[I AM HAVING PROBLEMS POSTING HERE, SO BEAR WITH ME. And yes, I know I have spelling, punctuation errors etc. Unfortunately, I am having trouble fixing them. CURSE you whoever is on the other end of this blog admin nonsense!]
Well, quite the little storm a brewing.
Paul Rieckhoff of IAVA responds to my posts over at Blackfive. I urge everyone to go read it. I’m all about the sunshine/disinfectant thing, so, please, go read it.
I will go through it more tomorrow, but a few quick thoughts. First, I post under a pseudonym because I am a blogger. Everytime my name is attached to things, my personal musings are attributed to my employer, or I get lunatics setting up websites about me. One time I even had a dude appropriate my name and start posting all over Yahoo about how I like small boys. But, I am happy to disclose my identity to Paul, provided it doesn’t get spilled all over the intertubes and I have to go into cyber hiding again.
My parsing of the votes was me. Not anyone else, so I am responsible for that. With that as a base, read what Paul says, and look at what I wrote, then go look at the votes. I think I laid out a strong case for how Senators Vitter, Coburn and DeMint voted against the bills cited by IAVA for reasons completely unrelated to the reasons for which IAVA used the votes. Does being against a park in 90210 mean you oppose veterans? Not in my book.
I am well aware of all the work that IAVA does on Capitol Hill. I have met each and everyone of their lobbyists on MANY occasions. I do not challenge that advocacy.
Paul states:
At IAVA, we’re proud of our work, and we don’t let misguided attacks on the integrity of our organization go without being challenged.
As well you should be proud, and as well you should not let it go unchallenged. So, lets talk about that actual challenges I made, and not the ancillary discussions. My post was DIRECTLY in relation to the Scorecard itself. Not lobbying, not the absolutely admirable job on the GI Bill (which was to be addressed tomorrow) and not on how polite you are to those with questions. I confined my discussion to your scorecard, the apparent conflict of interest in having your founder also being a beneficiary of the vote selection, and use of DIA. So, let’s discuss those items.
This is the paragraph I take the most umbrage with:
Senators and Representatives are paid to go to Washington and represent the American people by sponsoring and voting on legislation. And that’s what we grade them on: actions, not rhetoric. Not their party or their status as a veteran, but their votes. Duncan Hunter (an example cited with outrage by TSO) received a C with good reason. Despite his honorable service, and that of his son, he was running for President and chose to miss 3 critical votes, one on protecting Iraqi interpreters, one on treating TBI and on one expanding veterans benefits. He also decided not to be a GI Bill co-sponsor, in contrast to several of his colleagues—including dozens of Republicans ranging from Representative Peter King (NY) to Senator Pete Domenici (NM). Let’s face it–you aren’t supportive of the troops just by virtue of being a veteran.
1) I cited Duncan Hunter as an example, and you point out he missed 3 “critical votes.” I contend that the Interpreter Bill, while very important, and which I do not downplay was anything but critical. It passed with only one vote against it. He could have thrown a backyard BBQ for 200 of his closest Congressional friends and it would have passed. Wouldn’t “critical” seem to indicate that his absence could have doomed the bill? The bill “treating TBI”, your vote #3 was passed unanimously, do you really believe that had Hunter been there he would have voted contrary to everyone else? Or do you think his absence was due to a well thought out plan to avoid voting on such a contentious issue that it got the votes of both Kucinich and Ron Paul, 2 guys who (outside War on Terror issues) likely could fight about whether water is wet?
2) I don’t recall every saying you had to be a veteran to be supportive of the troops, nor do I for one second believe it. Chairman Bob Filner of the Veterans’ Affairs committee was a draft dodger by his own admission, and he has arguably been the best Chairman that committee has ever had in terms of advocating for veterans. Ascribing such a position to me is farcical.
Paul further states:
We at IAVA understand how Washington works. Our folks are working on the hill every day. They don’t just air drop in a few times a year for press conferences.
I don’t know if that is meant to imply I do, that I claimed you did, or some oblique reference to someone else. Further, he states that
And we get the complexities of being an elected official and dealing with competing demands. In some cases, the bills we included in the Report Card had other provisions that might have led a Representative or Senator to vote against the larger bill. We know that lawmakers have to make compromises. We get this. That is why we are so thorough in our descriptions of the votes, so that people can understand the politics behind the votes. That’s why, for instance, we state unequivocally when legislation was a part of a continuing resolution, or a part of the Defense Authorization bill.
So you get that they might vote against the interest of IAVA based on a COMPLETELY different reason that what the vote is purported to be by you, and yet you mark them down? So, if a Congressman voted against the VA budget and said “It is absurd that we spend more on ___ than we do for our veterans” then IAVA would understand his vote, but nonetheless he would receive a lower grade? That’s absurd. And to assume that 99% of the voting public, unlike IAVA understands what in the hell a continuing resolution is absurd.
This is exactly why scorecards like this one based on huge omnibus bills are unfair. If IAVA had put out a scorecard that just covered the GI Bill, or rather, the version they supported, I would have had no argument. But when you start giving guys like DeMint an “F” on “Veterans Issues” for failing to vote for pork laden bills funding things like parks in Beverly Hills, I think you do faithful public servants and anyone reading the scorecard a grave injustice.
I can’t even argue with the stuff about everything else you do. I absolute laud all of it. It is the scorecard, the use of DIA (which is not even a little analogous to a phone company) and the fact that the beneficiary of your scorecard is a founder and it is not acknowledged in either the press release or in any media sources that I have a problem with.
