Posted on 09/14/2006 12:18:37 PM PDT by freespirited
The Senate is close to meeting the military brain-injury challenge it nearly failed. Three weeks ago, lawmakers drew fire for trying to halve the budget of the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center by leaving $7 million out of this year's appropriations bill... Thankfully, the cut is being corrected thanks to Sen. George Allen's amendment this week.
Allen stepped up Tuesday with a measure to reverse the funding cut and increas[e] the center's budget to $19 million. The measure passed by unanimous consent [and] is expected to reach the floor later this month. ...
We spoke this week with the co-founder of the Brain Injury Center, George Zitnay, who said the increased funding will be used to hire more doctors and staffers, treat more soldiers and pay for research...
The bipartisan Allen amendment had a burgeoning list of cosponsors, including Sens. Durbin and Stevens and a host of Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama.
Of course, no issue is above political mudslinging, so Allen's challenger, James Webb, couldn't resist slinging his share over a manufactured "Whose idea was it?" controversy. Webb's campaign sent e-mails claiming that Allen "stole" the idea from Durbin.
Note to Webb: This is precisely the type of unserious Washington infighting that turns the stomachs of ordinary voters. Even assuming that Webb's allegation were true, so what? No one cares whose idea it was; voters only care that it gets done. How ironic that Webb, a combat-injured Vietnam veteran who fancies himself a political outsider, would get so entrapped in inside-the-Beltway politics.
It's remarkable that in year dominated by war and national security issues we would need to pressure the Senate to fund the Veterans Brain Injury Center. This program should never have fallen victim to budget cuts.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Whatever, please check out the full editorial at the link; this is a condensed version to meet word limits.
Of all the things the gov't spends money on, this is one I don't mind.
It gets me madder and madder when they cut items from our soldiers who need it.
The soldiers who were promised something need to get it. But no the government just whittles away.
It would seem to me that Webb could personally benefit from this appropriation...
No doubt they are amateurs...
I agree with the article that we shouldn't care who sponsored the legislation. But Allen's actions showed a lack of proper morals, IMO. That doesn't mean Webb is a better candidate, but Allen certainly seems bound and determined to try to shoot himself in the foot.
Nancy Reagan killed Webb who lacks "webbies".
Nancy Reagan killed Webb who lacks "webbies".
With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.
Senator Allen's office had worked with Senator Durbin's office all along. On the floor of the Senate Durbin himself referred to "Senator Allen's Amendment."
"Lack of proper morals"??????????
With all due respect, you don't know.
Let's assume he did work with Durbin all along:
Why then was Durbin not listed on his amendment as a co-author/sponsor? That shows lack of moral behavior.
On the other hand, let's assume he did not. Is it not logical to refer to the amendment you are questioning by its title?
All the listings I can find of the bill DO list Durbin as co-sponsor.
Most importantly however, Durbin himself referred to the Amendment as "Senator Allen's Amendment" on the Senate floor.
On Allen's website it's called the Allen-Durbin Amendment.
Thank you. It most certainly is. For some reason I couldn't get to the Senate web site today.
Allen-Durbin Amendment Passes Providing More Funding to Treat Soldiers Suffering Brain Trauma
So, since Senator Durbin calls it the "Allen Amendment" and Senator Allen calls it the "Allen-Durbin Amendment" it seems, eraser, like your charges of "lack of moral behavior" are either...
a) based in ignorance, or
b) straight from the RAT playbook
Do tell. Which is it?
You tell me...
Allen introduces amendment which he does not call the Allen-Durbin Amendment. Durbin refers to "Allen's Amendment". In debate on the floor, if you actually sit down to watch it, it is VERY clear Allen doesn't even know what his own amendment says, even though it is all of one sentence long. Allen does not list Durbin as a cosponsor on offering the amendment, though Durbin's amendment has been circulating the senate offices and Allen's hasn't. Durbin and his co-sponsors have to request to be added as co-sponsors to Allen's amendment.
I may not like Durbin, but you have to be a little "dee-dee-dee" to not see that Allen hasn't behaved well here...
b) straight from the RAT playbook
Thanks for playing. Pick up a case of Rice-A-Roni as your consolation prize on your way out.
If that's what you want to think, feel free....
Some of us are able to understand that an (R) after someone's name doesn't necessarily make them a good or honest person.
Some of us also understand that knowing a person for over 20 years makes us a better judge of character.
Allen: I'm sorry you had to thank me.
Some people strike me as having a pronoun problem ;~)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.