Posted on 07/07/2004 8:55:56 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
WASHINGTON (AP) -- David Gorman of the Disabled American Veterans says Democrats "right now are the only audience we have" that is receptive to calls for additional federal money for more than 26 million men and women who served in the military.
"There's nobody on the other side who will do anything about it," he says dismissively of the congressional Republicans who hold power.
Election-year wartime exaggeration or not, it is a welcome assessment to the Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California. They began courting veterans' votes long before decorated Vietnam War veteran John Kerry emerged as their party's presidential nominee.
Executive director Gorman commented after a two-day period in which Pelosi and Daschle forced votes on two proposals backed by veterans' groups: a short-term infusion of funds and costlier restructuring of the financing for health benefits.
Republicans rejected both. It was an outcome that Democrats expected and hope to turn to their advantage.
"Providing for our veterans should not be a partisan issue, but sadly there are real differences between the parties at this time," Pelosi said later.
Daschle said his proposal would remove funding for health care from Congress' annual budgetary wrangling.
"We have done it for military retirees. We have done it for Social Security recipients. We have done it for Medicare. We ought to do it for veterans," he said.
Republicans dismiss claims that Democrats are making inroads with veterans. GOP lawmakers say that by the next budget year, they will have increased spending on Veterans Affairs programs to more than $71 billion a year - a 50 percent increase since Bush took office.
They also point to enactment of a 10-year, $22 billion plan to improve pension benefits for more than 250,000 disabled men and women who once were in the armed forces. That long was a priority for veterans groups.
Separate legislation nearing passage would increase benefits for many surviving military retiree spouses, age 62 and older, at a cost of $4 billion over the next few years.
Rank-and-file Republicans say "veterans at home are happier than they've been in a long time, that finally the accumulation of the positive things we've done for military retirees and veterans is getting through," said Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt, the House GOP whip.
At the same time, he acknowledged, "There's always going to be a group of people whose job is to ask for more" for veterans.
It is a description that fits Gorman and leaders of other veterans' service organizations. That, in turn, creates an opportunity for Democrats when the nation has significant numbers of troops - veterans-to-be - in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kerry has made veterans a constant companion in his campaign for the White House. It is a less visible, but recurrent theme for the party's congressional leaders.
Daschle, who served in the Air Force, long has stressed veterans issues in South Dakota.
Now, in the midst of a heavily contested race for re-election, no detail is too small. His campaign Web site claims partial credit for securing an additional counselor for a veterans center in Sioux Falls, S.D.
Pelosi, unlike Daschle and Kerry, voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq in 2002. Still, she began reaching out to veterans groups after becoming party leader a few months later.
The impetus, says Missouri Rep. Ike Skeleton, top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, was "the realization that the young men and young women coming back from Iraq" would need the government's assistance after their service.
The potential for political payoff is hard to gauge because recent major election-day surveys have not gathered information from voters based on service status. Conventional wisdom among Democratic pollsters is that veterans favor Republicans.
Celinda Lake, a pollster who has done work for Pelosi, said that "standing up for veterans really is a very, very strong message among voters 65 and older," already a well-courted portion of the electorate.
In addition, she said it is important "among voters in rural areas, where there is a disproportionate" number of former servicemen and women. House Democrats are paying particularly close attention this year to rural districts as they struggle to end a decade in the minority.
Democrats generally have adopted a two-pronged strategy: take credit for much of the veterans-connected legislation that passes, while arguing it did not go far enough.
They began a legislative petition in the House last year that helped make the pension improvement issue too hot for the GOP leadership to ignore.
They also claim credit for forcing Bush to abandon proposals to raise co-payments for veterans using the VA health care system, and their own budget proposals call for higher spending on veterans programs.
In the Senate, Daschle's plan was estimated to cost $150 billion over five years. It failed on a nearly partyline vote of 49-48, 11 shy of the 60 needed.
Democratic efforts have also been aided by GOP infighting.
Republican Chris Smith of New Jersey, chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, signed a letter in February saying the planned Republican budget fell $2.54 billion short of what was needed to maintain the current benefits and services.
Republicans added $1.2 billion for veterans programs, but Smith cast a dissenting vote nonetheless. That further angered House Republican leaders, some of whom briefly floated the idea of stripping him of his chairmanship.
"I think we have delivered," Smith now says of fellow Republicans. "It's all in the details. It's not in the rhetoric."
I'm hope and pray that most Vets see thru the smoke and mirrors that Pelosi and the dems are offering and vote for GWB.
Bunch of bunk. When Bush first got into office, the first thing that he did was increase veteran benefits. I know, I was receiving the GI bill and Army college fund. It went up from around 900 a month to around 1400 a month. Although, it was in early 2001 when it went into effect.
"I loathe the military." - William Jefferson Blythe Clinton
"Since 1995, total spending on veterans has increased from $38 billion to $60 billion. That's a 58 percent increase, compared with a 36 percent increase during the previous 10 years."
Yes, the Republicans just don't give a darn about vets.
Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/10/222651.shtml
In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North. [clip]
"People are going to remember Gen. Giap saying if it weren't for these guys [Kerry's group], we would have lost," North told radio host Sean Hannity.
"The Vietnam Veterans Against the War encouraged people to desert, encouraged people to mutiny - some used what they wrote to justify fragging officers," noted the former Marine lieutenant colonel, who earned two purple hearts in Vietnam.
"John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands," North said.
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2004-February/003846.html
Sway veterans??? Oh, I think they will remember those dis-counted military votes from the 2K election.
The only thing That John Kerry can do for 95% of any military I know is Kiss my A**!
I did notice (even if it's a little before my time) when Kerry pulled his stunts during and after Vietnam, when he was trying his best to gut defense and intelligence, and his betrayal of the troops in Iraq, but I am not going to forgive or forget. I speak for a lot of military, past and present.
Any veteren who votes for Kerry deserves exactly what he/she gets IMHO
This veteran will not vote for Kerry either!
I always assumed that the major reason most active duty and veteran soldiers prefer the GOP is because they are generally speaking more conservative to begin with. Just as most in the media or entertainment industry are liberal because those professions attract more liberals to begin with, so to does the military attract people who are mostly conservative. Not having served myself, perhaps you could enlighten me.
Two polls that came out during May -- perhaps the darkest days for Bush this year -- did provide data on veterans. One had Kerry close, at 46-51 in Bush's favor, while the other had Bush with a 54-41 lead.
So it seems that if the Dems couldn't take the lead with Bush at his weakest, then they won't win the veterans vote. But of course in a close election their ability to simply cut into the lead may be significant.
And you are still young enough to be surprised by it?
Kerry has met with the Vietnamese as recently as the 1990s and a photo of that meeting appears in a "war museum" (in the protestors wing). His efforts did not go unnoticed by the victors.
I've searched high and low for General Giap's actual quote on the inspirational role played by Kerry and Fonda, and I haven't been able to find it, nor any citation to the specific book (he's written several) where Giap said this.
However the assertion that he stated it is all over the Internet (but again, no actual quote). Is it an urban legend?
There's a similar assertion that a French expatriate NVA general said the same thing during an interview on French TV.
"No sane veteran will vote for Kerry. They put their lives on the line. They KNOW what Kerry is about. They will not vote for an opportunist, traitor or a coward which Kerry is."
While I was in, I was not politically active, so I never really asked anyone how they felt. But no one liked Clinton. He was a draft dodger and for some reason, he made changes to the special forces uniform. SF used to wear a black beret. Clinton or someone in the clinton administration gave the order that everyone in the Army was to wear a black beret and the Special Forces switched to tan berets. That upset some people. Really, there was a lack of respect towards Clinton. I am not sure if that made a difference in anything or not.
My dad won't be voting for Kerry.
Actually, the Army beret decision...was drawn up originally by the most senior NCO of the Army, and presented then to the Chief of Staff as a "morale booster". The SF/Ranger community went berserk when this was announced and tried to talk sense into this and was told to shut up and color. So now everyone has a beret...and it really doesn't make much difference. Expect someone to come up with the idea of having the Australian bush hat as the next army hat within the next five years. Change, upon change, upon change, upon change....but nothing really ever changes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.