The Cellar - IAVA assessment of the senate

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - IAVA assessment of the senate (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=12148)

IAVA assessment of the senate

IAVA, the Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America (wiki) (from the horse's mouth) has compared the voting record of senators with their own opinions, and published grades.

my source (the grades, and an explanation

chart showing the grades, states, and parties of all senators.

Quote:

No Senator in either party was given an A grade by IAVA. Thirteen Senators received a rating of A- and all of those were Democrats. A total of 23 Senators were given a B+ rating and 22 of those were Democrats as well. The other was Independent James Jeffords of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats.

Cutting to the chase -- and, perhaps more than anything I've seen in recent years, truly defining the difference between the two parties -- is that the worst grade received by a Senate Democrat was higher than the best grade granted a Republican. GOP-lite Ben Nelson (D-NE) received the lowest grade of any Democrat with a B- while Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) managed a C grade from IAVA.

I am curious, but too determined to go to bed, if this is simply a question of IAVA themselves being partisan, or having distinctly partisan opinions.

Can you say 'ChickenHawk'?.

Quote:

Military Death Gratuity
(109th Congress; Senate vote #92; April 13, 2005)
Senators who voted FOR this motion were voting AGAINST increasing the amount of money a spouse or family member receives when their loved one is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. IAVA opposed this motion, which would have eliminated the proposed increase.
Prior to this bill, the family of a US troop killed in action would only receive a $12,000 death gratuity from the government. This bill would increase that amount to $100,000.
The motion was defeated, and the plan was adopted and enacted into law.

Funding for TBI Research
(109th Congress; Senate vote #222; August 2, 2006) Senators who voted FOR this motion were voting AGAINST increasing funding for Traumatic Brain Injury research by $2 million. IAVA opposed this motion.
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) has become the signature wound of the Iraq war. In a spending bill appropriating more than $400 billion, in a war that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and counting, it is unconscionable that Congress can't find an extra $2 million to treat an injury affecting more than 100,000 American Troops.
Despite a clear need for greater funding for TBI research, this motion passed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skunks

I am curious, but too determined to go to bed, if this is simply a question of IAVA themselves being partisan, or having distinctly partisan opinions.

repubicans typically represent the interests of the wealthy. I would think that wealthy people are less likely to join the military. Ergo, repubicans don't hold the interest of the military personnel highly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

The political makeup of the military is an interesting question. Clearly there are a lot of minorities in the military, and they often vote for Democrats. At the same time, a lot of the people who join the military are conservative minded, and tend to vote Republican. Mixed in with all that is the fact that folks in the military have to vote by absentee ballot. When voting is a hassle (bad weather, etc.) the Republicans generally do better because they are more determined voters and the Democrats tend to stay home a little more. So I would expect only the Republicans in the military would bother voting by absentee ballot.

A lot of generalities there, and many of them are conflicting. I really have no idea what the political makeup of the military is. Anybody else know?

This isn't about which politicians the troops, veterans, and their families support, it's about which politicians support the troops, veterans, and their families.

That said, thoroughly anecdotally from military family members and veterans at work, I would suspect a higher Republican tendancy than the general population though that was cracking a bit in 2004 and may be sliding more in recent months.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

This isn't about which politicians the troops, veterans, and their families support, it's about which politicians support the troops, veterans, and their families.

I guess I read Spex's post wrong. I though he was saying that because there weren't many Republicans in the military, the politicians don't care about them. But I see in hindsight that he was only talking about wealthy Republicans not being in the military. I guess he's right on that.

Here is an issue that might have caught IAVA's attention...