Drake’s vote justified; Senate fixes “21st Century GI Bill” problems
|
|
When it came to the recent $165 billion supplemental defense funding bill so necessary for forward operations in the Middle East, Rep. Thelma Drake (R-VA02) was in a quandary: either vote for the bill and all its amendments, which included riders for domestic spending completely unrelated to defense, war provisions which included a time-line for withdrawal of forces from Iraq, and also Sen. Webb’s much touted 21st Century GI Bill (a provision that Drake supports), or vote against it on principle.
Drake made the tough decision: a decision that was not political, but principled. Yet, predictably, our friends on the left who love to only view things in stark red and blue, vice the shades of gray that things often are, attacked Rep. Drake as irresponsible. Had the Democratic leadership had an ounce of principle in their bodies, they would have never attached riders to a vital defense spending measure and allowed the bill to be passed on its individual merit.
Regardless, the Senate came to the rescue today. According to Congressional Quarterly,
…The Senate…removed from the bill controversial domestic spending items, Iraq war policy provisions, and a $54 billion tax on the very wealthy that would have paid for the expansion of veterans education benefits. The changes, in part, were intended to avert a presidential veto.
The Senate once again proved why we have a bicameral legislature.
The irony is that the right has accused any Democrat who took a similarly principled stand as Rep Drake in the past of being upatriotic, or worse, wanting the terrorists to win. (If you didn’t notice, when the GOP controlled the Congress they weren’t too worried with loading down war spending bills with pork, suddenly however when the money would go to veteran’s education…)
Before you start throwing stones at the friends on the left, notice that you are standing in a glass house.
Besides, is it really a principled stand you want to back when the Represenative is willing to send young men and women to war - but she’s not willing to provide them with the money for an education when they return? I know which side of that principled battle I, the Democratic Party, and most vets are on.
Proof once again that the Democratic Party is the true supporter of the military when all the right can offer is platitudes - and reminders, a la the VP - that the military is made up of “volunteers”.
You’re pathetic, Ragnar.
But the GOP used to do it too!
Is that really your argument?
It took the threat of a presidential veto and Republicans in the Senate, led by John McCain, to even make this incredibly important war funding a reality.
Your loyalty to the Democratic Party has blinded you to the truth.
If liberal House Democrats had their way on this bill, we’d be cutting an running and have all sorts of inane domestic spending.
But, again, keep talking. You only continue to prove my points.
The only problem, JR, is that you have given a reason different from the one Drake gave at the press conference, which I discussed here.
If Thelma really had these ‘principles’ I hear so much about, she’d have not supported the Patriot Act, the Thoughtcrime bill, the Military Commissions act, or REAL ID.
principled? Drake voted the way her hand in her back (she is a puppet) told her to. She didnt vote for it because it wasnt going to pass anyway (her words)? That is what passes as principled nowadays?
Of course, this coming from the woman who I clearly heard exclaim once “I agree with President Bush more than my own brother and sister.”
…And Thelma Drake is NOT a lap dog? Give me a break.
Even today I extended the olive branch. I told Thelma that, if she voted yes on the American Freedom Agenda Act then I’d vote for her again. (http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=82)
While we’re at it, she ought to back the Read the Bills Act too.
(http://www.downsizedc.org/rtba_legislation.shtml)
Jim - your GOP spin-machine is in full effect.
I really would like to see some true patriotism, or a real principled stance from Ms. Drake.
Yes, Jim. When you’re a conservative, you’re just a GOP spin machine. When Ragnar is a sniveling, whining, lily-livered liberal, he’s just being himself.
Dan, you should not try and hold an official hostage to your will. Vote for her (or hopefully against her) on her body of votes and tenure of service.
BK - how many times have I also attacked the left? You and I both know that I have no favorites when it comes to which side acts less principled. Jim normally doesn’t either. Albeit, we each have our favorite political parties.
Then you get involved, the ultimate spin-machine - you don’t do anything other than spin. I seriously doubt if you have a political compass with any moral weight - the difference is, there are some of us who are more concenred with our nation’s future than we are with who gets elected. Of course, if you had a job that didn’t require you to morph into believing whatever your GOP political masters want you to believe - or if you had served the nation in uniform - you might understand what I’m talking about. But, no you really can’t.
So you’re claim is that Drake’s vote was “principled,” and that the left can’t see that? Believe it or not, JR, there isn’t anyone on the left who thinks Thelma voted against the bill she sponsored on a whim. We know she voted against it because she thought it was a bad bill–after all, Bush told her he didn’t like it, so it had to be a bad bill. Right?
…Right…?
That’s the problem with her using Bush as part of her excuse. It certainly shows that she’s a principled representative–but the principle in question is that she’s representing the President’s judgement, not her own, and not what’s in the best interests of her constituents. And it certainly validates every accusation leveled at her that she’s a rubber stamp for the administration.
Anonymous…read the post again and we’ll talk. She had to vote against the bill because of all the riders attached to it.
Would you vote for Obama if Tom Delay was his vice presidential choice and Donald Rumsfeld was going to be his SecDef?
Drake wanted to pass the spending measure for operations in the Middle East and wanted to pass the GI Bill. But with the other attached riders that had nothing to do with defense spending, she voted against it.
It’s really pretty simple. Had the GI Bill been voted on as an individual measure, she would have voted for it.
BK as a vet your last comments are disgusting. Shame on you.