Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Rejecting and Denouncing


Telling potential recruits you have to re-enlist to get the full benefits makes it a harder sell. Whereas giving greater benefits after only one term is more attractive. So if the bill that passed cause some to leave sooner rather than reenlist, it will also bring in more new troops. It's a wash.

Posted by elenchos | May 22, 2008 4:03 PM

Wow - if he gets this long-winded when he loses a floor vote, how long will his concession speech be in November?

Posted by Ziggity | May 22, 2008 4:05 PM

shorter mccain:

this bill would discourage soldiers from re-enlisting in an endless, unwinnable war that I helped start, therefore I cannot support it.

Posted by brett | May 22, 2008 4:08 PM


Posted by Jeff | May 22, 2008 4:09 PM

Worth noting: the existing system offers the same benefits to 1-termers as to career soldiers.

And it's been around since long before the current retention problem started.

Posted by lostboy | May 22, 2008 4:16 PM

note: McCain hasn't bothered to show up in DC to vote on anything since March, apparently...

Posted by heh | May 22, 2008 4:20 PM

That's pretty fucking high and mighty from Mr. "Bomb Bomb Iran".

Posted by monkey | May 22, 2008 4:39 PM

shorter mccain:

this bill would discourage soldiers from re-enlisting in an endless, unwinnable war that I helped start, therefore I cannot support it.

Bang. Fucking. On.

Posted by Tiktok | May 22, 2008 4:40 PM

@1, it's easier to retain folks than find new ones - esp. lately!

And experienced NCO's count for quite a bit, esp. when there's an actual shooting war going on.

Still waiting for a Republican to stand up and say this stuff's expensive and we need to worry about deficits (this week.) Maybe W. will if he tries to veto it. C'mon, W., say something stupid...

Posted by CP | May 22, 2008 5:23 PM

Oh, and add this to the list of things that McCain is older than: Pearl Harbor attack!

Posted by CP | May 22, 2008 5:29 PM

McCain's is a very good answer, sure to impress many. He is speaking to a VAST electorate of his generation that we underestimate at our great peril. He really sounds like a Democrat, in the way he carefully explains his position, a lot like Kerry or Obama himself.
This is going to be a tough election, make no mistake.

Posted by calvin | May 22, 2008 6:52 PM

I still say we should give him back to Vietnam.

Posted by Heather | May 22, 2008 6:54 PM

This is like that argument that if you had a decent welfare system then no one would want to work a shitty job for starvation wages.

Heaven forbid that poor people would have an option for receiving medical benefits other than serving in the military! And heaven forbid that the military might become too generous with its benefits! Without being forced by poverty into "service", how many people would be idealistic enough to really WANT to serve as part of the US military occupation of Iraq?

Posted by Trevor | May 22, 2008 7:04 PM

Oh. My. God. Old people can really prattle on, can't they? If he tries to yammer on like that to the American public at large, they'll lose him after 15 seconds.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | May 22, 2008 7:27 PM

Oh, but I can't wait for McCain to have to defend this bullshit during the debates.

Posted by Ryan | May 22, 2008 9:10 PM

I feel safe saying this since comments on this post seem to have tapered off: I REALLY (and I mean REALLY) hate to admit this, but he's got a good point. Career soldiers are career soldiers because they WANT to be, because they LOVE what they do, and because they are GOOD at it. They aren't the ones that are in for the benefits. Of course there are exceptions to that "rule" but that is the majority. Having spent 7 years serving, I think I can safely say that. Anyone who joins at this point has to know that they are going to deploy. Anyone who says their recruiter told them they would never deploy is full of shit. I also agree that soldiers that serve longer should get better benefits. A lot of people enlist because of the initial benefits (e.g., enlistment bonuses, tuition reimbursement) but decide it's not for them and get out after three years. They're no less honorable than the ones that serve for 20 or 30, but they did sacrifice much less than the lifers and should be compensated as such.

Posted by DanFan | May 22, 2008 9:40 PM

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck... there are no boobies or swear words, how am I s'pozed to get through it? Can someone please summarize what those 8,000,000 words were trying to say?

Posted by Lose-Lose | May 22, 2008 10:24 PM

What calvin said @11.

McCain is using the kind of language that grabs middle America. Veterans understand this logic. Obama supporters better get ready for a battle. I think it is going to get really ugly and you all know McCain has a decent chance of winning this thing.

Posted by Jamey | May 22, 2008 11:37 PM

16 --- DanFan, True. However, some cherry probably has the same chance of getting killed his first patrol as the guy beside him who may be in his second, or even 3rd, rotation. 11 & 18, Spot on, I agree.

Our people in uniform have volunteered to put themselves in harms way. The LEAST we can do for them is pay for their education after they get out.

Posted by Bitterly Remembering The Last Time | May 23, 2008 1:49 AM

If this is the level of debate, then I say "Right ON!" I loves me a wonky debate that makes me feel like I learned something instead of trading talking points.

Posted by NaFun | May 23, 2008 6:17 AM

Parts of that speech sound an awful lot like "You can beat be in November if you make Senator Webb your running mate."

Posted by steve | May 23, 2008 6:44 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).