[quote name='bmulligan']Let us also consider that EVERY piece of legislation affecting every one who is related to or has ever served, past, or present, is a very broad scope and most assuredly ncludes many pork projects that have been burried in other, non-millitary pieces of legislation. It also includes bills like this one:
Obey of Wisconsin Amendment; Congressional Budget for FY 2006 ,
or this one:
Brady amendment; Spending Control Act of 2004 , or this one which has nothing really to do with millitary affairs:
Motion to resolve into secret session 09/26/2006[/quote]
The motion to resolve into secret session had plenty to do with military affairs:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi offered a privileged motion on the House floor today calling for the House to go into secret session to discuss the findings in a reported National Intelligence Estimate that concluded that the war in Iraq was making the war on terror more difficult to fight and win.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=73210
In addition, the IAVA listed themselves as opposed to the Brady Amendment, which was a bill seeking oversight into how the military funding was being spent (and, "establishes a Federal Sunset Commission to review all federal agencies and programs for their efficiency, effectiveness, redundancy, and need"). Pretty relevant, IMO.
The Obey act was a two parter: the first was $15.8 billion in veterans benefits allocations, the second half was the rollback of some tax breaks on people earning $1 million or more. Based on the first half, it seems relevant, but with a parasite riding on top of it.
Did you look these bills up and type this response yourself?
The point is that it's the important bills that ahould be analyzed when judging one's representatives, not the frivilous ones, or the pork stuffed ones or irrelevant bills. for example, this one seems much more important than 90% of all others on their list :
To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide rapid acquisition authority to the Secretary of Defense to respond to combat emergencies 06/14/2004
Anyone who would use this grading system, or any for that matter, to vote for their incumbant representative or their opponent is a fool. But, unfortunately, this type of shortcut thinking gives an intellectual pillow to the 98% of the electorate who have an emotional basis for their vote every two years.
I'd argue that
this webpage provides a thorough and crucial (if not poorly organized and somewhat confusing) resource for making a decision on voting. Moreso than, say, lipservice with regards to "family values," "preserving the sanctity of marriage," "putting money back in America's pockets," and so on and so on ad nauseum.
I believe many of the people here can read and think for themselves. I'm still skeptical of the IAVA's overall ranking system, but you can still use the key votes page to find out what your representatives voted on what bill. That's a pretty good resource to simply brush away with no regard.
That, and
www.ontheissues.org is still my personal favorite.
up; it was a vote to go into secret session with regard to the NIE. Stop pretending that (1) it's not related to anything of interest to the military and (2) secret sessions are a common occurance. Your bathroom comment suggests you're just grasping at straws for things to say. Why can't you just accept that there is a valid pretext for including this bill?