86 Legislators Score "D" or "F" on Iraq Vet Issues
Who in Washington really supports the troops? Well, here are the facts.
Sure, politicians say they support the troops. But whose votes back up their rhetoric – and who’s just wearing an American flag lapel pin?
Now there’s an easy way to know for sure. The nonprofit, nonpartisan Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America’s Action Fund has tallied up every Congressional vote cast on troops’ and veterans’ issues for the last five years. We’ve crunched the numbers, and given every legislator a letter grade - the IAVA Congressional Rating. We have created a groundbreaking new web interface that will allow you (and every American) to find out for themselves where politicians stand on the issues.
Check your representatives’ IAVA Congressional Rating at www.iavaaction.org.
The results are disappointing, to say the least. Fewer than one-quarter of House and Senate members scored an A. Eighty-six members got a D or an F.
Did your legislator get an A… or an F? Click here.
What does a rating mean? It’s simple. You get a point every time you vote with IAVA (in favor of body armor, vet hospital funding, or better treatment for Traumatic Brain Injury, for instance). If you vote with IAVA 95% of the time, for instance, you get an A. If you vote with IAVA 50% of the time, you fail. We believe that any grade lower than an A is unacceptable.
There is no excuse for a low score. Politicians’ choices in Washington have a real human cost: Troops on the streets of Iraq with inadequate body armor. Veterans waitlisted for treatment at the VA. Military widows facing cuts in their survivor benefits.
This should be a wake-up call for every American who thinks Congress is doing all it can for our troops. I urge you to check your legislators’ scores, and then demand accountability from anyone receiving less than an “A” grade.
Thank you so much for doing this analysis and for providing the results in a format that is both easily understood and has enough dramatic flair that politicians may be persuaded to do more for our vets and men and women still in the services.
The Rubberstamp Republican Congressional incumbent in one race I am interested in has a D+ grade from IAVA yet pats himself on the back for all he allegedly does for vets and members of the armed services. The office of his Democratic opponent, who is strongly supportive of vets and members of the armed services, was quite interested to hear about your website and your ranking. I suspect that will be happening all over the country soon, with good results eventually for vets.
October 22, 2006 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for doing the research. I tried to load the page you reference to see the results by the numbers, but the site says: "The page you are trying to access does not exist. Please select a page from the main menu." However, after going around the site, I found a link to these ratings by state and from there was able to break it out by individuals in each party.
Needless to say, after looking this over, I was surprised by the folks getting a plain ole fashioned "F". Yes, anything under an "A" is unacceptable to a point. I noted that the rating also included the Congressional Authorization to use force:
http://capwiz.com/iava/vote.xc/?votenum=281&chamber=S& congress=1071&voteid=9076661&state=US
Folks who voted against it, had a subtraction and those who voted for it, got a plus. After what we now know, I don't feel this is right.
During the Run Up to the War, a lot of folks who were against the war, had relatives we didn't want to see fighting an unjust war. Now, I'm not saying this because Republicans were rated any higher in balance, than democrats. In fact, if you look at the individual rankings, the democrats had on balance, more positive numbers and were able to overcome the Authorization of Force Resolution to better their counterparts scores.
I think the War authorization brings down some scores that shouldn't be brought down and raises others that shouldn't be raised. After all, who hates using force more than the troops who have to do it? I'm wondering if we could possibly have a separate rating that doesn't include this resolution. For the simple reason: If we didn't have the authorization, Thousands wouldn't be dead or Injured. For example, Scott Ridder, calls this Resolution an Abdication of Congressional responsibilities.
I looked over the Entire Republican Party in both chambers and the Entire Democratic Senate section and again there were surprises. Men that you would automatically assume would be straight "A" were D's and F's. I was really struck by the state of Georgia and by those known to have close ties to the military.
Liberals that you would think were "D" or "F" rated higher than I imagined. I understand and agree with the idea Tricare, Body Armor, etc.
Regardless, you have a great tool here to argue on behalf of those who serve and this is something to motivate those in congress to do the right thing, going forward.
October 22, 2006 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but scoring pap like Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary. 06/16/2006
as being somehow an important vote for the troops and for vets is pathetic.
October 22, 2006 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing. All the republicans here in Colorado are C/D, the dems are all A/B.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
-----
Romani Ite Domum
October 23, 2006 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink