The Louisiana Democrat Party might not have a candidate to oppose David Vitter for U.S. Senate, but they are going after him on the issues. In a email blast, the Louisiana Democrats are claiming that Vitter is opposing the troops abroad.
Here is their comments:
(Baton Rouge) Last night, Senator David Vitter voted against the Department of Defense Authorization Bill. The bill, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly, will provide a pay raise for U.S. military personnel, expanded health care benefits for returned soldiers and funding to continue the fight against Al Qaeda. The bill also authorizes upgrades in equipment, training and technology aimed at making U.S. troops safer and more effective in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Somewhere half way across the world, there’s a soldier from Louisiana wondering why David Vitter doesn’t think he deserves a raise and the right tools to keep our country safe,” said Louisiana Democratic Party spokesman Kevin Franck. “Unfortunately, that’s a question only David Vitter can answer.”
In 2005, Vitter opposed a bill to protect the salaries of members of the National Guard deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Later that year, he voted against providing armored vehicles to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
“For most Louisianans, giving our brave troops a pay raise and the support they need to keep our country safe is a no-brainer, but apparently David Vitter has other priorities,” Franck added.
The Department of Defense Authorization Bill directs all U.S. Defense spending for the upcoming year, including:
A 3.4% pay raise across the board for all military personnel.
Improvements to the healthcare our soldiers receive once they return home.
Increased funding for upgraded equipment, training, and technology to keep our troops safe and prepared that include, among other items, mine resistant military vehicles and all terrain Full funding for military readiness, making sure military equipment is sound.
Authorization for enhanced capacity and funding for the U.S. military to continue to fight the war against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and to keep America safe from terrorism.
Aggressive oversight of the Department of Defense to ensure that taxpayers’ dollars are best used to ensure America’s security.
###
Vitter Voted Twice Against Protecting Soldiers’ Salaries When Forced to Take Leave From Work For Iraq Deployment. In 2005, Vitter tried to kill a proposal to require that federal employees who take a leave without pay to serve as a member of the military or National Guard be reimbursed for the difference between their salary and the pay and allowances they receive while on duty. [Vote 91, 4/13/05]
Vitter Twice Voted Against Funding for Armored Vehicles. In October 2005, Vitter joined the majority of his Republican colleagues and voted against an amendment to the Defense Appropriations for $360.8 million to provide armored vehicles to American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. In April, Vitter voted against an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy which would provide an addition $213 million to ensure that Humvee production remained at its maximum level through the fiscal year. [Vote 248, 10/5/05; Vote 108, 4/21/05]
Vitter has not posted a press release on his website in connection with the vote to explain his vote. His campaign has, however, sent out a press release criticizing President Obama and possible candidate, Charlie Melancon.
It has been widely reported that U.S. Senator Vitter is using Obama's low rankings in Louisiana to prop up his own campaign and to associate his potential opposition with the President. Vitter critics have claimed that David Vitter's attacks against Obama is the way that the US Senator can distance himself from the entire DC Madam ordeal that involved the US Senator's refusal to testify under oath.
On this day in the spring of 1932, more than 20,000 veterans, most of them unemployed and in desperate financial straits spontaneously made their way to Washington, D.C. They demanded passage of a bill introduced by Representative Wright Patman providing for immediate payment of their World War I bonus. Calling themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Force, they camped in vacant government buildings and in open fields made available by police superintendent Pelham D. Glassford. The veterans conducted themselves in a peaceful and orderly way, but when the Senate defeated the Patman bill (June 17, 1932) the marchers refused to return home. On July 28, President Herbert Hoover ordered the army, under the command of Douglas MacArthur, to evict them forcibly. MacArthur had their camps set on fire, and the army drove the veterans from the city. Herbert Clark Hoover was the 31st President of the United States (1929–1933). Besides his political career, Hoover was a professional mining engineer and author. As the United States Secretary of Commerce in the 1920s under Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, he promoted government intervention under the rubric "economic modernization". In the presidential election of 1928, Hoover easily won the Republican nomination, despite having no previous elected office experience. To date, Hoover is the last cabinet secretary to be directly elected President of the United States. The nation was prosperous and optimistic at the time, leading to a landslide victory for Hoover over Democrat Al Smith. Hoover deeply believed in the Efficiency Movement (a major component of the Progressive Era), arguing that a technical solution existed for every social and economic problem. That position was challenged by the Wall Street Crash of 1929 that took place less than eight months after his taking office, and the Great Depression that followed it which gained momentum in 1930. Hoover tried to combat the Depression with volunteer efforts and government action, none of which produced economic recovery during his term. The consensus among historians is that Hoover's defeat in the 1932 election was caused primarily by failure to end the downward economic spiral, compounded by popular opposition to prohibition. Other electoral liabilities were Hoover's lack of charisma in relating to voters, and his poor skills in working with politicians. As a result of these factors, Hoover is typically ranked very poorly among former U.S. presidents. Written by
on 7/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The "LA.Democratic Party doesn't need vision" what it needs is some common sense and the courage to act properly on proper concerns... Same with the 'Pugs'.... As a nation, we are so mesmerized by none sensical sidelines that we have all lost focus on the real topics of concerns.... And that is what is going to seal the lid on our national embodiement. Written by
on 7/27/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
KL, during the early nineties I followed both the House and Senate closely on C-Span I & II. There are a few - very few - good men and women representing the people in both parties. For the most part, what goes on is the leadership of both parties pay back their party's powerful campaign donors with favorable legislation while the vast majority of the representatives and senators attempt to spend as much as possible in their own districts/states to aid their reelection chances. This describes both parties. Neither "liberalism" nor "conservatism" HAS TO BE LIKE THIS. In fact, liberalism and conservatism are ideas that have nothing to do with .. say ... building A VA Hospital in an appropriation committee's chairman's district despite the VA saying that they don't need the beds in that state and the VA also stated that building it there would mean other locations will not have enough beds. That is OPPORTUNISM; it is neither liberalism nor conservatism. Self-serving opportunism is what we have at all levels of government in both parties. I cannot help but think how different things could be if we had people in government who ... well .. gave a damn about those they represent more than their ambitions. So many on this site harp about Jindal being that way - and they're right - but my reply must remain " ... and just how does that make him any different from the vast majority of our elected 'public servants.'" Written by kpf
on 7/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Yes, Serious-one... the LA.Democratic Party needs vision... and much more... A little "house cleaning" will help... (You’re right too, KPF, there's dishonesty and corruption in both political parties)... Ya know-- the right time to advertise is when "things are down"... Louisiana can use all the help it can get in organizing Democrats and Independents around our state to change the status quo. We are a new generation… out with the old...and in with the new. Written by KJ
on 7/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Wow... a lot to go with here, not the least of which is the "so called Congressman" Charlie Melancon.
Driver, dude, seriously, just go home. Your comments are as lame as the press release that is the subject of this story. Of course, I am only a "so called" anonymous poster, so take my comments with a grain of salt. If Driver is in fact your real name.
That being said, it is good to know that despite a new spokesperson, the Louisiana Democratic Party is still visionless. Vitter comes out with a well produced attack web ad, and the Democrats put out a "so called" attack press release on a FRIDAY that will get less notice in the press than my grandmothers bingo championship victory. (Congrats Granny btw, love ya!)
Maybe if Senator Vitter and the Louisiana Republican Party will agree to not say anything from now until the election, the La Democrats might actually have a chance at, you know, winning. Or at least not embarrassing themselves like they continue to do. Written by Are You Serious?
on 7/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Ryan just can't see the Forest for the trees is blocking his so-called think tank! Yes, the DemocRATic party is still a fool in disguise! The bills in D. C. are passed with so much "junk" attached, it is pityful from my conservative prospective very much. Also, you can not trust the so-called Congressman from the 3rd District by the name of Melon-Con, a so-called DemocRAT! Written by Driver
on 7/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I don't know the details of this bill, but anyone who reads any bill proposed in Washington - with all of the earmarks attached - will realize that it is simplistic and misleading to label opposition to any bill based only on the main portion of it - the Devil is definately in the details concerning bills proposed in D.C. Written by kpf
on 7/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"The name of our party is The Democratic Party. Use it".....LOL.... Ryan, haven't you noticed the BB Headlines: "Stomomayor, Angle Farrah Fawcett, and Mexican Boarders?"...and you want an adjective-checker?
Written by KjunLady
on 7/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Your title is downright insulting to Democrats everywhere. The name of our party is The Democratic Party. Use it. Or should we call the other major party the Republican't Party in honor of their refusal to even offer a health care/insurance reform bill? Written by Ryan
on 7/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
