The Progressive Democrats of Genesee Valley have a new blog with a post about Randy Kuhl's Veterans' Mental Health Caucus. They note that Kuhl has the worst rating (D) of the New York delegation, according to the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans' Association.
Comments
"Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans' Association" - hate that name because I know they only represent a minority of veterans from those theaters.
They say they're the biggest organization representing that group of vets:
http://www.iava.org/about-iava
Do you know of a bigger one?
If you look at the ratings list, Dems tend to have better grades, but some Republicans do better than Kuhl. Lots of "C" average Republicans on the list.
In general, it seems like such a no-brainer to throw a little extra money into the VA to get it to function correctly. Republicans could own this issue. But even McCain was reluctant to support Webb's new GI Bill.
From the IAVA Web Site:
""In the past year, we've seen the largest increase in VA funding in 77 years."
also:
"IAVA is grateful to President Bush for formally requesting the additional $3.7 billion in VA appropriations that Congress approved,"
http://www.iava.org/learn-the-truth/what-we-do/president-bush-approves-v...
Must be the Republicans are doing something right
No doubt the Republicans have done some things right.
What I mean by "own" is this: Jim Webb's new GI bill was something he worked on for two years. He had a bunch of co-sponsors (81 in the Senate, IIRC). But John McCain and Lindsay Graham spoke out repeatedly against it and grudgingly accepted it.
And Kuhl's votes that Massa discusses in today's press conference are unforced errors. There's no reason why vet policy couldn't be a bi-partisan love-in. Instead, some of the votes make Republicans look like Scrooge.
American Legion?
Veterans of Foreign Wars?
I get it, but every war has its own vets group, e.g., Vietnam Veterans of America. They're claiming to be the VVA of this war.