The False Advocate Cont...

In approving an emergency supplemental appropriations bill this afternoon, the Senate followed the House's lead in also approving a bipartisan measure to modernize the GI Bill. If signed into law, it will be a monumental step toward recognizing the service and sacrifice of the men and women who defend our nation in uniform. It would provide an investment in their future and would serve a valuable role in assisting their transition into civilian life while better equipping them for employment in an increasingly competitive workforce. This GI Bill has been championed by Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel, two combat veterans and decorated war heroes, as well as a number of Senators from both parties who have served in previous conflicts (including Medal of Honor winner, Senator Daniel Inouye), and has been a priority of every major veterans service organization, including the VFW and American Legion. Needless to say, it sailed through Congress with overwhelming support.

However, it is not supported by John McCain, who didn't even show up to vote for this historic legislation OR the underlying money for the open-ended war he champions. No, McCain feels that this investment in the education of our service-members is too generous. If anyone challenges him, he huffs and puffs and grows irritated as if his service record alone provides immunity to any such assertions. To the thousands in uniform who fight the war, to those who have already served, and to those who look to one day serve, it is more than insulting...especially since it comes from a man who has said publicly that he has no problem with Americans fighting and dying in Iraq for the next 100 years.

More on today:

McCain skipped the vote in favor of campaigning in California, including attending a fundraiser sponsored by San Diego Chargers owner Alex Spanos. But his White House rivals, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) were very much present.

"I respect Senator John McCain's service to our country," Obama said on the Senate floor. "But I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this G.I. Bill. I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans." McCain's comeback was withering, a lengthy statement questioning Obama's knowledge of veterans issues and his commitment to national security."I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did," he said in the statement.

The issue is likely to reverberate for weeks. The House will take up the Senate-passed war funding bill after Memorial Day recess, then dare Bush to make good on his promised veto. McCain has shown no sign of backing away from his opposition to Webb's updated G.I. Bill, which he says is too costly and is so generous that it would lure soldiers and Marines away from an already stretched military. And he appears more than willing to challenge virtually every veterans organization on the issue, from the Republican-friend Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion to the more Democratic VoteVets.org.

"We're certainly pleased that the G.I. Bill has passed and now will likely go to the president, but disappointed that Senator McCain put his own coffers ahead of this crucial debate, and chose not to vote," said Jon Soltz, an Iraq War veteran and VoteVets chairman. "Senator McCain knows how tough things are for those fighting in Iraq, and when they get home. All of us would love to spend time getting money and talking football. But, sometimes there are more important things to do in life."

McCain on Veterans Issues

For years, John McCain has lived off of his reputation as a war hero who suffered through unimaginable hardships because he chose to wear the uniform of his country. His service is truly admirable and his courage is certainly unquestioned. But what his service does not do is give him a free-ride on military personnel and veterans' issues. In fact, if you look at his record over the years, he has done little of substance, if anything at all, to improve the pay or benefits of the brave men and women who fight to defend our country. It's a sad track record because of the leadership positions he has held, including his current position as ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and because of his stature in the Senate as a champion for the military. But alas, he has secured billions over the years on behalf of the military industrial complex, but he has done very little for the men and women who have served in harm's way.

Jay Newton-Small explores the question - "does McCain have a veterans problem?"

Of all the voting groups John McCain will target this fall, none would seem like more of a sure thing than this country's war veterans. So why is the celebrated Vietnam War hero and POW bracing for a potentially bad week with so many men and women who have served in uniform? The point of contention between the two seemingly natural allies is a piece of legislation the Senate is expected to vote on this week to update the 1944 G.I. Bill to provide expanded education assistance and opportunities to the armed forces. The bill, co-sponsored by two other Vietnam veterans in the Senate, Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia, would effectively provide full tuition and housing costs at a four-year public university for veterans who have served at least three years of active duty.

Given his family's and his own long and distinguished service career, the bill would seem like a natural fit for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. But McCain, concerned about the estimated $4 billion annual price tag and the incentive he worries it might give people to leave an already strapped military, has sponsored his own competing proposal. It increases the existing monthly education benefit from around $1,100 to $1,500 a month while adding more generous benefits for those who've served more than 12 years.

McCain's concerns, however, don't seem to impress the vast majority of veterans' organizations. They are feverishly lobbying him to support the Webb and Hagel bill, which simply adds the new program's expense to the $165 billion annual emergency war supplemental, a move President George W. Bush has threatened to veto. (The House version offsets the program by increasing taxes by 0.5% on those individuals who earn more than $500,000 a year and couples who earn more than $1 million, a move also under veto threat.) "This isn't about anything partisan; we are firmly supporting the bill that does right by the veterans, does right by the troops, and that is not McCain's bill," said Ramona Joyce, a spokeswoman for the American Legion. "It could do McCain damage with veteran voters if this issue drags out."

Even with the current dustup, it's hard to imagine John McCain not winning the majority of the veterans vote in November. But the nation's 26 million veterans are by no means a monolithic voting bloc, and any level of disappointment with McCain could sway some undecideds. The Democratic National Committee is already gleefully preparing TV spots about McCain's position on the Senate bill. And, sensing a vulnerability in McCain's seemingly greatest strength, some Democratic strategists are already contemplating what other veterans votes they can bring up this year.

Obama, who sits on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, has already won some support from many Iraq and Afghanistan vets who oppose the war in Iraq, and has been actively trying to expand his appeal to older veterans — though his efforts in that regard didn't help him in the primaries in veteran-heavy states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. To underline his own family's military pedigree, Obama plans a trip in coming weeks to the Punchbowl National Cemetery in Hawaii, where his grandfather, who served in World War II, is buried. Obama and McCain's G.O.P. rival, the antiwar presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul, actually beat McCain in donations from the four branches of active military this year, according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics.

This is not the first time McCain, who has a proud history of opposing what he views as excessive government spending, has found himself at odds with his fellow veterans on legislation. He's voted for veterans funding bills only 30% of the time, according to a scorecard of roll-call votes put out by the nonpartisan Disabled Americans for America. Under the same system Obama has a 90% rating — though, of course, he has spent a much shorter time in Washington.

"Senator McCain clearly needs to be recognized for his military service and in some respects that will play to his advantage, but when it actually comes to delivering health care and benefits during war, Senator McCain's going to have some explaining to do," said Paul Sullivan, director of the nonpartisan Veterans for Common Sense.

Veepstakes Continued...

Today’s Crystal Ball by Larry Sabato: The presidential Democrats may still be tussling, but soon the national focus will turn to the vice presidential selection frenzy. The Crystal Ball has long discussed the possible candidates on both sides, but which contender should each nominee select? The Crystal Ball does not endorse or support any candidate for any office, but we asked two veteran, skilled political observers to argue, from their perspective, which possible Veep ought to be chosen by Barack Obama and John McCain. (Should Hillary Clinton somehow manage to upset Obama's applecart, we'll publish a similar piece from her perspective.) Thanks to the distinguished political scientist, Professor Gerald Pomper of Rutgers University, and the lively and talented writer Kathryn Lopez of National Review for their essays, which appear below.

MCCAIN'S VICE-PRESIDENT? Mitt Romney as running mate
Kathryn Jean Lopez, Special Guest Columnist

For Mitt Romney, the suspension of his campaign at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference two days after Super Tuesday marked the beginning of a new and promising campaign. As he ended his quest for the Republican presidential nomination, he staked for himself a position as leader for the conservative future. It's a good position to be in for a potential 2012 run for the presidency. And it's a position that makes him an attractive option for John McCain's No. 2 in 2008.

In his withdrawal speech, Romney announced that "conservative principles are needed now more than ever" -- hitting the economy, the culture, and the war. One Romney adviser referred to the speech and the pullout as "a down-payment on a conservative future." Romney's biggest value to McCain, though, comes from his experience in business. John McCain has no such experience and famously said during the New Hampshire primary that "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." (He added that he owns former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan's book.) That quote will come back to haunt McCain once general-election time finally arrives.

Mitt Romney's greatest asset for McCain -- who has been in Congress for almost a quarter of a century -- is, therefore, his executive experience, most of it in the business world, most notably as vice president of Bain & Company, Inc. from 1978 to 1984, and as founder of Bain Capital, venture-capital savior of the likes of Staples, Domino's Pizza, and Sports Authority. Romney famously turned around the corrupt and broke ($379 million in debt) Salt Lake City Olympics and cleaned up a Massachusetts budget running $3 billion in the red without raising taxes. At a time when the country may be in a wartime recession, Romney emanates a confident
competence (and he would do it, as veep nominee, alongside a GOP presidential nominee with a mixed tax-cutting record). Choosing Romney, then, could be as practical as politics gets. When in the voting booth, partisan preferences may pale in comparison to the attraction of a guarantee of competence in the executive.

McCain, if he chooses Romney, may be wise to give Vice President Romney more than economics in his assignment portfolio. As two-time Cabinet secretary William J. Bennett recently put it on his radio show, "McCain would do the war. Romney would do domestic." Social conservatives might hold up McCain's speech this week on the judiciary and say, great blueprint, Senator. But we don't trust you, Senator. (In fact, former Department of Justice official Mark R. Levin, another talk-show host, said just that in the wake of the judges speech: "I don't trust this guy.") Take that basically sound blueprint and give us someone we trust. Romney, who fought judicial activism on marriage in Massachusetts -- and made the issue a key part of his campaign for president --has some credentials there.

The governor makes electoral-map sense, too. First of all, now we can agree the Mormon factor is a plus. Utah's a lock, he won the caucus there with 90 percent of the vote. But Utah's not the battleground: Michigan is. And Romney's favorite-son status there makes it a likely delivery for McCain with Romney on the ticket. (Romney's economics talk went over well there, too, you might recall.) Romney's already been to Michigan on McCain's behalf and no doubt will return. Would the Michigan effect spread to Ohio? McCain seems already to have an appreciation for Romney's electoral assets: Romney recently spoke to the Nevada state Republican convention; Romney won the Nevada caucus with 51 percent of the vote to McCain's 13 percent. Since endorsing McCain, Romney has hit the media trail for McCain, too -- including talking to radio and TV giant Sean Hannity -- at the McCain communications shop's request.

And speaking of numbers, Romney proved to be the Republican dream of a fundraiser and money source: He ran with some $47 million of his own during primary season. On the calendar this week, Romney has a meeting set up in Houston with McCain and Romney 2008's finance chairs and co-chairs to encourage those who are holding back to give to the senator's cash-starved campaign.

Proving how deep his team-player loyalty is, Romney even skipped the White House Correspondents Dinner in Washington, D.C., to speak to the Nevada state Republican convention in April. (Full disclosure: Romney was to sit at National Review's table; NR endorsed him for president last December.) Romney will also prove himself a team player when he campaigns and raises funds for some 30 congressmen running this year, as part of his soon-to-be-announced political-action committee; the candidates Romney supports will reflect his full-spectrum conservatism (further giving conservatives confidence that he has a commitment to their movement, even if he hasn't always been a member).

One last numbers point: John McCain is a 71-year-old who looks it. At a young 61, Romney provides a vigorous safety net for those worried "what if" when they look at McCain. Mitt Romney and John McCain, of course, would be an odd couple -- they have a past. If the Arizona senator believes what he said during their big showdown in Florida this winter, their differences may be irreconcilable. On McCain's signature issue -- "No Surrender" in Iraq -- McCain accused the former Massachusetts governor of being on the wrong side of the debate, i.e., on the side of surrender. The rap against Romney was bogus: McCain's criticism was that during a TV interview last year, Romney endorsed the idea of private timetables between the United States and Iraq. This is not inconsistent with proposals McCain himself has considered. But McCain remembers that the word "timetable" was a Beltway buzzword last year for withdrawing from Iraq. Getting out of Iraq, however, is not what Romney was talking about. One can reasonably criticize his word choice in a heated environment, but he wasn't a cut-and-runner.

Move on, in other words. Or rather, Senator McCain, remember Moveon.org -- which has endorsed Senator Obama. The general-election opponent has a way of focusing the mind. In his CPAC speech, Romney said: "I will continue to stand for conservative principles. I will fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of those things is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism." That's a message that can run with McCain.

Bottom line: Vetted outsider Mitt Romney adds to Washington-insider McCain. He's a running mate with pluses, which, most importantly, includes being a plausible president -- 294 delegates' worth of primary voters thought so, anyway. His resume speaks for itself. McCain could do worse than pick Mitt Romney -- and he's got to know that, if he wants to win in November.

OBAMA'S VICE-PRESIDENT? Jim Webb as running mate
Gerald M. Pomper, Special Guest Columnist

Virginia Senator James Webb should be the Democratic candidate for vice-president. Senator Barack Obama is close to winning the Democratic nomination for president. His overwhelming victory in North Carolina and virtual tie in Indiana, with a forthcoming tide of superdelegates, will bring him within a hundred votes of the nomination. Obama has victory in sight, unless the iron laws of arithmetic are repealed by superdelegates meeting in "smoke-filled rooms" in an age of "no smoking" edicts in air-conditioned retreats.

Obama must soon turn to the choice of a running mate. The best choice, in my opinion, would be Senator Webb. To make the case, let's first dispose of two contrary arguments. The first is that party tickets need to be balanced geographically, with each of the running mates bringing in their home states from different regions. The reality is that almost no voters are swayed when a native son is in second place on the ticket. Jack Kemp could not carry New York for the Republicans in 1996, just as John Edwards could not bring North Carolina into the Democratic fold in 2004.

In 2008, the outworn argument for electoral balance comes in a new form: advocacy of Hillary Clinton as Obama's running mate. Some politicians see this as the Democratic "dream ticket," combining the distinct appeals the two candidates showed in the party primaries. If elected, that ticket would bring a President Obama sniping from his vice-president and the anguish of the likely intrusive pretensions of Bill Clinton as a self-designated "co-president." But In cold-hearted political terms the combination doesn't make sense.

Senator Clinton would not, in fact, bring that much to the ticket. Her strongest appeal obviously is to women. But women are likely to vote predominantly Democratic in any case, as they have for the past quarter of a century. Would women facing a recession and mounting health costs really support John McCain's tax cuts for the wealthy and his ineffective health program? Would the most outspoken feminists really endorse a candidate pledged to appoint the Supreme Court Justices who would reverse Roe v. Wade?

The real "gender gap" is not caused by women, but by men. The Democrats have been losing presidential elections because men have left their ranks in greater numbers than women have come to support the party. By my calculations, the effect of these movements in 2000 was a net gain of four million votes for Bush over Gore, far more important in his "victory" than the Florida vote manipulations. In 2004, Bush won majorities among both white men and white women, with white men again decisive, 62 percent voting for the President.

An Obama-Clinton ticket would be historic in overturning barriers of race and gender. But confronting the electorate with both a black and a woman candidate at the same time might well try its patience beyond the limits of well-meaning tolerance. It is simply realistic, even if not ennobling, to remember that white males constitute forty percent of the electorate, and that they too may want to identify with some candidate. Of course there is such a candidate in the race -- Republican John McCain. Democrats need to counter his appeal.

The true contribution of a running mate is what the selection signals about the presidential candidate. In these terms, the most successful recent vice-presidential choice -- in electoral terms -- was George W. Bush's selection of Dick Cheney. Bush faced doubts about his foreign policy competence. Cheney, with vast experience and service in two stints as Secretary of Defense, seemingly certified Bush's competence.

Webb fits Obama's true needs. The Illinois Senator's greatest deficiency is his lack of experience in foreign policy and military security. Clinton has made that her chief point of attack -- as in the now-classic "3 A.M. telephone" ad -- and this area is obviously McCain's greatest strength. There is no way for Obama to match McCain, even if he could manufacture some "sniper fire," but the right running mate could give him a measure of credibility, in much the same way as Cheney helped Bush.

Webb is a former Navy officer and Vietnam veteran (exactly matching McCain), and a former Secretary of the Navy bringing directly relevant executive experience. He won four military medals in Vietnam, and was wounded twice, a record that, along with awards from the American Legion and VFW, would repel attacks by SwiftBoaters. His term at the Pentagon came under Ronald Reagan, when Webb was a Republican, an advantage in Obama's effort to achieve a new electoral coalition. With this military background, he reinforces the Democrats' case against the Iraqi intervention, a position he has articulated from the beginning of the war and with particular force, including a direct confrontation with President Bush at a White House reception. As a novelist, non-fiction author and Emmy-winning television reporter, he also shows intellectual distinction.

Webb also would bring specific political advantages to the Democratic ticket. His rural roots, vigorous language and championing of working class values would compensate for Obama's evident weaknesses among these voters. Webb provides a populist platform on corporate regulation, trade, taxation and health care that would further extend the party's appeal to its lower-income base. Born in Missouri, educated in Nebraska, California and the Naval Academy in Maryland, he encapsulates a national electoral appeal. Finally, to the limited extent that state residence matters, he would help to switch Virginia into the Democratic column for the first election since 1964.

Webb may have some deficiencies as a candidate, related to sexist writings done thirty years ago and his occasional indelicate language. He, and Obama, would need to make special efforts to clear those hurdles to bring women voters back into the Democratic fold. They can succeed by emphasizing the evident differences between them and McCain on both economic and social policies, as well as the Iraq war.

On his own, we can expect Webb to outshine any of the pallid Republicans being considered for the McCain ticket, to close the party's "security gap," and to provide the necessary appeal to white male voters. For Senator Obama, Webb's selection would show both audacity and hope.

Veepstakes

In today's Fix, Chris Cillizza provides an interesting run-down of potential nominees for vice-president.

BARACK OBAMA

* John Edwards: The former North Carolina senator's endorsement remains the biggest "get" in the ongoing battle between Obama and Clinton. On one level, he seems like a natural fit as Obama's No. 2; the two were passionate voices for change in the race and both put a refusal to accept money from special interests at the core of their campaigns. Edwards is also still a relatively young man and would help Obama make a generational argument against McCain. Why wouldn't Edwards be the pick? His six years in the Senate don't help Obama address voter concerns about experience.

* Tim Kaine: Kaine, the governor of Virginia, has long been The Fix's dark horse pick to be Obama's running mate. Not only was he among the first major elected officials to back Obama, he hails from a potential swing state. Also, Kaine's deep faith (and willingness to speak about it on the campaign trail) could help the party's outreach to moderate and independent voters. Like Edwards, Kaine has very limited experience in foreign affairs, however.

* Kathleen Sebelius: Sebelius is the hot name right now among Democratic insiders buzzing about an Obama pick. Sebelius is currently in her second term as the governor of Kansas - one of the most Republican states in the country. While the idea of the Democratic ticket carrying Kansas is somewhat far fetched (Lyndon Johnson was the last Democrat to do so way back in 1964), picking Sebelius would add to the historic nature of the Democratic ticket and draw huge amounts of media attention. Plus, Sebelius may have an intangible going for her: Obama's mother is a native Kansan.

* Jim Webb: Webb is a beloved figure among the liberal left who all but drafted him into his 2006 upset victory over Sen. George Allen (R). And he has the military credential few can match as a decorated Marine during Vietnam. His biggest asset and potential liability seems to lie in his unorthodox approach to politics. Webb is blunt to the point of awkwardness. Voters often love it, but such straight shooting may not make an ideal veep pick.

* Tony Zinni: Zinni is not only a high ranking military officer(he served as a Marine for nearly four decades and was the head of U.S. Central Command), but he also is a longtime opponent of the war in Iraq. His foreign policy chops are tough to question and his opposition to the war jibes nicely with Obama's own position. Given the likelihood of McCain as the Republican nominee, Obama might well opt for Zinni (or some other military man) to blunt charges that he is naive when it comes to foreign policy and national security.

JOHN McCAIN

* Charlie Crist: Less than two years after winning election as the governor of Florida, Crist is already being talked up in Republican circles as a potential VP. (The St. Petersburg Times even has a Charlie Crist veep-o-meter measuring his chances. In retrospect, McCain's win in Florida was the tipping point in his bid for the nomination, and that victory was fueled in no small part by a last-minute endorsement from Crist. One strike against Crist is that he isn't regarded by movement conservatives as one of them.

* Jon Huntsman Jr.: Huntsman, the governor of Utah, is the dark horse pick of this list. His original endorsement was seen a major coup for McCain - Huntsman is Mormon, thus his support was seen as a slap at Mitt Romney. Huntsman also has significant chops among the Reagan/Bush crowd; he served in both Bush administrations and was a staff assistant in the Reagan White House in the early 1980s. Did we mention he is the son of the wealthiest man in Utah?

* Tim Pawlenty: The two-term Minnesota governor has to be considered the frontrunner at the moment to be McCain's pick. He hails from the electorally important Midwest, is young enough to balance concerns about McCain's age, and he stuck by the Arizona senator in the darkest days of the campaign. The criticism that Pawlenty is an unknown on the national stage may, in fact, be an argument in his favor - voters won't bring any preconceived notions about him to the ticket. Never forget that one of the guiding principles in picking a VP is to find someone who is comfortable being seen but not heard. Want more about the man they call "Tpaw"?

* Mark Sanford: If Tpaw is the top choice these days, Sanford isn't far behind. Term-limited out of office in 2010, Sanford is young (47) and the rare Republican who can bridge the chasm between social and economic conservatives. Sanford was an early endorser of McCain during the latter's 2000 presidential candidacy and, even though he stayed neutral this year, retains a good relationship with McCain. Fiscal conservatives -- led by the Club For Growth -- LOVE Sanford and have already begun lobbying on his behalf.

* John Thune: A rising star in the party, Thune is a hero to conservatives for defeating Sen. Tom Daschle (S.D.) in 2004. He also hails from the Plains -- a potentially competitive area with Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota and Wisconsin up for grabs. Thune, like Sanford and Pawlenty, is in his 40s, helping McCain offset
any concerns about his age.