Republican Bob McDonnell enjoys a rather sizable lead over Democrat Creigh Deeds in his race for Virginia’s governorship. But the Washington Post, which went after George Allen with amazing fervor in his 2006 race against longshot Jim Webb, is doing what it can to fix that. First, it ran a series of articles about a master’s thesis McDonnell wrote during the Reagan administration. With that having not done the trick, it’s digging up a new charge:

In January 2003, then-Del. Robert F. McDonnell helped gavel in one of the most extraordinary judicial reappointment hearings in Virginia history: a seven-hour, trial-like affair that led to questions about whether the future Republican gubernatorial candidate thought gays were fit to serve on the bench.

As chairman of the House Courts of Justice Committee, McDonnell sat at the head of the proceedings, with his Senate counterpart next to him and committee members on both sides. Facing them was Verbena M. Askew of Newport News, the state’s first black female Circuit Court judge, whose reappointment was in jeopardy because of allegations that she had sexually harassed a female colleague.

[...]

In comments before the hearing, McDonnell indicated that Askew’s sexual conduct was relevant, telling one newspaper that “certain homosexual conduct” could disqualify a person from being a judge because it violates the state’s crimes against nature law. The words were widely published at the time, and his remarks contributed to a lasting view that sexual orientation was at least one reason for Askew’s ouster.

[...]

McDonnell’s role in the hearing has attracted renewed scrutiny after the publication last week of a 1989 graduate school thesis in which the 14-year lawmaker and former attorney general had criticized working mothers and homosexuals and urged the promotion of traditional values through government. In one passage, McDonnell wrote: “Man’s basic nature is inclined towards evil, and when the exercise of liberty takes the shape of pornography, drug abuse, or homosexuality, the government must restrain, punish, and deter.”

[...]

McDonnell was credited by Republicans and Democrats in the Virginia General Assembly at the time for making sure witnesses supporting Askew were present at the hearing.

He also became known for telling the Daily Press of Newport News that certain homosexual activities could disqualify a person from the bench. “It certainly raises some questions about the qualifications to serve as a judge,” he said. “There is certain homosexual conduct that is in violation of the law,” McDonnell added. “I’m not telling you I would disqualify a judge per se if he said he was gay. I’m talking about their actions.”

What’s particularly rich here is that the Post is arguing that it’s own opposition research on a candidate is grounds for doing more of the same because, after all, it “attracted renewed scrutiny”!  Imagine that.  Indeed, they title the piece “After Thesis Uproar, McDonnell’s Strongly Worded Comments on Gays Resurface.”  One has to love the use of the passive voice to obscure the fact that it’s the Post itself creating the uproar and doing the resurfacing.

Like Allen, McDonnell has run numerous races, including statewide races, before.  He’s faced the scrutiny of the voters and the slings and arrows of opposition campaigns.  These issues have therefore been bandied about over and again.

In what possible sense is a twenty-year-old graduate thesis news? Or even six-year-old public hearings that were widely covered at the time?  This is a smear job, not journalism.

Ezra Klein passes along word that “James Webb, it seems, will not be supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, and won’t even say if he’d support efforts to break a filibuster and let it get to the floor for a vote. That’s a significant blow to EFCA, and something of a surprise given Webb’s carefully cultivated image as an economic populist.”

To which I commented, “Maybe because EFCA is spectacularly misnamed? Taking away secret ballots and thereby allowing union organizers to bully workers into signing up isn’t exactly what the masses are clamoring for.” In less than two minutes, I was met with the rejoinder from commenter Steve LaBonne, “Fallout from yet another messaging war lost by the inept Democrats (as the wide prevalence of the kinds of lies retailed by Joyner indicates.)”

Um . . . no.

Judging from a scan of memeorandum and my RSS feed, quite literally everyone writing about Bobby Jindal’s national coming out party, his Republican response to Obama’s non-State of the Union address, thought it was an epic fail.  Indeed, seemingly everyone came to the independent conclusion that his delivery was channeling moronic page Kenneth Parcell from “30 Rock.”

It’s great news for Tina Fey:  At least the cognoscenti are watching her show.

That ain’t good, however, if you’re hoping to establish yourself as a frontrunner for president in 2012.

What’s particularly interesting going through the RSS feed is that it confirms something I wrote earlier about reporting on “Remarks as Prepared for Delivery.” Namely, the reactions to the text of Jindal’s remarks were quite favorable, at least from the Republicans I read.  The reactions to the speech itself were universally awful especially from the Republicans I read.

The Next Right’s Mathew Gagnon gives the most detailed breakdown of why the speech was awful.  It defies excerpting, so follow the link.

Alex Massie gives the best meta analysis of the lot:

I don’t know why Bobby Jindal, the Republican party’s Great Brown Hope, agreed to give the GOP response to Obama’s speech last night. Supposedly a privilege, this more often turns out to be a fools errand. Indeed, the only successful opposition response I can recall in recent years was given by Senator Jim Webb. Generally, however, the poor sap offered the chance to go up against the President is on a hiding to nothing: the man in charge has the full majesty of his office behind him; the opposition spokesman sits in a wee room on their own waiting for their chance to give a speech no-one is very interested in anyway…

Quite.  Indeed, I’ve always thought the idea of an opposition response speech was idiotic.

It should be noted, however, that blowing this speech — assuming that the pundits’ views and public perception line up — isn’t the end of the road for Jindal.   Bill Clinton’s big public debut, the 1988 keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, was widely considered a bore and he came back nicely.

A young aide to Senator Jim Webb was found dead along a Virginia highway yesterday morning.

Authorities in Botetourt County [Virginia] this [Tuesday] morning discovered the body of a well-known Democratic operative and U.S. Senate aide along U.S. 220, dead from an apparent gunshot wound.

The body of Frederick W. Hutchins Jr., 26, of Roanoke was found shortly after 7 a.m. along southbound U.S. 220 by a Botetourt County deputy who had stopped to check on a vehicle parked on the highway’s shoulder, according to the sheriff’s office. Hutchins was an aide to U.S. Senator Jim Webb, D-Va.

Hutchins had been shot in the head, and a gun was found beneath his body, Sheriff Ronnie Sprinkle said. The sheriff added that the official cause of death would be determined by the state medical examiner. Hutchins’ body was outside the car, which was north of Fincastle, on a small embankment beside the road. Sprinkle said the death occurred between 4:30 a.m., when an officer passed the scene and no vehicle was present, and 7:08 a.m., when another officer stopped to check on the parked vehicle.

Sad and truly bizarre. No further details are available. Indeed, the Roanoke Times report is the only coverage thus far at Google News.

via Memeorandum

The Economist has a good article that summarizes why Jim Webb would be a nightmare pick for VP to people like me:

The main worry about Mr Webb, however, is that he is a genuine fire-breathing economic populist. He appears actually to believe the sort of stuff that Mr Obama only says during Democratic primaries. Since vice-presidents sometimes become presidents, this matters. American workers, says Mr Webb, “are at the mercy of cut-throat executives who are vastly overpaid, partly as a consequence of giving [the workers'] jobs away to other people.” Illegal immigration and globalisation “threaten to dissipate” the American middle-class way of life. He predicts that, unless the government acts to restore “economic fairness”, America “may well go the way of ancient Greece [or] greed-ridden Rome”.

America may be horribly unequal, but it is not, as Mr Webb imagines, apocalyptically so. And judging by his book, Mr Webb has only a shaky understanding of the economic system he decries. He thinks South Korea is more productive than America, and that “most” investors are among the wealthiest 1% of Americans. (In fact, about half of Americans own shares.) He is worryingly hazy about how he would make America fairer. But his instincts are plainly hostile to the free flow of goods, investment and people across borders. Mr Obama, who has recently started to sound less protectionist on the campaign trail and has appointed a team of impeccably centrist economic advisers, can surely do a bit better.

If the Republicans still controlled Congress, I would seriously consider voting for Obama. However, the thought of one party controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue is chilling given how it’s worked out in the past (Republicans and Democrats alike). Add Jim Webb to the ticket and a vote for Obama would be even less appealing to me.

In the long months between now and the conventions, one recurring theme we’ll see in the press and the punditocracy is speculation of who Barack Obama and John McCain will chose as running mates. None of us have any idea, of course, other than that Dick Cheney is not on anybody’s list. But it’s still fun to speculate.

For Obama, the most prominent names I’ve seen, aside from Hillary Clinton of course, are former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (Motto: He did so well in 2004), Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius (a white woman who’s much less annoying than Hillary), former NATO commander and Marine Commandant Jim Jones (my boss’ boss at the Atlantic Council), former NATO commander and 2004 also-ran Wesley Clark and, now, former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn. Former Reagan SECNAV and current Virginia Senator Jim Webb, widely touted by myself and others, seems to have fallen out of favor. Also, since Jim Johnson has been ousted, we’re pretty sure that Obama won’t pull a Dick Cheney and pick his selection committee chairman.

Clinton, Edwards, and Sebelius would be traditional choices made for standard political reasons. Jones, Clark, or Nunn would be an admission that national security is a huge issue and that Obama needs help there. Frankly, unless he puts Jeremiah Wright on the ticket, I’m not sure it much matters.

The conventional wisdom is probably right that McCain’s VP choice matters more than Obama’s simply because of McCain’s age. At 72, it’s hard to see him running for a second term and, let’s face it, he’s more likely than his 45-year-old opponent to die in office.

Speculation centers on former 2008 challengers Mitt Romney (less conservative than McCain but more favored among conservatives), Mike Huckabee (reducing the Republican Party to its essential element), Louisiana governor and boy wonder Bobby Jindal (half McCain’s age and “of color”), Florida Governor Charlie Crist (who’s from Florida), Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (who’s a woman), and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (who’s not only a woman but good looking by VP candidate standards). Nobody’s much talking about Condi Rice anymore, given that distancing himself from President Bush is a key McCain priority. Former Democrat Joe Lieberman is a Hail Mary dark horse, creating a possible RINO-DINO* ticket.

Frankly, I’m not particularly enthusiastic with any of the above options. Palin and Jindal are interesting choices but make no sense for a candidate betting the ranch on national security expertise. Huckabee is simply a non-starter, since he alienates pretty much everyone who isn’t a die hard Evangelical. Hutchinson and Crist are safe but boring. Lieberman is the boldest choice, simultaneously doubling down on the Iraq bet and appealing to moderates, but he also energizes a large part of the Democratic base and irritates McCain’s conservative critics on domestic issues.

Is there someone out there that can simultaneously 1) help McCain carry a swing state, 2) bolster his conservative credentials, 3) complement the “Ready on Day One” message?

Image via HuffPo

___________

*Technically, Lieberman’s no longer a Democrat in name but there’s no cute acronym for “Caucusing With the Democrats But Poking them in the Eye with a Sharp Stick Whenever Possible” — much less one which rhymes with RINO.

Pat Lang, a retired Green Beret colonel, is somewhat bemused at how much is being made of John McCain’s military experience.

John McCain is an admirable man. There are many such who wore the uniform of the United States in adverse circumstance. Jim Webb, Chuck Hagel, Daniel Inouye, Bob Dole… Shall I go on? How many names would there be? How many million names? In their new found love of soldiers Americans ascribe something almost sacramental to the experience of military service. This is unexpected. There has emerged a kind of reverence for those who have served which is unfamiliar to the veterans of earlier generations. I am old enough to remember the aftermath of World War II. Veterans of that war were treated with respect, but not with veneration. Perhaps there were too many of them for that.

McCain’s brief experience as a junior naval aviator and his extended suffering in North Vietnamese hands seem to be thought by many to be serious qualifications for the ultimate job of making national level policy decisions about the country’s security. Television newsies gush about his empathy with soldiers and understanding for the horrors of war. Sentimentality abounds in these discussions. Sentimentality is good in Valentine’s Day cards. It is bad in picking a president for the country and a commander in chief for the armed forces.

He notes, too, that we have had presidents who made excellent wartime presidents despite little or no military experience.

I’ve argued for quite some time that it’s a mistake for candidates to tout their wartime heroism as a major factor in selling their qualifications for higher office. First, as Lang notes, being a heroic junior officer doesn’t have much bearing on being commander-in-chief. Second, to the extent that military prowess is an asset with the voters, others will make sure that they know about it. Third, and perhaps most importantly, its simply unseemly to toot your own horn in that way. Real heroes don’t shout, and all that.

Moreover, it’s far from clear that it works. If did, George H.W. Bush would have been a two-termer and his son would have been a no-termer. Indeed, it’s rarer that the candidate with the most military experience wins. The match-ups over the last forty years:

2004: Bush re-elected over John Kerry, Silver Star recipient

2000: George W. Bush, National Guard bare minimum stateside flyboy beats Al Gore, Vietnam vet

1996: Clinton re-elected over Bob Dole, massively wounded WWII vet

1992: Bush loses to Bill Clinton, dope smoking draft dodger

1988: George H.W. Bush, Distinguished Flying Cross winner, beats Mike Dukakis, peacetime Army vet

1984: Reagan beats Walter Mondale, peacetime Army vet

1980: Ronald Reagan, wartime Army movie star beat Carter

1976: Jimmy Carter, distinguished peacetime Navy career, beats Gerald Ford, WWII Navy officer

1972: Nixon beats George McGovern, WWII hero

1968: Richard Nixon, WWII non-line Navy service beats Hubert Humphrey, no military service

Only twice did the candidate with the more impressive military record win and, really, only 1988 is a true example. Nixon was a Quaker whose Navy career was most distinguished for his skill as a poker player; he wins this by default to a man who “tried twice to join the armed forces [during WWII], but was rejected both times due to a hernia.”

McCain’s military service was distinguished and what he endured at the hands of the Viet Cong is unimaginable to most of us. Presumably, we can draw some conclusions about his character from how he conducted himself during those times. And, certainly, 27 years in the Navy (counting his time at Annapolis) should be factored in as important experience in weighing him for the presidency.

But banging us over the head constantly with the fact that he went to Vietnam won’t get him elected president. Citing experience and contrasting with his opponent’s relative dearth of same is fine. But he’s still got to sell us on his vision for the future. The election is about 2009 and beyond, not 1967.

Senator Jim Webb, touted by many as a vice presidential candidate who would help shore up Barack Obama with Southerners and those uncomfortable with his lack of national security experience, has an “affinity” for the Confederacy, Politico’s David Mark reports breathlessly.

He has suggested many times that while the Confederacy is a symbol to many of the racist legacy of slavery and segregation, for others it simply reflects Southern pride. In a June 1990 speech in front of the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, posted on his personal website, he lauded the rebels’ “gallantry,” which he said “is still misunderstood by most Americans.”

Webb, a descendant of Confederate officers, also voiced sympathy for the notion of state sovereignty as it was understood in the early 1860s, and seemed to suggest that states were justified in trying to secede.

“Most Southern soldiers viewed the driving issue to be sovereignty rather than slavery,” he said. “Love of the Union was palpably stronger in the South than in the North before the war — just as overt patriotism is today — but it was tempered by a strong belief that state sovereignty existed prior to the Constitution and that it had never been surrendered.”

This line of attack is somewhat ironic, given that Webb is a Senator today partly because his erstwhile opponent, George Allen, was painted as a Confederate sympathizer, which paved the way for the “Macaca” incident to stick. It’s also, as James Fallows — who elsewhere persuaded me that Webb would be a poor VP choice — observes rather silly.

First, this is hardly a secret or news. The dignity of ordinary Confederate troops and their battlefield leaders, as opposed to the evil of the southern slaveholding system, was a major theme in Webb’s widely-noted and generally-praised book Born Fighting, published four years ago.

In addition to that book, the main documentary proof of Webb’s “problem” is a speech at the Confederate war memorial in 1990. That memorial, by the way, is in Arlington National Cemetery — not in Richmond, Charleston, Natchez, etc.

Slavery was the key issue absent which the Civil War wouldn’t have been fought and the resurgence of the Confederate battle flag in the 1960s was mostly about segregationist defiance. It’s easy to understand, therefore, why expressing pro-Confederate sympathies is politically problematic. But Webb’s admiration for the against-all-odds fighting spirit of his ancestors, most of whom fought for reasons having nothing to do with slavery or, frankly, political considerations of any sort, is understandable, too. In a complex world, one can simultaneously admire Robert E. Lee’s character, J.E.B. Stuart’s generalship, and the courage of those who charged up Little Round Top while damning the institution of slavery.

And after all: we’re discussing scenarios in which the first black major party nominee might choose Webb as his running mate. Somehow this would “have the potential” of conveying a pro-Confederate tilt? I don’t think this is the right job for Webb, but his respect for his Confederate ancestors is not the reason why.

Indeed.

Spencer Ackerman takes to the pages of the Washington Independent to do a book report on Jim Webb’s 1991 novel Something to Die For, which Spencer believes offers “a window into Webb’s views on war.”

The upshot:

War is not one tool of national strategy among many — it is the most awful of human experiences. It is not to be used without a thorough understanding of and appreciation for its objectives, their importance and their consequences. And it is never to be undertaken half-way. If anything, Webb resembles Gen. Colin L. Powell and the generation of Vietnam veterans who ascended to the Pentagon under Reagan defense secretary Caspar Weinberger. (Unsurprisingly, perhaps, because he was one of them.)

But interestingly, Webb is agnostic in the novel about what his conception of the national interest is — offering instead what it isn’t. He offers guidelines for when and how to wage war, but, perhaps wisely for a novel, prefers to give a formula rather than solve a problem.

This is interesting (to me, anyway) on two levels. First, I’m about a third of the way through Something to Die For, which I bought off a remainders rack circa 1992 but never got around to reading, and just can’t force myself to finish given its general lack of goodness as a novel.

Second, I’m also about a third of the way through Matt Yglesias’ new book, Heads in the Sand, which I’m finding much better than Webb’s. I’ll write a more thorough review of it when I’m done but, suffice it to say, pretty much nobody actually has a parsimonious, consistent definition of what “the national interest” is vis-a-vis being worth going to war.

James Fallows gets the “Jim Webb for vice president” boomlet exactly right:

- Until 7pm November 4, 2008, Webb might well be a very strong addition to the ticket.

- On November 5, the troubles — for Webb — would begin.

Fallows likes and admires Webb and thinks he’d be both an asset on the campaign trail and a very, very bad vice president.

Jim Webb has arranged his life so as to maximize his intellectual and personal independence, and minimize the things he “has” to do and the bosses he must answer to. Novelist, essayist, journalist, movie-maker — through the two decades before his Senate race he’s been his own boss as much as possible, and has clearly relished saying exactly what he believes. The federal government office that most nicely matches his previous life is the one he now holds: as a U.S. Senator. Especially a Senator of the model Webb has described as his ideal: Daniel Patrick Moynihan. There are still lots of things Webb “has” to do — fundraising, constituent service, party efforts — to maintain this role. But in the big scheme of things, not that many.

The federal government office that least matches Webb’s lifetime path is the vice presidency. Some wonderful people have held the job, plus some terrible ones. The ones who are happiest are those who can bide their time, bite their tongue, fly to foreign-dignitary funerals, and stick absolutely to the company line.

There’s no law, of course, saying that the VP has to be a silent partner. The last several, in fact, have had significant policy duties and quite a few critics think Dick Cheney is more influential than George W. Bush. But the president has to at least appear to be in charge and the VP has to at least appear to defer to the Big Guy. Webb wasn’t very good at that as a 42-year-old Navy Secretary; I can’t imagine he’d be better at it as a 62-year-old.

Ezra Klein’s long-awaited (a day’s forever in Internet time) American Prospect piece, “Is Jim Webb Too Good for the Vice Presidency?” is out. The lede:

In his new book, Virginia Sen. James Webb quotes T.S Eliot and Rudyard Kipling. He alludes to his past as a boxer and marine. He recalls his “four times great-grandfather,” who served as an enlisted soldier under George Washington — and not as the fair-weather kind who fought through the summer but melted away when the fall chill set in, but as one who suffered through the brutal winter at Valley Forge. He mentions the nine books he’s written, the literature courses he’s taught at universities, and the screenplays he’s penned. He dwells fondly upon a photo of his grandfather, a hardscrabble farmer who died from an infected wound that dripped poison into his bloodstream. He talks about the “efficiency” of his walking pace, calculating he covered more than 1000 miles striding between his office and that of his former boss, Casper Weinberger, secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan.

He does all of this by page 10.

The man’s not afraid to toot his own horn, that’s for sure.

(I’ve appended my quick thoughts on the main thrust of the piece as an update to “Webb for VP Backlash.”)

Photo: Thomas Paine’s Corner

After several weeks of being the odds-on favorite to be Barack Obama’s running mate (at least if bloggers were doing the picking) it appears is if the inevitable backlash has set in.

Kathy G, guesting at Matt Yglesias’ site (apparently, the Atlantic Monthly has given their bloggers the week off) takes the lead, setting out the anti-Webb argument in a long post. The bullet points:

• It would give a Republican a chance at his Senate seat.

• Webb isn’t a team player.

• Webb isn’t a natural campaigner.

• “Webb basically became a Democrat the day before yesterday, and he has a long history of holding some pretty wingnutty opinions and making some fairly outrageous and offensive statements.”

The last of these, not surprisingly, most energizes Kathy. She thinks Webb shares the Southern resentment of the 1960s counterculture, doesn’t think the Vietnam war was unmitigated evil, and most notably, he was opposed to the admission of women to the Naval Academy thirty years ago and he compounded his misogyny with a partial defense of the Tailgate transgressors.

Ezra Klein — who has opposed Webb for VP longer than Kathy — seconds these concerns but, more importantly, thinks Webb too risky simply because “there’s a lot about what James Webb thinks that we simply don’t know.”

Spencer Ackerman thinks Webb’s record is more complicated than Kathy gives him credit for and believes there’s still a strong case to be made for having him on the ticket.

Alex Massie thinks some of the complaints lodged against Webb are features, not bugs. To the extent that this election is “a battle for the centre-ground” it makes sense for Obama to do what he can to appeal to moderates rather than to shore up his support with the hard-core base.

I tend to agree. As I noted in my “endorsement” of choosing Webb a few weeks back, “he’s a bit of a loose cannon and might not be the ideal guy to have out in the hustings to deliver a scripted message.” But the fact of the matter is that moderates, most of whom are the white working class voters that we’ve heard so much about in recent weeks, are probably closer to Webb on the issues in question than to Kathy G.

Granting that George Allen ran a spectacularly bad re-election campaign in 2006, he still barely lost. Had Harris Miller beaten Webb, Allen would almost certainly still be a Senator — and probably made an interesting run at the the Republican presidential nomination. The Republicans would still have nominal control of the Senate, thanks to Dick Cheney’s tie-breaking vote.

Virginia is thought of as Red state but is really Purple and trending Blue, owing to the staggering growth of the D.C. suburbs and exurbs of Northern Virginia. The ability to win here is a strong indicator of appeal in other swing states. Jim Webb or someone with similar credentials, then, makes sense unless the Democrats really think Obama is going to win this thing walking away.

Photo via Daniel Farrell

UPDATE: Bill Dyer, who’s about as likely to vote for Obama regardless of his VP choice as I am, was bemused by the suggestion when I first broached the subject on April 1 (No, it wasn’t an April Fool’s joke).

The thought of Webb and Obama sharing a ticket really makes me giggle. I can envision a joint appearance with Webb getting into gear about the Scots-Irish and their heritage, and how they provided the work ethic which built the United States into the greatest country in the world — all while Michelle Obama silently seethes.

Then Barack Obama would explain that the Second Amendment permits the District of Columbia to ban handguns outright. At that exact moment, Webb would slyly nudge his briefcase, with its Glock and three extra magazines of ammo, further under the table.

Midway through Rev. Wright’s closing benediction, I would expect Webb to engage him in a fist-fight.

It is, indeed, quite a contrast. But, certainly, no more than Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

UPDATE: Ezra expands his argument in an American Prospect piece entitled “Is Jim Webb Too Good for the Vice Presidency?” The central thesis, laid out in persuasive detail, is that Webb’s “outlook is the antithesis of the vice presidency, which often requires mortgaging your personal credibility and sacrificing your independence in order to further the president’s point of view.”

Of course, the operative question right now is whether Webb would help Obama get elected, rather than whether he’d actually be a good VP. After all, the second question is rendered moot if Obama loses. But Ezra’s point is a good one.

Earlier this month, my collegue James expressed his bafflement that John McCain wasn’t supporting Jim Webb’s expanded GI Bill. At the time, McCain hadn’t expressed a reason for not supporting the bill, but now he has announced why: he is concerned that expanded educational benefits would lower overall retention rates.

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has suggested he would oppose a bipartisan measure by Virginia Sen. Jim Webb to expand college tuition benefits for military veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[...]

But McCain echoed the concern voiced by some in the Defense Department who worry that the promise of full college tuition could entice many troops to leave the military sooner than they otherwise might at a time of war.

Webb has bristled at that criticism, saying a college education should be viewed as “a cost of war” that is owed to veterans. Webb himself, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, used the GI bill to pay for his law school degree.

“There are too many people in the Pentagon who are seeing a good GI Bill as affecting retention rather than rewarding service,” Webb said last week on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

This seems to me to be a rather dubious reason to forego supporting this bill. A college education is the least this country can provide for those people who are willing to fight and die on behalf of their country. As James pointed out in his earlier post,

An NPR story on this issue this morning noted that the original G.I. Bill was sufficiently generous that vets could attend even the most elite private institutions. Given how much tuition has soared compared to inflation, that’s probably not feasible. Certainly, though, a year of military service ought earn a year’s in-state tuition and books at a public institution. And it would be awfully nice, indeed, if the elite private schools considered a G.I. Bill voucher payment in full.

I concur wholeheartedly with this sentiment. Indeed, one would think that a veteran like Senator McCain would do more to support the troops who risk their lives every day out on the battlefield. After all, they can’t all marry wealthy heiresses now, can they?

Wes Clark and Jon Soltz take to the op-ed pages of the LAT to urge John McCain to support a massive increase in educational benefits for our veterans.

The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, sponsored by Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), will restore the promise of a cost-free education to those who serve in the military. The original GI Bill transformed American history, providing education for returning soldiers. The GI Bill not only recognized our nation’s moral duty for the enormous sacrifices of our World War II veterans, but it helped create America’s middle class and spurred decades of economic growth for our country. Economists estimate that the original bill returned anywhere between $5 and $13 for every dollar we spent on it. But the original GI Bill has become woefully outdated, to the point where the average benefit doesn’t even cover half the cost of an in-state student’s education at a public college.

The Post-9/11 Veterans Act, which has an estimated cost between $2.5 billion and $4 billion, is common-sense legislation. With 51 cosponsors, including nine Republicans, the three other Vietnam War veterans in the Senate and former Secretary of the Navy John Warner, the bill simply updates what the late historian Stephen Ambrose called “the best piece of legislation ever passed by the U.S. Congress.” Yet, faced with unprecedented filibusters, it needs 60 cosponsors. As de facto leader of the party, McCain could signal to other Republicans to sign on to the bill and assure passage.

[...]

The White House has voiced concern on the bill, arguing that if returning troops are offered a good education, they will choose college over extending their service. This is as offensive as it is absurd.

First, it is morally reprehensible to fix the system so that civilian life is unappealing to service members, in an attempt to force them to re-up. Education assistance is not a handout, it is a sacred promise that we have made for generations in return for service.

Second, falling military recruitment numbers are just as serious as retention problems. To send the message that this nation will not help you make the most of your life will dissuade a large number of our best and brightest from choosing military service over other career options.

McCain has not committed himself one way or the other on this legislation, claiming he hasn’t had time to read it. Certainly, it’s time to make time.

Kevin Drum is right: “Updating the GI Bill seems like a political no-brainer. Even if it were a bad idea on the merits, it seems like the kind of thing that would get huge bipartisan support. After all, who’s opposed to a college education for returning Iraq vets?”

One could reasonably argue that this particular bill is too expensive or larded with poison pills but, surely, McCain is in an ideal position to take the lead in proposing whatever changes might need to be made to fix it.

An NPR story on this issue this morning noted that the original G.I. Bill was sufficiently generous that vets could attend even the most elite private institutions. Given how much tuition has soared compared to inflation, that’s probably not feasible. Certainly, though, a year of military service ought earn a year’s in-state tuition and books at a public institution. And it would be awfully nice, indeed, if the elite private schools considered a G.I. Bill voucher payment in full.

Image: The History Cooperative

I’ve mentioned in passing several times, both here and on OTB Radio, that Jim Webb would be the Democrats’ smartest choice for Vice President, particularly if (as seems exceedingly likely) Barack Obama is their nominee. Alex Massie makes the case in detail. Some excerpts:

The political considerations first: the Democrats have no other plausible candidate with anything like Webb’s military experience. At the very least one might think Obama could ask Webb to be a Shadow Secretary of Defense in advance of nominating him to the post after the election. Sure, Webb was a Republican until recently, but in addition to the Navy Cross, Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts he won in Vietnam he served as Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration. He also, and vitally from a Democratic point of view, opposed the Iraq War for reasons that, alas, look more cogent than ever.

[...]

Secondly, even allowing for the truth that Webb could probably not have won Virginia without George Allen’s self-immolation it remains the case that Virginia is trending Democratic and Webb’s presence on the ticket could conceivably help Obama win the Commonwealth’s 14 electoral college votes. Pinching states from the opposition is no small thing.

But really Webb’s appeal as a running-mate is greater than that and greater too than the prospect of his being able to compensate, to some extent anyway, for John McCain’s appeal to working-class white men. It’s not hard to imagine Webb helping the ticket in virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky, to say nothing of the benefits his populism could potentially have in states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio. He may, in fact, be just the sort of culturally conservative and genuine Democrat Obama needs to balance his ticket.

The main downsides to Webb, are that he’s a bit of a loose cannon and might not be the ideal guy to have out in the hustings to deliver a scripted message and, as Dave Schuler has noted, that having two first-term Senators on the ticket might be problematic from an “experience” standpoint.

I’m not sure how much these matter. As McCain has demonstrated, a certain cantankerous candor charms the press, so he’d get something of a pass for minor gaffes. And this might be a year when experience is a disadvantage, as in Ross Perot’s famous 1992 debate rejoinder, “I don’t have any experience screwing up the country.”

Photo: MyDD via Google