]

Hi, troll here again from under the bridge. ("Troll" = dissent, I guess, especially when coming from one who was actually at that same blogger call!)

"Why does anybody actually believe he would answer a tough question? He can't handle the softball ones most of the time."

FYI, McCain is quite open to questions from ANYONE, as the presence of Obama supporters at his blogger call should indicate. (See also: his hundreds of town hall meetings and his openness with the press - you know, the people you think are "in love with" McCain, because he doesn't shut them out for waffles.)

Sorry you can't read, JayMonster and Lawyer Mama. I guess if the message doesn't come from your echo chambers, it's too difficult to comprehend. And obviously, although Lawyer Mama was THERE in on the blogger call, she's hard of hearing as well. He actually asked if Erin had read the speech, and explained it in depth for her, saying that the facts on the ground will dictate withdrawal. 2013, obviously, would be the end of a first McCain term and he expects that if his agenda is implemented (depending on the good will of the Democrats in Congress), that Iraq would be stable enough to where a high level of troop presence in Iraq would be unnecessary because of increased stability. But then, I wouldn't expect Lawyer Mom, Erin, or Joanne to actually report what was said in the call--it's much more advantageous to them to flat-out lie about it.

I don't suppose you'll bother looking at what EVERYONE else who wrote about it said about the call, though. They're outside your echo chamber.

It's mind-boggling to me that people who are allegedly for a drawdown would actually OPPOSE a safer region and a drawdown based on stability. But then, the genocide that would happen following an ACTUAL timetable probably doesn't matter to you any more than than postwar genocide mattered to the antiwar idiots who celebrated withdrawal from Vietnam in the 70's. Genocide only matters when it's politically useful to the Left, as usual.

I find it particularly interesting that Lawyer Mom likes to wave her blue star around, completely ignoring the fact that McCain ALSO has a son who has been to Iraq in the Marine Corps (and is still on active duty) and has another son in Annapolis, who will undoubtedly follow family tradition and serve his country as well. If you believe he loves war and doesn't care about those who serve, you are woefully misinformed. In case you haven't strayed outside your comfort zones, you should know that there are actual reasons why McCain supports a different GI Bill (AND has worked with Webb trying to reach a consensus), and it's not because he thinks his son and Lawyer Mom's son are "cannon fodder."
(And by the way, I'm a 12-year veteran myself, so I'm WELL aware of military issues and the GI Bill.)

Finally,
"If you peruse most of the headlines in the MSM, you'll see that Erin is certainly not the only one who interpreted it that way. "

LOL! Of course she isn't. And the media of COURSE isn't in the tank for St. Barry, either, are they? LOL! (I can't believe you actually use that as your argument!)

"Saying you'll have won the war by 2013 and most of the troops will be gone? Sounds like a timeline to me. "

Well, if that's what St. Barry calls a timeline, then I'd support it. Problem is, he's not concerned with winning the war; he just wants to withdraw regardless of the facts on the ground. Big. Fat. Difference. And you know it, too. As for me, I certainly hope that by 2013 the facts on the ground will obviate the need for a heavy troop presence. If the Iraqi Army can't handle it by then, well, then McCain will not have delivered on his expectations--and see, Lawyer Mom knows that's what he was saying, but she LIES. Or is just stupid - or maybe both. Nothing new coming from the Obama camp, that's for sure.

Not that I expect any of you will change your votes - I just think you should be held accountable for your dishonesty. I seriously doubt you'll bother to do even five minutes' research to find out how laughably wrong this post is regarding the facts. (LM is certainly entitled to her half-brained opinion, though.) It sure would be refreshing to see a lefty blogger actually own up to his or her wild inaccuracies, for a change, but I won't hold my breath.

[Brenda]

BTW, I happen to know for a fact that McCain is trying to reach out to all people and has invited people who aren't supporters to his blogger calls.

Classy response here...NOT.
So typical.

I wonder, will St. Barry be having blogger calls any time soon to which Lawyer Mom is invited? Doubtful. Even more doubtful: that McCain supporters will also be invited. He might have his waffle breakfast disturbed!

[Debbie]

"(...) he expects that if his agenda is implemented (depending on the good will of the Democrats in Congress), that Iraq would be stable enough to where a high level of troop presence in Iraq would be unnecessary because of increased stability(.)"

Brenda, are you trying to actually convince anyone that the US is somehow capable of stabilizing Iraq on *any* level? given that we've been there for over five years and thus far, that hasn't worked? at all? are you serious? I mean, you must be, because you not only referred to one of our writers as stupid in your first comment, and then bravely linked back to your own site that demonstrates your having participated in the call referenced, as opposed to leaving a quasi-anonymous name w/no trail, so. yes. very serious. that's clear.

then you wrote this:

"(...) the genocide that would happen following an ACTUAL timetable probably doesn't matter to you any more than than postwar genocide mattered to the antiwar idiots who celebrated withdrawal from Vietnam in the 70's. Genocide only matters when it's politically useful to the Left, as usual."

let me ask you something, anony-- er, *Brenda*; this genocide you refer to? what do you think incited it? was it Saddam? or -- possibly, no, wait, DEFINITELY, it was the US' illegal involvement there. so. the suggestion that bleedy-hearted liberals are all for non-death and non-destruction and human dignity (I know! crazy!) unless it's useful (and I'd love to see your evidence for when a liberal has demonstrated the idea that they find genocide useful, ever, at all, under any circumstances -- hint, the answer is ZERO; maybe you could post something to that effect on your blog and then link back to this one so we can discuss this evidence that you cite so fervently? oh. right. you can't link back because you're anonymous, I mean, you're Brenda!).

My favorite part:

"Not that I expect any of you will change your votes - I just think you should be held accountable for your dishonesty. I seriously doubt you'll bother to do even five minutes' research to find out how laughably wrong this post is regarding the facts. (LM is certainly entitled to her half-brained opinion, though.)"

dishonest - that's such a powerful word. you've thrown it at not just the author of the piece, but also the other women who write here and were in on the call. Yet you avoid providing evidence or citation of sources for your own statements, and with no link back to your own site, with no trail, you have only pointed the finger and name-called in a pretty empty manner. that's the only dishonesty I'm encountering in the post and its comments.

so. bravo, anonymous Brenda. you've really shown us. nicely done. we're all -- unimpressed.

[Mom101]

Very classy response yourself Brenda.

Way to elevate the level of discourse.

[Lawyer Mama]

Nope. Troll = someone who throws personal insults. For example, calling Erin and myself stupid. Really gives your arguments tons of credibility. Very "classy" as you state.

But then calling me dishonest for something I didn't actually write is a pretty typical Republican tactic. You can't win the argument, so you hurl insults in an attempt to distract everyone. I'm surprised you didn't just call me a traitor too.

And if you actually READ what I wrote, I didn't write about the timeline. I didn't write about the time line AT ALL! Can I make it any clearer for you? I don't see it mentioned in my post at all, so I'm curious as to why you just went off on a 3 comment rant about how I'm lying about whether the "timeline" was actually a timeline? Your comments are actually completely irrelevant to the argument. Again, adds a ton to your credibility.

I wrote about the questions I wanted answered and the research I've already done on the GI Bill. And yes, I'm perfectly aware of *why* they want to change GI benefits. To keep people in longer. Duh. I'm pretty sure that's in the post. And McCain's children are irrelevant to that topic because neither of them actually *needs* the GI education benefit. If you'd actually read my post, you'd realize that I am not concerned about rich kids having their GI education benefits deferred, I'm concerned about the poor kids. The ones who don't have all the advantages of a McCain or a Webb. Webb, btw, is my senator and has already heard my opinion on the matter. Now it's McCain's turn. I think it's a bad idea. But I'm sure differing opinions don't make it into your *Republican* echo chamber.

Trust me, I hear plenty from the Republicans. I'm married to one. I'm married to a Republican currently in the military who also thinks it's a bad idea. Has he been brainwashed by the liberals as well?

Why exactly are you here? Do you think you're actually going to convince bloggers or readers of an openly Democratic and liberal blog that you're right? Good luck with that. I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.

[Lawyer Mama]

Oh and for your further education about McCain cooperation with Webb on the GI Bill issue:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/20/mccain-ignores-gi-bill/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/02/10/gi_bill_falling_short_of_college_tuition_costs/?page=full
http://www.vademocrats.org/page/community/post/webbnewswire/VMj

[PunditMom]

Brenda, It's absolutely clear why McCain is reaching out to progressive bloggers -- he doesn't have much money left for the campaign and is trying to find ways to reach Democrats and independents who maybe -- just maybe -- will come over to his side. If there was nothing in it for him, he would not be doing this.

[Michelle M]

McCain's GI Bill is saying to me that it doesn't matter how many tours you do in Iraq, if you don't do 6 years in the military, you do not matter. I did one tour in 4 years, but I have plenty of friends who have done 2 tours in 4 years. They don't matter, either.

It also makes me laugh that they are worried that increasing benefits to those who have served will hurt retention. What the heck do you think the war is doing? Clearly there is a problem when you have to increase the age of those who can serve, followed by an increase of waivers you will accept. I know so many people that are getting out as soon as they can because the optempo is too much. I have a friend who has missed 2 whole years of his 4 year-olds life. I have another friend who was pulled out of the IRR 3 months after his wife had their first child. He had been out of the military for 2 years. Something here has to got to give.

[jaelithe]

Actually, Brenda, you are right that Barack Obama hasn't put us on a conference call. But he did stop by to personally answer some questions we had posted here for the Democratic candidates.

So, you know, maybe you should read our site before making assumptions that Obama is ignoring us. (And also before you assume that everyone here is an Obama supporter. Some of our writers are Clinton supporters, and she's not out of the race yet. Some of our writers are undecided.)

We actually do really appreciate the fact that McCain has invited us to conference calls. If we didn't appreciate it, we wouldn't participate, nor would we write about it on the blog. But we aren't willing to pretend we don't disagree with his policy plans just because he has shown he is willing to speak to ordinary people like ourselves.

Ordinary people like ourselves OWN the American government. We choose our leaders, and we pay their salaries. Our government is meant to be beholden to us. It is meant to serve us. And ALL of our elected officials should be willing to answer questions from ordinary citizens. It's not a gift when they do it. It is part of their job.

I have great respect for our elected officials. But that does not mean I will display obsequence in a Senator's presence.

I stand with George Washington. I don't bow before King George.

[Daisy]

The military is a valid career plan for kids growing up in a recession, with no money for college and no hopes of decent jobs in their hometowns. The proposed changes in the GI Bill are very discriminatory.

[SEO]

SEO, Web Marketing, Internet Marketing, Online Marketing, Web Design, SEO Company, Web Traffic, Low cost SEO, Low Price SEO, Online Advertising, Web Advertising, Internet Advertising, Search Engine Optimisation, Search Engine Optimization, SEO Firm, SEO New Zealand, Discount SEO, Cheap SEO, Affordable SEO

[SEO]

Low cost SEO, web marketing, internet marketing, web design & online advertising. Best SEO company for traffic.

[seo company]

This article is very informative, it reminds of an seo company called Proweb Direct, there blogs are cool

[goth porn]

It's absolutely clear why McCain is reaching out to progressive bloggers -- he doesn't have much money left for the campaign and is trying to find ways to reach Democrats and independents who maybe -- just maybe -- will come over to his side. If there was nothing in it for him, he would not be doing this.