Attacks on Cleland, Votes in Senate Show Chambliss No Friend of Georgia Vets

by Seth Michaels, Dec 1, 2008

In tomorrow’s runoff election between Jim Martin and Sen. Saxby Chambliss for Georgia’s seat in the U.S. Senate, there’s a clear difference on the issues that matter to veterans and their families.

Chambliss has voted to undermine veterans health care, and he continually has voted with President Bush on key economic issues that affect the lives of veterans, from retirement security to trade. Martin, a Vietnam veteran, has pledged to fight on behalf of working families and America’s veterans.

In a message to union veterans, Mark Ayers, chairman of the AFL-CIO Union Veterans Council and president of the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department, pointed out the differences between Martin and Chambliss on veterans issues. The message was co-signed by Ann Converso, president of the United American Nurses, and J. David Cox, secretary-treasurer of AFGE. Converso and Cox serve as vice chairs of the Union Veterans Council.

The message said:

In 2002, Chambliss won his Senate seat from Max Cleland, incumbent Democrat and former Veterans Affairs chief, in one of the nastiest campaigns we’ve ever witnessed. Cleland, a Vietnam vet who left three limbs on the battlefield, had his patriotism questioned and was compared to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden by the Chambliss campaign because he fought to protect unions at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Jim Martin is a great candidate in his own right and would be a powerful voice for veterans in the Senate, but electing Martin would be all the sweeter because we’d also be shipping Saxby Chambliss to the unemployment line.

Ayers says Martin will be a champion on issues important to veterans and their families.

_____________________________

Paid for by the AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education Political Contributions Committee, www.aflcio.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Print This Article | E-Mail This Article |Comments (1)