Rush Holt's Other Side

WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.


Rush Holt exploits the most heartfelt emotions of his constituents. He uses them, their unique situation in society, and the peculiar passions that they are personally attached to, for political advantage, like so many other public officials do, and will continue doing. Rush Holt, and the most extreme Democrat persuasions in Congress, paints every issue with partisan colors. They utilize specious arguments for divisive ends, and pose wicked visions and terrible specters as consequences for not consenting to their utopian schemes. Since our representative is so fond of using veterans, and every other categorized constituent, for popular posturing and pathetic pandering, then it is appropriate for us to take a closer look at Mr. Holt's other side, when he turned his back on veterans.


Rush Holt's record on national security is very troubling, and will be discussed in the near future. His voting record dealing with veterans is somewhat better. Where Mr. Holt has performed well for veterans he should be commended. That is the good side of our representative; but, as we have come to know, or will find out more in the future, Rush Holt has another side, one that is downright disgraceful and hypocritical. Rush Holt is a part-time advocate. He chooses when and when not to support specific constituents. At certain times, Mr. Holt firmly stands at your side, and other times, he abandons you for the sake of some partisan profit or allegiance to obscure principles that do not reflect our general sentiments. Mr. Holt's inconsistency is well documented, and the following items are only tiny portions of a lengthy public record.

If Rush Holt is such a great advocate for veterans then why did he vote against H.R. 3010 (109th) 2005-2006, which provided $1.9 million for the National Veterans Employment and Training Services Institute, and $29.5 million for the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Programs and the Veterans Workforce Investment Programs? Why did Mr. Holt vote against H.R. 2684 (106th) 1999-2000, which guaranteed $48 million for transitional housing loans for the Homeless Veterans Program Account, and $321 million for medical and prosthetic research?

Rush Holt was one of the 13% who voted against H.R. 4546 (107th) 2001-2002. This bill, which became a law just like all bills mentioned in this piece, included a 10% increase for "military retired pay for enlisted personnel credited with extraordinary heroism in the line of duty." It also "extended the period of eligibility for the use of Selected Reserve educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill to 14 years." Mr. Holt was also one of the 11% who voted against H.R. 2116 (106th) 1999-2000, which provided nursing home care for veterans, and "a program to enhance the provision of specialized mental health services to veterans" dealing with PTSD and substance abuse issues. The bill also included extending "the veterans readjustment counseling program" and "a program for furnishing housing assistance for homeless veterans."

How can Rush Holt claim to be a champion for veterans with a voting record like this? Let us retire Rush Holt in November. The citizens of New Jersey's 12th Congressional District have had enough partisan politics.  We do not need any more opportunistic manipulators playing with our fears and hopes for political profit.