Graham ducks question on GI Bill, pledges only to ’sit down’ and discuss it.
Filed Under: Military
By on Apr 6th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Graham ducks question on GI Bill, pledges only to ’sit down’ and discuss it.
On “This Week” today, host George Stephanopolous asked Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) why neither he nor Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has cosponsored Sen. Jim Webb’s 21st Century GI Bill, which would dramatically enhance educational benefits given to soldiers.
Graham ducked the question, refusing to answer for his and McCain’s notable absence on the issue. Graham would only declare, “Sign me up to sit down with Jim [Webb]” to discuss the legislation. Watch it:
Webb pointed out in March that “many more Republicans could vote for the bill if McCain endorsed it.” Sign a petition here.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
26 Responses to “Graham ducks question on GI Bill, pledges only to ’sit down’ and discuss it.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Clinton
Drudge
Earmarks
Economy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Graham
Hagee
Health Care
Housing
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Petraeus
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Siegelman
Sports
Third Bush Term
Torture
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
SAVE YOUR LORD OF THE DANCE FOR THE BATHROOMS AT THE REPUGLICAN CONVENTION IN MINNEAPOLIS LINDSEY……
I BET HE CAN’T WAIT TO SEE ALL THE SHOPPING BARGAINS AT THE MALL OF AMERICA. NOT QUITE THE SAME AS BAGHDAD RUGS….BUT THE SHOES ARE FAAAAAAAAAAAABULOUS!
April 6th, 2008 at 12:36 pmAnybody else see how Webb so gently slapped the meme that superdelegates had to vote according to the “will of the people,” whatever that means. Jim reminded Stephanopoulos (and Pelosi) that party leaders set the rules so that superdelegates could use their own best judgment when voting. Kinna reminded me of a Clinton supporter talking point.
Moreover, last Wednesday, Jim and Hill released a joint press release about army procurement practices. When pressed, Webb said he would vote for the person who in his judgment would make the best president.
Hmmm, with the economic meltdown, for some strange reason I just don’t think that’s Obama, especially in light of the recent joing press release.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:52 pmWhat losers…. 4 billion a week to kill them - NOTHING for them when returning… good plan…
April 6th, 2008 at 12:54 pmI disagree, I think Lindsey would rather discuss it on his knees.
_AIO_
April 6th, 2008 at 12:56 pmYou would be better to answer the question why have the republican who started this war of profit been dragging their feet for 7 years when they were in total control….when you start answering our questions we will send you a memo and let you know what to expect from the new leadership.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:11 pmThe real question here is why is the Democratic leadership in Congress delaying a vote on this bill? There are already at least 50 co-sponsors of the bill, thus guaranteeing its passage. Is trying to make a political point really more important than just putting this to a vote and getting it passed?
Perhaps they have a higher card up their sleeve.
I heard that the Dems are preparing legislation that repackages any further Iraqi reconstruction funds as loans, to be repaid with Iraqi oil revenues - a bit of legislation sure to get many republican co-sponsors.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:13 pmAsk not what your country can do for you, rather, what you can do for your country.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:19 pm” sign me up to discuss it”??!!!
This clearly illustrates the invetibale fate of any attempt at “bipartisanship”–something I’m sorry to say Obama has allowed to enter the political conversation and that many of his fans blindly accept as a ‘good thing’. (Though of course Clinton given points to McCain for his “experience” compared to Obama, which was an f-ing insane thing to say on so many levels). If Graham and.or McCain can’t sign Webb’s bill, or even discuss it in public now given the public mood and desire, then what can one expect from the rest of the GOP post election?
Any talk of bipartisanship, or “healing” or “unity” from anyone is complete bollocks and shouldn’t even be entertained. This is a prime example of why.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:27 pmMcCain and Graham — two veterans who have everything they’ll ever need — showing their true colors to the troops: Screw ‘em!
April 6th, 2008 at 1:45 pmThese demagogues care little for the welfare of the troops they so readily send to war ill-equipt, but be sure to wear your lapel flag pin or they’ll excoriate you for a traitor!
April 6th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 2:38 pmLindaLindsey also refuses to answer the question if he’s gay or straight too.The upcoming election and the ones in the future are going to be very interesting. People are keeping a closer track on how their Senator and Representatives are voting.
If this New GI bill doesn’t pass unanimously people are going to want to know who voted against it and who didn’t bother to show up to vote.
The democrats that turned into jellyfishs better beware also. The one’s that voted for Blackwater Contract Renewal, More Money for the War in Iraq, and Not to help the Homeowners Bail Out for SubPrime lending. (Lets help Large Financial Institutions insteading)
There are always better Democrats to vote for. But a bad voting democrat is no better than a (deceptive lying) Republican with an agenda. Neither was our best interest in mind.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:46 pmRight_Stuff
I was in DC just recently talking with Web, Hagel, and Kerry about this bill. They have said that they need 60 votes minimum because several republicans have already indicated that they will block the vote with a legislative procedure. Therefore they need at least 60 votes just to bring this to the floor for an up or down vote. Hagel and Warner have joined a few other republicans in co-sponsoring this bill, but they are only up to 55 the last I checked.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:57 pmFor anyone interested in who really supports the troops:
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 10/ iava-support-troops-rankings-for-senate.html
Careful scrutiny by the Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) shows that by a ludicrous margin, it is Senate Democrats, not Republicans, who truly support active troops, Veterans and military families.
No republican gets better than a D or F (5 repubs get a c)
April 6th, 2008 at 3:10 pmNo democrat gets worse than a B-
Webb’s most germaine point today was that the Repubs refuse to allow this bill to see the light of day because it would affect re-enlistment. That’s right - if you offer a fair, reasonable package to veterans so that they can have a life after the military, they wouldn’t be so willing to continue rotation after rotation in BushCo’s war. Gee, how unfair of them to want something more.
PEACE
April 6th, 2008 at 3:53 pmHmmm, with the economic meltdown, for some strange reason I just don’t think that’s Obama, especially in light of the recent joing press release.
Exactly what is this supposed to mean? Are you saying that you think that Corporate Hillary, who was for NAFTA before she was against it, would be better for our economy. I DON’T THINK SO!
April 6th, 2008 at 5:24 pmWebb’s most germaine point today was that the Repubs refuse to allow this bill to see the light of day because it would affect re-enlistment.
So how can the Republicans keep the bill from being introduced. I thought that power was now in the hands of the Democrats. Are they pulling one of their dirty tricks again?
April 6th, 2008 at 5:25 pmBilbo @ 17
I think notime4lies was just saying that he/she thinks that because of the joint press release that it was reasonable to assume that Web was going to vote for Hillary….
That’s what I got from it Bilbo. Just an opinion on how they thought Web was going to swing.
April 6th, 2008 at 5:32 pm5th Estate Says:
April 6th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
This clearly illustrates the invetibale fate of any attempt at “bipartisanship”–something I’m sorry to say Obama has allowed to enter the political conversation and that many of his fans blindly accept as a ‘good thing’.
Well, I’m one of those who accepts Obama’s desire for bipartisanship is a good thing and it is not “blindly”, it is a well thought out position on my part. Unless the Democrats get a veto proof majority in the next election, something that is not likely to happen, Obama is going to need to find a way to bring bipartisanship back into play. And I think he can do it for two reasons. The first is that he inspires trust and can reason with people. The second is that I believe some Republicans are going to be going back to Washington by the skin of their teeth and they are going to realize that if the continue to be an obstructionist, they will probably lose their jobs the next time around. This is particularly true for Congresspeople since they are reelected every two years.
If Graham and.or McCain can’t sign Webb’s bill, or even discuss it in public now given the public mood and desire, then what can one expect from the rest of the GOP post election?
They can be shamed into getting behind the bill and that is the reason for the offensive Webb and others are making against McCain.
Any talk of bipartisanship, or “healing” or “unity” from anyone is complete bollocks and shouldn’t even be entertained. This is a prime example of why.
So, when we win you want us to act like Republicans….
April 6th, 2008 at 5:33 pmWhat do you think of barfly’s suggestion at post 7..seems plausable at least..
April 6th, 2008 at 5:34 pmMaybe Lindsey Graham is saying crazy things because he is in love with his presidential candidate!
April 6th, 2008 at 8:42 pmYou can hear him fawn over McCain at:
http://inewstube.com/ smm/ graham_mccain_is_the_most_qualified_ever.html
Maybe Lindsey Graham is saying crazy things because he is in love with his presidential candidate!
Maybe Linsey Graham is saying crazy things because the Bush-Rove gang has got the goods on him and his boyfriend and could end his career as the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:04 pmWhat did you think all that domestic surveilance was going to be used for?
Why do you think Lindsey is such a willing mouthpiece to spew any kind of nonsense no matter how ridiculous?
Rove is an “unofficial advisor” to the McStain campaign, isn’t he?
The_Right_Stuff Says:
April 6th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
The real question here is why is the Democratic leadership in Congress delaying a vote on this bill? There are already at least 50 co-sponsors of the bill, thus guaranteeing its passage. Is trying to make a political point really more important than just putting this to a vote and getting it passed?
In case a certain person is unaware of how bills proceed and are passed, the number of sponsors and co-sponsors is largely irrelevant to “guaranteeing” passage UNLESS the bill has a majority in EACH HOUSE.
Currently, H.R. 2702 (the House version of the bill) has 91 guaranteed supporters* (the original sponsor, Robert Scott [D-VA] and 90 co-sponsors, only 7 of whom are Republicans) while the full House has 435 members.
The Senate version (S.22) has only 32 guaranteed supporters** (the original sponsor, Jim Webb [D-VA] and 31 co-sponsors, only 3 of whom are Republicans) while the full Senate has 100 members.
Now, just in case you flunked your American government class (presuming you actually took such a course), there have to be 218 people in the House to pass a bill (290 are required to guarantee enough support to override a potential veto) and 51 in the Senate (67 are required to guarantee the support to override a veto). At present, the Democrats do have enough members in the House to bring the measure up for a vote but, due to Senate rules, do not have enough to guarantee the bill could be brought up for a full vote. Generally, in the House, as long as debate is brought to a close by “ordering the previous question”, the bill can come to a vote. As a simple majority is enough to end debate, the Democrats, with 233 seats, could do that. The Senate, however, is bound by the formal need for “cloture” which requires a firm 60 votes. The Democrats only have 49 seats but two independents, Sanders and Lieberman, align with the Democrats for organizational purposes, bringing the number to 51. That number, however, is far short of the number needed to end all debate, and possible filibusters, and bring the bill to a floor vote.
As a bill which could be passed by the House has no effect without Senate passage, it wouldn’t do much good for the Democrats to bring it to a vote in the House if there’s not enough support to pass it in the Senate. And as long as these chickenhawk RepubliCONs refuse to support the bill (while continuing to spend money to send these GIs to fight their fruitless AND POINTLESS war), there’s little to be gained by pushing for a vote.
*As of 1/27/08 per http://www.govtrack.us/ congress/ bill.xpd?bill=h110-2702 .
April 7th, 2008 at 1:56 am**As of 1/28/08 per http://www.govtrack.us/ congress/ bill.xpd?bill=s110-22 .
Republicans dishonor our brave soldiers.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:34 amRepublicans can’t be bipartisan. Republicans including Graham and McClone cannot bring themselves to support the troops by supporting legislation presented by a democrat. It’s the old Republican desire to rule the congress and the nation. The Republicans are divisive and hate our troops.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:36 amdude…let the repugnigans fillibuster this, that would be great PR for them… dont see why the dems dont just call their bluff and make them fillibuster money for the troops..
April 7th, 2008 at 9:52 am