BlogHer - VOTER MANIFESTO - Comments

Thanks for sharing the speech

Maria Niles — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:24:34 -0500

It's important that we consider them in all their glory, even if excruciating rather than relying on snippets or media & blog spin.

ConsumerPop Marketing
PopConsumer (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

The McCain Speech Was Painful To Watch.

Catherine Morgan — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:44:21 -0500

The McCain Speech on Tuesday was painful to watch. I agree with Amy Holmes, that he should have just taken the moment to acknowledge the historic nature of the Obama nomination, and left the rest for another time.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan at catherine-morgan.com, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

Semantics maybe, but an important one

Erin Kotecki Vest — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:44:34 -0500

I don't care if it's a specific timeline, a total plan, or even just a vague reference.

The point is he's made a very big deal about never giving a date or time frame for troop withdrawl. And now he has.

Had he never made a big deal about it, I don't think anyone would bat an eyelash.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

My point of view

Erin Kotecki Vest — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:41:13 -0500

isn't that it's a specific plan or that it's laid out entirely, but that a date was given. This was the candidate who was NEVER going to frame any of this in any sort of timeline because that was bad. But if he doesn't talk about getting troops home, he's obviously going to have issues with public opinion. He has now given his best case scenario timeline, whereas before a timeline did not exist. Or was 100 years.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

I did read the post

chilihead — Sat, 17 May 2008 10:13:02 -0500

LawyerMama,

Just to be clear: I listened to the McCain call and I read the post I referred to in my earlier comment. I still stand by my comments. Please don't assume that, just because I disagree with your POV, I have not read and considered the information presented.

Melanie
Blogging Basics 101
Bloggy Giveaways
Don't Try This at Home

Vet on GI Bill etc

Joffi — Sat, 17 May 2008 07:52:46 -0500

I'm a 100% Disabled Vet who spent two separate terms in the Army, one during GW I and another in mid to late 90s. That is so you know where I'm coming from.

I served with countless men and woman. I would say about 10% were there strictly for the GI Bill benefits. However, for about 90% us, it was factor in joining.

That said, it does not matter. Service is service. You can debate why all you like, but when someone signs the dotted line knowing the world and our military's role in it, no reason behind it matters a whit, compared to the fact they knowingly are putting themselves in harms way while giving up most of their personal rights.

To increase the amount of service requirement is a slap in the face to anyone who serves or has served. It says, yeah, you put yourself at the mercy of others, at the will of your country, but 3 to 4 years of life (and possibly your life itself) is not enough. Screw you.

I prefer a longer enlistment period for college bennies

Denise — Sat, 17 May 2008 06:24:05 -0500

I could go on and on about the not so nice things said by enlisted AND officers alike about the people who enlist just to go to college on taxpayer money and then ditch the service as quickly as they can. (As an aside, my daughter is dating a young man who is doing this and when she told me.... I bristled.)

I see your point, Lawyer Mama. But I also see McCain's point, Chili's point and the point made by virtually every active duty member and officer I've ever known (or at least the ones who weren't there for the ride to college.)

(See folks - this is why I can consider voting for McCain. I was a Navy brat and then an AF/DW for a long long time. I lean republican when it comes to many, many issues related to the military and national defense.)

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Funny, I must not be getting it.

LawyerMama — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:19:34 -0500

I've relistened to the call and I still think he's trying to make too much of a fine distinction. He, and his communications people, should know better.

Chilihead, you should actually read the post. Educational benefits are one of the biggest recruiting tools the military has. Already has. They already have to stay in 3 to 4 years to get them. The concern seems to be that those benefits are encouraging people to leave the military and *gasp* go to college.

Making people stay in *longer* (which is what McCain is proposing) to get those benefits may help retention, but it will hurt recruitment of QUALITY people - the kind that want to go to college and not wait 6 to 8 years to do it.

Lawyer Mama

http://lawyermama.com

http://momocrats.typepad.com

http://dcmetromoms.com

I thought McCain was perfectly clear.

rocksinmydryer — Fri, 16 May 2008 21:47:14 -0500

Erin, I was in on the call too, and I thought McCain's speech was very clear in the first place. There's a big difference between setting a cut-and-run withdrawal date (ala Obama and Clinton) and saying "we'll leave when we win, which I expect to be by 2013."

I think it's going to be very interesting to hear the debates in which Barack Obama tries to tell us all that he knows more about effective military management than a decorated and heroic soldier.

Shannon @ Rocks In My Dryer
www.rocksinmydryer.net
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Mommy and Family

Conservative POV

chilihead — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:35:17 -0500

I think you did misunderstand Senator McCain--whether that was intentional or unintentional, or you just wanted to debate semantics. And I believe he also answered your question.

Clinton and Obama have both asked for a very specific timeline with dates for troop withdrawal at the earliest possible date--regardless of whether we have won. On the other hand, I believe McCain is projecting that within four years--no specific date--we will have stayed and won the war in Iraq. At that time we can start pulling out troops. We will not pull out troops to meet a timeline; rather we will pull out troops after we have won the war--and McCain sees the US winning the war by the end of his first term. These are two very different things.

I believe the Clinton/Obama and McCain views are this are completely different and Senator McCain answered your question in a no-nonsense matter. His tone was no more offensive to me than the condescension of Senator Clinton to the American public. What offends me more is that BlogHer is being completely partisan in their coverage of this election. I’ve not seen nearly as many pro-conservative posts as I have seen conservative-bashing posts. Yours is one of many, but it was the last straw for me.

To address MOMocrat’s quote in your article: Why shouldn’t extra educational benefits be tied to commitment or performance? Being in the military is a job. Every job I have had or have heard of requires a certain commitment from its employees, whether that commitment is a promise to stay for X number of years or meet certain goals. Raises, benefits, bonuses are all based on performance and commitment. The military is not an exception.

Chilihead
Don't Try This at Home

Blogging Basics 101

So, how will 2013 be different from now?

MMarquit — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:01:29 -0500

So we're winning now, but we won't have won until 2013? Is that what it means? Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't think he did anything to "clear it up."

Props for the great question, Erin!

Good call, @PunditMom: Playful and humorous? Like when he referred to his wife as a "cunt"?

Indicative

heivilinj — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:59:09 -0500

And this is just the sort of president we want, isn't it? Someone who's condescending and rude to us. Who tells us we don't understand when he "flip-flops".

Jim Heivilin

Interesting side note ...

PunditMom — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:34:53 -0500

I was on the call, as well. McCain's people followed up with me afterwards -- probably because I got to ask a question, too -- and when I told them I was somewhat dismayed at how Senator McCain had spoken to you and thought it had been rude, I was told that McCain was just trying to be "playful" and humorous!!

Call me crazy, but it didn't seem that way to me!

PunditMom, Contributing Editor, Politics & News

Also at MOMocrats and Huffington Post

You're a better woman than I am!

LawyerMama — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:16:50 -0500

I don't know that I could have been so diplomatic! Your question was a great one.

Lawyer Mama

http://lawyermama.com

http://MOMocrats.com

http://DCMetroMoms.com

Hmm I think I missed a memo somewhere

RavinPictureMaven — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:05:19 -0500

I confess my attention has been--perhaps underestimatingly and erroneously---focused on the Democrats. So it's very possible I missed something; it certainly seems like I have.

So these are my questions (and I feel okay asking you---pretty sure you won't scathingly tell me to go read a memo or take a reading comprehension course, right? LOL):

When did McCain abandon the 100 Years War?

When did the Republicans start calling Iraq a war? I thought they kept spinning it as a Liberation (and release...hey now, hey now...don't dream it's over).

Julie
Using My Words