|
Voting Record Tug-of-War in Montana August 10, 2006 Montana Democrats and Sen. Burns contradict each other. Both are right, up to a point. Summary The Montana Democratic Party and Republican Senator Conrad Burns can agree on little, and particularly not on the meaning of his voting record. They say he voted against armor for humvees in Iraq, he says he voted for it. He says he voted for increased veterans' benefits, they say he voted against it. In each case both are right, with qualifications. The ad battle shows how a voting record can be twisted one way or another, to help or harm a candidate. Analysis On August 2 the Montana Democratic Party released two statewide ads, the thirty-second TV ad "Veterans" and the sixty-second radio ad "Know Better." On the same day, incumbent Conrad Burns released "New Low," a sixty-second radio ad. Both rely on veterans to spread contradictory messages concerning Burns' record on supplying body armor for the military and veteran's benefits.
Montana Democratic Jed Fitch (veteran): We would patrol the streets of Iraq every day. Bombs would go off. Bullets would fly by. In "Veterans," the Montana Democratic Party says that "Conrad Burns voted against funding for more armored vehicles in Iraq." Yet in "New Low," the Burns campaign says that "Burns voted for $610 million in new armor for vehicles – and for improved body armor." So who is telling the truth? Both are, up to a point. It is true that Burns voted on Oct. 5, 2005 against an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2006 that would have increased by over $360 million the amount appropriated for armored vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure was sponsored by Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana and some fellow Democrats, but opposed mainly by Republicans on grounds that it was a pointless gesture. Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens of Alaska said during debate that Congress already had provided as much money for "uparmoring" military vehicles as could practically be spent. "We are using every bit of capacity the system has," he said. It is also true that earlier Burns had voted for the Pentagon authorization bill for fiscal year 2005, and that measure contained (among many other things) authorization for $610 million for uparmored Humvess and add-on armor. So Burns can argue that he voted for more armor before he voted against it. Veteran Benefits
While the Democratic ads attack Burns for votes "against veterans," the Burns ad features veteran Mark Roedel saying that Burns "increased the death benefit to $100,000 to protect families."
Conrad Burns Ad: Conrad Burns: This is Sen. Conrad Burns. After falsely attacking me for over a year, Jon Tester's liberal allies are now deceiving veterans about my record. But Montana veterans have something to say about that. Paid for by Friends of Conrad Burns 2006. However, Burns earlier tried unsuccessfully to restrict that benefit only to the families of those who died in combat or of combat-related injuries. He voted on April 13, 2005 against an amendment sponsored by Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts to provide the death benefit to include any member of the military who dies on active duty, not just those who die in combat or from combat-related injuries, as Republicans had originally proposed. Burns didn't explain his vote, but Sen. Ted Stevens again voiced the Republican dissent on the Senate floor: Stevens: We do believe there ought to be a distinction. The Senator's [Kerry's] amendment will mean, if someone right here in this district while in uniform drinks too much and dies while driving home, they are going to get this gratuity, the same gratuity the fallen hero should get. It is wrong to cover anyone in uniform with this allowance – it should go to those related to combat and in combat. Despite this objection, the amendment passed comfortably. And though it ultimately failed to become law as part of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to which it was initially attached, the Kerry provision later was included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, which Burns did vote for along with everything else in it. So Burns initially supported a $100,000 benefit but only for survivors of those who died from combat-related causes, not for all active-duty fatalities. Increasing Pay?
Montana Democratic Party Ad: Veteran #1: My family believes in service. Votes Against Veterans? Near the end of a "New Low," veteran Joe Upshaw says that Burns strengthened the VA, "increasing funding by almost 50 per cent in just the past few years." While the VA's budget has indeed increased by about 48.5 per cent since 2001, this should not be taken as a sign that Burns is beloved by all veterans. According to Project Vote Smart, in 2005 the Disabled American Veterans reported that Burns voted in their interests 33 per cent of the time and zero per cent of the time in 2004. The Retired Enlisted Association reported that in 2004, on the Congressional votes they deemed most important, Burns voted their preferred position zero per cent of the time. Burns did better with AMVETS, which says he voted with them three out of four times last year on their "key votes." - by James Ficaro Sources U.S. Senate, 109th Congress, 1st Session. Senate Vote No. 248. U.S. Senate, 108th Congress, 2nd Session. Senate Vote No. 146. U.S. Senate, 109th Congress, 1st Session. Senate Vote No. 366. Daggett, Stephen. "Defense: Authorization and Appropriations," CRS Report for Congress, 15 July 2005 U.S. Senate, 108th Congress, 1st Session. Senate Vote No. 406. U.S. Senate, 107th Congress, 2nd Session. Senate Vote No. 242. U.S. Senate, 107th Congress, 1st Session. Senate Vote No. 360. U.S. Senate, 102nd Congress, 1st Session. Senate Vote No. 133. |
|
Copyright © 2003 - 2009, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.
|