Who supports the troops?

[mindseye]

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America recently rated each member of Congress on how their voting record showed actual support for the troops (as opposed to their lip service).

They tallied votes on issues that would affect personnel currently serving abroad (funding for body armor, medical supplies, etc.); care for discharged, disabled veterans (long-term care, access to VA facilities); pensions for surviving family members of soldiers killed in action; and educational, job-training, and other benefits for returning soldiers. The complete list of proposed legislation on which they based their rating can be found here.

You can see how your representatives voted here. Incidentally, all six of the Senators who received 'F' ratings (Burr, Coburn, DeMint, Isakson, Sessions, and Vitter), were Republicans. All thirteen of the Senators who received at least an A- (Cantwell, Clinton, Dayton, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Kohl, Mikulski, Murray, Bill Nelson, Reed, Reid, Stabenow), were Democrats.

 

[Lex]

OMG--you mean we should actually look at people's voting records and listen to the people most effected by their legislation and not just pay attention to their lip service?!? Perish the thought!!

Lex--proud supporter of Mikulski since I've been old enough to vote.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

While I do think it's a smidgen abhorrent how conservatives like to say that anyone who disagrees with how they feel the cannon-fodder of the country ought to be used up is somehow not supporting the troops, I'm VERY reluctant to trust anything like this analyzing a laundry list of voting records. There is often, no let me correct that, there is ALWAYS more to a bill than its title and stated purpose. There may have been valid reasons for voting against some of these issues, and given the fact that, as you pointed out, ONLY Republicans received failing grades and ONLY Democrats got "A"s... I'm guessing this particular survey is a little biased. They probably only considered bills proposed by Democrats or moderate Republicans and ignored others proposed by conservatives. If not that then I'm inclined to think it was slanted in some other way.

 

[rob_just_rob]

I support 'em. Bring 'em home, they didn't do anything to deserve to be where they are.

It's not what a politician does or how he/she votes that counts, it's the relative effectiveness of the rhetoric from the two propaganda machines that will decide the day.

 

[jay_too]

Very interesting....

Nosey me looked up Speaker Hastert - F. This is probably understandable since Denney was concentrating on not hearing or maybe forgetting info on Foley.

Then I looked up Senate Majority Leader Frist - D.

Maybe this is why we lost the wars.

 

[ledroit]

They probably only considered bills proposed by Democrats or moderate Republicans and ignored others proposed by conservatives. If not that then I'm positive it was slanted in some other way.

9" you are right. There could be no other grounds but bias for suggesting that GOP is not competent on these issues or on any other issues. The GOP is famous for putting competence above all when it comes to filling offices or sending advisors to Iraq.

Right?

Plus, I wonder why people still call the GOP "conservative." I have never seen a party more liberal towards itself and its friends. They seem to be truly conservative only toward anyone who disagrees. Or maybe I should say punitive, if not vicious toward those who disagree. They don't seem to be the sort of people who like to share power--which of course leads to problems in a democracy.

 

[transformer_99]

I support them, they deserve competent leadership, not what they are getting from this crew/administration, devoid of whether they (leadership) be Republican or otherwise.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

9" you are right. There could be no other grounds but bias for suggesting that GOP is not competent on these issues or on any other issues.

What does voting for or against a bill have to do with competence?

and you don't have to tell me that I'm right.

 

[JustAsking]

... There is often, no let me correct that, there is ALWAYS more to a bill than its title and stated purpose. There may have been valid reasons for voting against some of these issues, and given the fact that, as you pointed out, ONLY Republicans received failing grades and ONLY Democrats got "A"s... I'm guessing this particular survey is a little biased. ...

Yes, most bills are encumbered by egregious amendments that are totally unrelated to the main subject matter of the bill. This has really been abused over the past few years for all kinds of awful political reasons on both sides of the aisle. One trick is to put forth a bill like "more funding for body armor for the troops", and then load it up with all kinds of horrible entitlement cuts for poor people so Democrats will vote against it. Then come election time, Democrats running for office can be shown by their opponents to "not support the troops".

This government is broken. I say we nominate John Stewart for President with Stephen Colbert as his running mate.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Yes, most bills are encumbered by egregious amendments that are totally unrelated to the main subject matter of the bill. This has really been abused over the past few years for all kinds of awful political reasons on both sides of the aisle. One trick is to put forth a bill like "more funding for body armor for the troops", and then load it up with all kinds of horrible entitlement cuts for poor people so Democrats will vote against it. Then come election time, Democrats running for office can be shown by their opponents to "not support the troops".

This government is broken. I say we nominate John Stewart for President with Stephen Colbert as his running mate.

If Jon were running I'd actually register to vote. Though I think I'd rather see Trey Parker as his running mate. That would give you a more balanced ticket.

The government is broken. As are the partisan and corrupt mechanisms fueling it. Election season always makes me want to cry.

 

[ClaireTalon]

You forgot to mention that they're above all conservative to those who want them to be conservative, and liberal where they want to steal votes from the Democrats. But I guess that has to do less with actual political opinions, and more with real politics.

Rating votes is a biased, subjective thing, nothing new. If this list has become public now, I guess we don't have to wait long until a more right-inclined Veterans Association brings out a list where the F's go to moderate Rep's and Democrats, and the right and ultra-right wing Rep's get the A's.

9" you are right. There could be no other grounds but bias for suggesting that GOP is not competent on these issues or on any other issues. The GOP is famous for putting competence above all when it comes to filling offices or sending advisors to Iraq.

Right?

Plus, I wonder why people still call the GOP "conservative." I have never seen a party more liberal towards itself and its friends. They seem to be truly conservative only toward anyone who disagrees. Or maybe I should say punitive, if not vicious toward those who disagree. They don't seem to be the sort of people who like to share power--which of course leads to problems in a democracy.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I do support the troops. I do not support their commander-in-chief, nor any of his pentagon cronies.

NIC and JustAsking, I've voiced my opposition to pork-barrel legislation for years, both on this forum and directly with my representatives. Although pork-barrel usually refers to underhanded funding for pet projects, I also include in the definition any amendments to a bill which are unrelated to the title of the bill.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

I do support the troops. I do not support their commander-in-chief, nor any of his pentagon cronies.

Behold GWB and his sycophantic apologists. Bold global visionaries and stubborn advocates for democracy in the middle east....

...with other people's lives and money.

 

[B_IanTheTall]

For anyone who has questions about todays wayward conservatives, I recommend Andrew Sullivan's "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back". He was the The New Republic's editor (when it was conservative and before the Glass incidents) and is a guest commentator with many mainstream media outlets. He also writes books and recognized true conservative blog, The Daily Dish, for Time Magazine. wiki bio

PS between changing diapers, feedings, working, sleeping, having sex, eating, and showering; I do find time for intellectual pursuits. In addition to the above mentioned, I also listen to the Diane Rehm Show, Talk of the Nation + Science Friday, BBC World have Your Say, and read foreign publications (British, Swiss and German). Most days are quite busy, unlike today.

PSS. being opposed to the Iraq war should not be equated with not supporting the troops. The troops deserve to have adequate body armer and food. One should also not confuse the Afghanistan mission and the Iraq objectives.

PSSS. True conservative should be read as meaning conservatism that goes back to a time before self-rightious religious zealots took over and decided that freedom was like sugar that could be sprinkled on top of crap to make dessert. it turns out that the want to sprinkle freedom all over the world is more like sprinkling too finely ground pepper, eventually someone will sneeze violently.

 

[B_big dirigible]

I wonder why people still call the GOP "conservative."

Probably for the same reason that they call the Donks "liberal", when they obviously aren't in any historical sense.

 

[Deno]

Bicyle or maybe just boxers

 

[B_IanTheTall]

Bicyle or maybe just boxers

Not having enough body armor, armor plated vehicles, food and water is like getting boxers for jogging in...

Bicycle shorts prevent chafing and keep our equipment from getting crushed, by keeping it situated properly.