that as a VP candidate, he has the credentials to effectively take on McCain on military issues.

Here's hoping Webb keeps up the pressure. This legislation is too important to allow people like McCain to derail it with specious arguments in opposition.  

That McCain is not just offering opposition to Webb's bill, but has drafted a bill of his own.

was too generous?  Yes, we know about that one.  It's specifically drafted with a goal of trying to increase or keep retention so people who want it benefits have to consider re-enlisting to maximize them.  We all know that GI benefits are about getting people to stay in the military long after they wanted to be gone, right?  From McCain's point of view they're not a reward for good service already given or a plan for maximizing the potential of those who have already made the sacrifice of joining the military and perhaps going through the trauma of war.  They're a carrot and stick meant to induce people to remain in the service so the rest of us don't have to.    

gave some lame excuse of being unable to talk to Webb or his staff about the matter, when the fact is they've been trying to get his attention for over a year.  There might be some attractive points to his plan, but who would know since he failed to communicate with the people who already had a plan in the works and otherwise acted independently, dropping his proposal on them as a fait accompli at what appears to a cynic like me to be the most politically advantageous time.  You accuse Webb of trying to score political points?  He introduced this Amendment his first day in the Senate in January 2007.  No one was talking about him as a VP candidate then, and he has struggled all this time against the strong resistance of the craven Bush Administration and the silence of someone whom he expected to be an early co-sponsor of the legislation.  Now McCain comes forward against a bill that has substantial bipartisan support, as his party's presumptive nominee, and needs to look like he actually cares about this issue enough for it to count in his favor in November.

And please, stop the drama about my gall in suggesting that people are staying in because there are not enough educational benefits.  I never said people join just for the benefits.  I was questioning the cynicism of the Administration and McCain in assuming that the only way to ensure retention is to dangle the carrot of more educational benefits in front of them.  Most people don't stay in the military unless they want it as a career and the educational benefits are not a factor in their decision to leave.  It's McCain and his bunch who are saying if we make the benefits attractive to people leaving the military they will leave in greater numbers.  Aren't you basically making the argument you're imputing to me?

As for the wonderful provisions you tout such as the ability to transfer the benefits to spouses and children, I would suspect there's a reason why it was not included in Webb's proposal, which is how one deals with the fallout of such a guarantee in a society where so many people divorce.  You grew up in a military family?  That's swell. I've been practicing family law for over 20 years.  If it's a transferable benefit, the litigation will come.  I guarantee it.  Not only that, but the benefit may be negotiated over and dealt with 50 different ways depending on what state the parties are resident in, and in fact may give rise to litigation over where to attribute domicile and residence of the military person.  It has nightmare potential from a divorce law point of view.  Webb wanted a clean bill with clear benefits and did not want a lot of peripheral third party stuff coming in.  

In response to your question, yes I am psychic and I'll be happy to add you to my psychic e-mail hotline list.  

Staking an unneccesary fight with John McCain will certainly gain him supporters within the party, but I'm not sure it will get him McCain's support like he wants.

It's not that hard to get ahold of McCain's plan. The Hill was able to do so pretty easily. Whether Webb is correct that he and McCain have talked personally, or whether McCain is correct that his staffers have been attempting to negotiate, there have been conversations about it held.

And as I said, McCain isn't competing with Webb's bill; he's not "opposed" to it just because he won't co-sponsor it. He wants to see changes made to it, and this is how you do that.

That's quite a ginormous leap of logic you made there to say that, by offering additional benefits, that McCain and the Bush Administration (and really, every single Administration in history) "assumes that benefits are the only way" to ensure retention. I've never heard that argument made or even an argument resembling that be made. What I was taking umbrage with was your specific wording about people being in the military "long after they wanted to be gone", as if the military is full of people who aren't proud of what they do.

As for your laughable argument about why Webb's bill doesn't touch transferred benefits, can you please direct me to any memo or any public statements made by Sen. Webb or any of the other 58 co-sponsors that say anything remotely close to your reasoning? I highly doubt there is a specific reason why Webb's bill doesn't address the issue, other than it doesn't jive with the benefits structure that the Webb bill details.  

do you think for one minute it's something that could just be stuck in there without a lot of writing and consideration of the potential consequences I outlined above?  It's just a fact of life that when you bring third parties into a legislative picture they muddy the waters.  As for McCain just wanting some changes to Webb's bill, how is it that we're hearing about the Senator's concerns a full 16 months after Webb introduced the legislation.  We haven't heard a peep about it until now.  

However, never in any incarnation of printed or spoken word have I ever heard anything that remotely approaches your explanation for why Webb's bill doesn't cover that. And I'm also guessing that you didn't read it somewhere and are relaying information; rather, you're putting forth your best guess as why it could be problematic.

Thanks for the effort, but I'll stick to reasoning provided by those involved with crafting the legislation.

But I guess if he can score political points (and bolster his VP credentials) by claiming to not be political, then what's the harm?

Yep.  Senator 'situational ethics' Webb is doing this to score political points, but Senator 'man-of-principle' McCain is doing it because he's got the backs of our servicemen?

I don't doubt Webb's intentions, I doubt his execution. If he wants McCain to co-sponsor his bill, maybe he shouldn't say things like "He's full of it". If he wants to pass the best bill for the troops, maybe he look at items in McCain's bill (that the Pentagon endorses) and compromise between the two, and encourage his supporters to not play politics on his behalf.

And then, to compound impugning Senator Webb's motives, you betray your feeble grasp of Washington reality by tossing in the most bankrupt of imprimaturs:

... maybe he look at items in McCain's bill (that the Pentagon endorses) ...

Well, then, done deal.  The Pentagon endorses it.  

It wouldn't be that they're concerned that Webb's GI Bill might interfere with funding the F35 or the new carrier or more subs or the new golf course or pensions for double-dipping generals and admirals, eh?    

As your ideological confreres like to put it, have some more Kool-Aid.    

n/t

He has no more compassion for the troops than he did for his first faithful wife whom he left crippled and abandoned.  It's all McCain, all the time.  And I'm looking forward to talking about that.    

Oh I forgot Rev. Wright changed all that "issue" focus. The power of one I guess. Looks like we truly have 3 politicians indeed, just when I thought it was safe to go into the water as an independent. Johnny Boy hope you remember how to duck. He abandoned his wife---ouch!!

You are going to love all the details that speak to McCain's "character", "loyalty", "honor" and "hero" status.  And it's not about his preacher, it is about the actions of John McCain.

You are going to love all the details that speak to McCain's "character", "loyalty", "honor" and "hero" status.  And it's not about his preacher, it is about the actions of John McCain.

He has no more compassion for the troops than he did for his first faithful wife whom he left crippled and abandoned.  It's all McCain, all the time.  And I'm looking forward to talking about that.