O'Reilly again cited Obama's National Journal ranking without noting rankings' subjectivity
SUMMARY: On both his radio and television shows, Bill O'Reilly again cited Sen. Barack Obama's ranking by the National Journal as the "most liberal senator" for 2007, without noting the rankings' subjectivity. O'Reilly did not note that the rankings were based not on every vote cast by senators in 2007, but rather on "99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale."
On the July 8 editions of both his radio and television programs, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly again cited Sen. Barack Obama's ranking by the National Journal as the "most liberal senator" for 2007, without noting the rankings' subjectivity. On his radio show, O'Reilly said of Obama: "You know, his voting record is very left -- the most left-wing senator in the country, according to the National Journal." Later that day on his Fox News television show, after Fox News contributor Marc Lamont Hill claimed that Obama is "a centrist masquerading as a leftist," O'Reilly asked Hill: "Isn't that deceitful, though? ... If he [Obama] really is a centrist and not a leftist, and his voting record is the most liberal in the Senate?" The next day on his television program, in response to Fox News contributor Dick Morris' claim that Obama will "be forced by Congress to go to the left, just like [President] Bill Clinton was when he was elected in 1992," O'Reilly replied, "[H]e's the most liberal senator anyway. You're not forcing a guy out of his milieu. He's a liberal guy. That's what he is." In no instance did O'Reilly note that the Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings were based not on all votes cast by senators in 2007, but on "99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale."
In contrast to the National Journal rankings, a study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis, using every non-unanimous vote cast in the Senate in 2007 to determine relative ideology, placed Obama in a tie for the ranking of 10th most liberal senator. In a June 16 PolitiFact.com article analyzing the Journal ratings, St. Petersburg Times Washington bureau chief and PolitiFact editor Bill Adair reported that National Journal editor Charles Green "says voters shouldn't rely on a single rating to determine a candidate's ideology" and quoted Green as saying, "There's pluses and minuses to each rating system. If you look at a number of them, I think you have a pretty good picture." American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Norman J. Ornstein has also criticized the National Journal's rating of Obama, calling it "pretty ridiculous."
Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented instances (here, here, here, here and here) in which media figures -- including O'Reilly and Fox News contributor Karl Rove during a discussion with O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor -- have cited or referred to the National Journal ratings without noting their subjectivity. On the January 31 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said of Obama: "[H]e's the most liberal senator ... in the country, according to National Journal." On the February 11 O'Reilly Factor, Rove said: "Well, you know, my gut tells me that over the long haul, Obama is -- look, he is inexperienced and does not have what is needed to be the commander in chief. And he's the most liberal member of the United States Senate."
From the July 8 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Al Qaeda sent in, Carly, to Iraq, its big jihadist divisions and they were in there and they got -- and are getting -- their butt kicked. They're getting killed and captured and decimating the whole organization. So now you have a fragmented organization that can't basically mount much because their money is under siege everywhere. It's a very intense geopolitical struggle.
I think we had a misstep in Iraq -- that we went in way too hard to a country that didn't appreciate it at first -- maybe they do now, I don't know. That it was not worth the blood and treasure, that we could have expended that other places and been more effective. You're right there. But now is now.
And Barack Obama's gotta get in the world -- in the real world. He -- and that's what I think he's trying to message is I think to moderates and to people who are still undecided about him. "Look, I'm not some left-wing guy. I understand the danger." I think that's the message he wants to put out. But the fact remains is, are we buying that or not? You know, his voting record is very left -- the most left-wing senator in the country, according to the National Journal.
All right, good questions. Thank you, Carly, that was a good discussion. I appreciate you calling. 1-877-9-NO-SPIN. We'll be back with more of your calls and comments in a moment.
From the July 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
HILL: But this goes back to the point that I've been making all along. Although I think that Barack Obama is a much better choice than John McCain, I've always said that he's a centrist masquerading as a leftist.
And so, all of these positions, whether it's public financing, whether it's Iraqis slowly moved in a different direction, because he's a pragmatist. He --
O'REILLY: Isn't that deceitful, though? If he really is a centrist and not a leftist, and his voting record is the most liberal in the Senate? Isn't that deceitful?
HILL: It -- it's like I said to you a few weeks ago after the Father's Day speech. I think that he is a politician. He is not the change agent. To me, Barack Obama is the best of a bunch of political siblings, not entirely new breed of candidate.
From the July 9 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
MORRIS: And I believe that he'll govern to the left, whether he likes it or not. You don't have to be a psychoanalyst and put him on the couch and say, who's the real Barack Obama? You just have to look at the Democratic Congress.
There will be such an overwhelming Democratic majority in the Congress. In the Senate, I think you're looking at a minimum of 55 Democratic senators, and there could be as many as 62. That and the House will extend the Democratic margin by 20 or 30 points that he's going to be forced by Congress to go to the left, just like Bill Clinton was when he was elected in 1992.
O'REILLY: But he doesn't -- I mean, he's the most liberal senator anyway. You're not forcing a guy out of his milieu. He's a liberal guy. That's what he is.
MORRIS: Well, he was from a -- he is a liberal, and in Fleeced, we spell out chapter and verse about that.
almost as ironic as paying roughly the same price for Michael Moore's "Will they ever trust us again" when it came out... :D
And why do you hate our troops?
Morris is the poster boy for what has gone wrong with American politics. His goal in life has been to engineer political wins...anywhere and anytime...regardless of the effect on the country.
Ye gods...and he claims to have been a Clinton insider...responsible for helping Clinton make policy decisions.
"I still find it amusing that liberals dont like Obama being called a liberal. He is what he is.....one of..if not the most liberal in the senate...(well, for the few months he has actually been there)"
You REALLY don't get it do you? It's not about the "liberal label"...it's about the MEDIA NOT REPORTING that the determination was SUBJECTIVE. Once again, yet again, IT'S THE MEDIA STUPID (with apologies to Bill Clinton)
"I still find it amusing that liberals dont like Obama being called a liberal."
Ok, again, for clarification, we have no problem with him being called a liberal. Why are you being disingenuous? Why do you leave out the qualifier "most," which makes this categorically un-true?
Man, I can't believe this still has to be explained to you. Either you're being willfully dishonest, or you just don't get it.
It does not make it un-true. I dont care if the label is subjective....every label is subjective. They looked at what they considered to be 99 key votes. Ok...fine. I dont care that MMFA found someone who does not agree with how they did it.
it was not like some totally unqualified source named Obama the most liberal, and everyone ran with it. There study is, was, and will always be subjective.....like every study ever done, anytime, anyplace, anywhere. What about that do you not understand?
I dont care if the label is subjective....every label is subjective.
As usual, POV, you are wrong. Not every label is subjective. Many are factual - For example, Lincoln was the tallest man to live in the White House, Taft the fattest, Reagan the oldest, and George W. Bush the stupidest.
In the case of the National Journal liberal/conservative rankings, the rankings are worse than subjective - they're bogus because they only considered a handful of votes, making their conclusion meaningless. And it's also signficant to note that Gramps McCain wasn't even ranked because he didn't show up enough times to vote.
"My point is that the methodolgy is not "rigged" or flawed to such a degree that it has no value. Do it another way and you will get another result. that is the nature of stats, unless you want to be like wzwriter and go with the tallest president. "
Which just proves our point that you can't use this study to conclude one way or the other whether Obama IS the most liberal Senator or not.
Here, I'll give you a hint. One of our senators is a self-labeled socialist. And it's not Obama.
That was interesting. Why on earth would someone flag a discussion of research method for removal? There was nothing abusive, no bad language and it was much more on-topic than many exchanges we see here?
Would the flagger like to provide a reason?
I thought it was pretty interesting to see PointOfView's idea of the "scientific method" and all and how it could be applied to subjective observations in order to provide a quantitative result. I think he was using Creation Science as his model.
Anyway. A pity it was all destroyed for no apparent reason. All that keen knowledge an insight lost to cyber-neverland forever.
You don't suppose the flagger was POV because of how badly he was coming off, do you?
No, probably not. He's come off badly in these discussions many times in the past without any discussion strings disappearing.
it was not like some totally unqualified source named Obama the most liberal, and everyone ran with it
Actually it was pretty much exactly like that. Thanks for summing it up so succinctly. Anytime a group conducts a study that cherrypicks its data in order to arrive at a conclusion made before the study was peformed it invalidates the study. Yes, determining the degree of how liberal/conservative any politician might be can be a very subjective process and any group trying to do so is likely to face strong debate about its conclusions. However this so-called study was nothing more than an editorial/political decision that is being bolstered by pseudoscience.
I understand why the cons have to, have to, have to keep repeating liberal this and liberal that at every turn. It's because liberal is separate from American. They can't run the risk of letting people connect liberal values to American values. The cons have to set up everything in terms of us vs. them and from there promote fear of the other.
Round
That is how you win elections. That is why Howard dean and top dems tell seniors they will lose SS, they why the scare people about health care, and fear is exactly.....exactly what HC and the 3 am phone call were all about.
The only difference here is a refual by most posters here to accept that dems play the fear card every bit as much as the repubs do.
Right Tommy
But most posters here still believe...some of them really believe...that the dems just dont do things like that. It is only the mean nasty conserative boggey man who does that.
Gov
You were the one who said you wantrd to drop it. Now we are changing the subject? I for one have no problem saying that I wish McCain was a lotttttt more conserative. Only the libs have a self identification problem.
"Exactly, Politics 101 - first, scare voters away from "them"; second; talk up "yours"--tommy
When you put it that way, it is probably true, but it sucks and I wish it wasn't like that. I think the weakness of the Republicans this election cycle is they don't seem ready to move to the second step and the first step is not working.
Are you really serious? In the off chance that you are, all you have to do is look at the rate of return for ever dollar invested in SS, vs the return invested in the private sector. Even with a huge drop in the dow my return is still way up over what it would have earned in the bank, or what it would earn in traditional SS accounts.
Talk to anyone who has their money invested privately. My experience first hand is with teachers retirement accounts. In many states, teachers and professors do now pay into SS, but have a private retirement account. The rate of return we get far and away exceeds anything SS could ever hope to pay.
What are you talking about????
What are you talking about????
Each and every worthless piece of crap you post here, POV.
Poor WZ
I can only hope one day you will buy a clue. You are so dumb I only wish no child left behind was awound 80 years ago when you were home schooled. i doubt it would have helped, given your disability to see the truth.
All of that is true, and I agree with you. But you're forgetting one crucial aspect of SS. The Legacy Debt. I'm paying for my grandparent's and parent's retirement right now, and when I get to retirement age, my children will be paying my retirement. Sure, you'd get a higher rate of return in the private sector, but SS was set up as a safety net to ensure that once every person reaches retirement age, they won't fall through the cracks and end up poor, homeless, and/or living with their children out of force of necessity.
Investing in the private sector carries a risk of losing it all...which is exactly what Social Security is supposed to prevent.
Remember when Bush tried to privatize SS? He made the point something along the lines of "by 2016, the flow of money coming out of SS would exceed the inflow."
That was a "problem" apparently (not that he really thought it was a problem, which you'll see in a sec.), and private accounts were supposed to fix it. Well, ask any economist and they'll tell you that if we switched to private accounts, the flow of money coming out of SS would exceed the inflow starting in the next fiscal year.
Yes, you are right and there are some issues to work out. You could not make the entire system private over night, nor would you want to. But the legacy issue will only get bigger, with each worked paying for more and more of those retired. And yes, it was supposed to be a safety net, but to many people do not save for their own retirement and expect that the govt will pay for it all.
The real soultion is partial privitization allowing younger workers to invest some money outside of SS so they canbe assured they will at least have some chance of seeing their own money some day.
"The real soultion is partial privitization allowing younger workers to invest some money outside of SS so they canbe assured they will at least have some chance of seeing their own money some day."
If they're smart, they're already doing that. You're welcome to invest money outside of the social security system all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the SS system still needs to be paid in to. Partial Privatization will do nothing to fix Social Security, except to make it draw off of debt that we already owe too much of.
Well, up until this Bush Administration, we were projecting a huge surplus that would have solved all our solvency issues for, well, for as long as we can forecast it.
What to do now? Well, stopping our damned deficit spending is a good start. I really don't know now, because the Bush Administration has ruined this country financially, at least for the near future. Get back to me after four years of Obama and we'll see where we are money-wise.
Sorry Col
I have been a professor for the last 10 years.
Housing bubble and sub prime mortgages anyone?
Mary
and you are not dealing with the reality that SS as it stands now will collapse. There are simply not enough workers to pay for those who are due benefits. That will leave all the diabled and the truly poor that you mention left out in the cold with no safety net.
Except that because it's a "pay as you go" system, it should also be a "break-even" system, with no shortfall or surplus. Meaning you'll either cap it at a certain income level, or change the tax percentage to keep the balance between revenues and payouts. I personally would be for a floating percentage flat rate, taking less from the lower income households, although I can see how ideologically, one could be for an income ceiling in consideration of individual contributions more closely equating with individual payouts.
Now, can we agree that this is waaaay off the topic of this column?
Neon really isn't worried about that, he's been posting here for quite a while and has a better grasp of social security than you do.
I have a six-month-old puppy at home that has a better grasp of SS than POV has.
WZ
Leave your lovers out of this.
someone help me
help me help me please
is the answer up above?
how can i oh how can i tell them
this is not a puppy love
(apologies to Snoopy)
Leave your lovers out of this.
And POV wants us to believe that intellectually-provoking responses like this are created by a COLLEGE PROFESSOR??????
I'll be that POV is really a Janitor's Assistant.......
"sorry to break it to you, but your respect is not something i desire or need."--pointofview
Well thanks. I'd hate to disappoint you.
I have been a professor for the last 10 years.
Probably one of those "colleges" located in a strip mall, or as a PO box at the local UPS Store.....
If you really ARE a professor, then I feel sorry for your students. It will take them years to "unlearn" all the crap you're shoving into their minds.
WZ
College would have been good for you. You would have been forced to look at the world outside your narrow little view. But that is ok WZ....i need guys like you to dry clean my ties.
You would have been forced to look at the world outside your narrow little view.
Pot? Meet Kettle. Your viewpoint is so narrow, POV, I'm sure you're constantly tripping over your feet.
And while I don't have the degrees you claim to have, I did graduate from DeVry Tech and have taked several college-level courses at night school. Don't wave your diplomas at us, POV. It doesn't mean you're smarter. And your posts prove just how dumb you truly are.
WZ
You went to tech school?? Never could have guessed that one.
That's one of the best examples of actual elitism that I've seen here.
That's one of the best examples of actual elitism that I've seen here.
The sad thing is that POV has nothing to feel elitist about. His posts here demonstrate that depite all his schooling, he doesn't know squat. If he really IS a college professor, I hope someone from the administration sees his posts here and takes steps to take away his tenure. The students at that college would be much better off witout being exposed to that clown.
But, then again, cons LOVE their elitists. All of their heroes except Limbaugh has some fancy degree.
You went to tech school?? Never could have guessed that one.
Yes, I went to tech school. But I'm still far smarter than you.
Elitist, punk.
So you're a prof, an intellectual snob?. How does it feel to be a traitor to your conservative movement? Do ya feel sexy breakin' the rules?
Hypocrite.
That's ridiculous.
Come see me when Democrats start telling voters that a vote for a Republican is a vote for a terrorist. Come see me when Dems question your patriotism at every turn. Come see me when Dems start infusing violence into their rhetoric.
Get a clue, man.
Round,
The point POV is making is both parties use fear as a motivating factor to get voters to question their choices, to make them nervous about pulling that lever. I am not talking degrees as each side can argue that until the cows come home.....POV gave a couple good examples from the left, and we know the right has their own standard scare tactics.
It happens, it's politics.
You're more than welcome to do the same, condescension boy.
You're right, I was talking about degrees. Lefties use fear of losing good policy to destructive policy. But damn, man, cons seek to destroy the person, they seek to make traitors, lackeys and venal sinners of liberals. It's crap. It's the stuff of cowards in the face of substantial countervailing argument to attack the character in the manner cons have mastered.
Like I said, at least you are progressing on a personal level. Now if I could only get you to admit that the myth of conservative personal responsibility is little than a shield you cats use to deflect common sense New Deal policy. Unfortunately, I'm on my way out the door. Gots to do the responsible thing and go to work. I'll check back in, in about 12 hours. Later.
I'll let Science101 explain it for you:
The election will be decided by the independants, no doubt about it. The left will vote for Obama, the right will vote against Obama (regardless whether they actually LIKE McCain or not). The independants will vote for whoever is closer to the middle, and not extreme to the right or left.
Liberal is a handy 1st gear start up label for fox. The mythological potentcy of the liberal fringe equates to second gear. Identification of the democratic candidate as the fringiest of the fringe, third. The work(?) is done, put it on cruise control and enjoy the fox eye candly. Its all good.
It also dosn't appear to be going down boyce and grils.
Fox News presents an unbiased thoughtful report on todays news or the heat death of the universe. Which would occur first?
I would expect a fair and balanced report on Fox News about how liberalism caused the heat death of the universe - complete with commentary by such scientific experts as Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, and Ollie North.
To be rebroadcast on "Hannitys Cosmos" Sunday at 6:00...
O'REILLY: Isn't that deceitful, though? If he really is a centrist and not a leftist, and his voting record is the most liberal in the Senate? Isn't that deceitful?
Good thing O'Reilly is there to protect us from people who are deceitful. Speaking of which isn't a tad deceitful to use a term like leftist which implies something more extreme than liberal?
I object to the term "MORE EXTREME than liberal". It implies that "liberal" is already somewhat extreme. Whereas we all know that "liberal" is already a superlative without bias, it is akin to the phrase "extremely perfect" or "extremely best". Or even "extremely divine".
The baseline term "liberal" is the acme, the apex of truth and reality. To be "liberal" is to be cognizant of all facts, knowledgeable about all history, and ultimately accurate in all analysis. Graphically, "liberal" would be the very tip of a cone of honesty upon which the pure light of universal synchronicity shines, the light gently fading away the closer one gets to it's base until the cold dank utter blackness of conservatism - above which it rises - is reached.
When it is claimed that Obama is the "most liberal", it really should be translated to "nearest to liberal" or "most closely liberal". The only way to modify the term that describes something that is not "liberal" is with a comparative inferiority. Or "more conservative".
Of the 99 key Senate votes in 2007 as selected by NJ reporters and editors, I trust we can all agree that this one in particular is where the rubber hits the road on liberalism.
334/HR3074: Table a proposal to bar Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage requirements for highway bridge construction or maintenance projects
Oh, and how 'bout this pinko piece of legislation?! Thanks for watching our back Mr. and Mrs. unamed NJ reporters and editors.
Ahhhh, I think I see.
I would probably vote "Yea" to table the vote, so that it would buy me time to read the National Journal to find out what I should think, and in this way avoid collecting at least one more point toward that nasty "most liberal" label.
Thanks for clarifying, Gov.
Reporter: Senator McCain, Senator McCain! Please explain your vote to table a proposal to bar Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage requirements for highway bridge construction or maintenance projects.
McCain: I’m afraid you’re ill informed, friend, I did not cast a vote on the bill. Now, get off Straight Talk Express, I said NO LIBERAL MEDIA!
Oh, one thing I forgot to ask, Gov.
Do I need to inform "National Journal" as to WHY I voted "yea", I mean just to help them preserve the sanctity of their scientific method? Or does every "yea" vote on this issue just automatically revert to "liberal"?
Once again, if you read the methodology of the study, you would understand. The ranking system is based upon the history of the voting record of the individual senator. That is how the scale is combined with the individual votes in order to get usable data. A Ph.D. does come in handy on ocassion.
In other words, a "liberal" senator voting "yes" would become more liberal, and a "conservative" one voting "yes" on the exact same bill would become more conservative. No wonder this survey has been so widely discredited.
Oh, and "Professor" POV? Your supervisor wants you to start cooking another batch of fries - the customers are getting impatient. :-)
WZ
You are so witty I cant stand it. You clearly do not understand methods. No suprise, from what you have said about the methods you have used in the past, and how that has worked with the women in your life.
You are so witty I cant stand it. You clearly do not understand methods. No suprise, from what you have said about the methods you have used in the past, and how that has worked with the women in your life.
Oh, I understand, all right, POV. I understand that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. It's amazing how stupid so-called educated people can be - you're a shining example of it.
And concerning the women in my life? I have no complaints performance-wise from my wife of 15 years. Based on your posts, the only long-term sexual relationship you've had has been with your right hand.....
WZ
You will get bored with her. I did.
Your right hand is a she?
As for the boredom, maybe you need a visit from The Stranger.
You will get bored with her. I did.
It's posts like tis that have me convinced that the closest you've ever gotten to being a college professor was watching reruns of Gilligan's Island.
You will get bored with her. I did.
- POINTOFVIEW / Thursday July 10, 2008 7:08:36 PM EDT
- Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
--------------------------------------------------------
Nice. Lucky for you that you didn't say that in person to wz because I know I would pretty much stomp a mudhole in your back if you ever said something like that to me in person.
But I'm going to keep this thread in mind for the next time you start whining about any lack of civility on these boards.
But I'm going to keep this thread in mind for the next time you start whining about any lack of civility on these boards.
We'll ALL keep it in mind the next time Point of Stupidity whines about civility. And we'll look back fondly on it after that loser gets banned from MMFA.
But I'm going to keep this thread in mind for the next time you start whining about any lack of civility on these boards.
We'll ALL keep it in mind the next time Point of Stupidity whines about civility. And we'll look back fondly on it after that loser gets banned from MMFA.
But I'm going to keep this thread in mind for the next time you start whining about any lack of civility on these boards.
We'll ALL keep it in mind the next time Point of Stupidity whines about civility. And we'll look back fondly on it after that loser gets banned from MMFA.
But I'm going to keep this thread in mind for the next time you start whining about any lack of civility on these boards.
We'll ALL keep it in mind the next time Point of Stupidity whines about civility. And we'll look back fondly on it after that loser gets banned from MMFA.
But I'm going to keep this thread in mind for the next time you start whining about any lack of civility on these boards.
We'll ALL keep it in mind the next time Point of Stupidity whines about civility. And we'll look back fondly on it after that loser gets banned from MMFA.
and hurry up & build that transmitter!
Col
Very nice....i like the pic. Was a big Gilligans Island fan myself in the day. Thats why I called you little buddy the other day. If only I could make a radio or a car out of coconuts and bamboo i would be a happy man.
Ov er the years any DEMOCRATIC SENATOR running for PRESIDENT IS CALLED "THE MOST LIBERAL " by this bunch of RIGHT WING BLOWHARDS.
Obama is ONE of the most liberal according to some studies. but he has only served about 123 days on the actual job. He has missed most of the votes. He only cares about himself and would vote any way it would help him WIN. he has terrible judgements especially in his personal life. I only hope it won't take him 20 years to make decisions about our country like he did with his pastor. He has only visited Walter Reed ONCE. He did not even give General Petraus the courtesy of a private meeting when he testified before congress. If you want to hear what our soldiers thought of his interview go to military times and you can read their posts.
Did you read the posts accompanying McCain's Military Times interview? Here's one:
My husband is a SSgt in the Marine Corps and we are both Independents but will be voting for OBAMA. I have a tremendous amount of admiration and respect for Sen. McCain but he is not the right person for the job at this time. Sen. Obama has the most comprehensive plan for the many complex issues our country is facing right now (i.e. the housing crisis, the economy, healthcare, education, the military etc.) Sen. McCain is like a bull in a china shop and we don’t need to break anymore damn china.
As a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Sen. Obama passed legislation to improve care and slash red tape for our wounded warriors recovering at places like Walter Reed. He passed laws to help homeless veterans and offered an innovative solution to prevent at-risk veterans from falling into homelessness. Obama led a bipartisan effort in the Senate to try to halt the military's unfair practice of discharging service members for having a service-connected psychological injury. He fought for fair treatment of Illinois veterans' claims and forced the VA to conduct an unprecedented outreach campaign to disabled veterans with lower than-average benefits. Obama passed legislation to stop a VA review of closed PTSD cases that could have led to a reduction in veterans' benefits. He passed an amendment to ensure that all service members returning from Iraq are properly screened for traumatic brain injuries. He introduced legislation to direct the VA and Pentagon to fix disjointed records systems and improve outreach to members of the National Guard and Reserves and voted for the new GI Bill.... AND THE LIST GOES ON!!!!!!!!!