Letters to Editor - bLetters

We welcome your opinion on public issues, in either of two ways. You can submit a letter to the editor for possible publication in the printed edition. The Virginian-Pilot welcomes letters to the editor on all topics, although concise letters (150 words or less) on public issues will receive priority. Letters may be edited for length, style and clarity and writers are limited to one published letter every month. Please add your name, city, street address and daytime telephone number for confirmation.

The other way is to comment on the published letters in this blog. In this online forum, you can comment as much as you want by using the comment box at the end of each entry.

By e-mail: letters@pilotonline.com

By mail: Letters to the editor - P.O. Box 449 - Norfolk, VA 23501-0449

By fax: (757) 446-2051

Category: Readers' Opinions

■ 29 October 2008 | 8:10 AM

Wrong vote on GI Bill

You hit the nail on the head with your Oct. 24 endorsement of Glenn Nye for Congress. The 2nd District deserves better than Rep. Thelma Drake. I am outraged that she continues to portray Nye as a liar regarding her vote against the new GI Bill.

The fact is that she did vote against it, and The Virginian-Pilot printed an article back in May in which Drake explained that she would not support the bill because President Bush was opposed to it.

It was not until just this month that she attempted to rewrite history and say that she did not support the bill at the time because it lacked a clause allowing for benefits to be transferred to a spouse. How convenient.

Cynthia Thompson

Virginia Beach

View 4 comment(s) Link to post

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment.

charlesm what are you talking about

Submitted by am81430 on Fri, 10/31/2008 at 2:41 am.

Drake backed out of the bill she initially cosponsored because Bush stated she was going to veto it. She didn't see something better, and technically, she lost since the bill passed without her.

How things work . . .

Submitted by charlesm on Thu, 10/30/2008 at 8:14 pm.

Thelma Drake saw an opportunity to get a better deal and she took advantage of it. Whether or not you agree with her political philosophy, she is like the football player who makes an extra effort for more yardage. That's the kind of effort you want from those on your side. It may not have been very pretty, but it worked. Only the loosers cry.

Mary

Submitted by am81430 on Wed, 10/29/2008 at 7:15 pm.

that explains why Drake co-sponsored the bill she voted against.

Ms. Thompson

Submitted by marym63204 on Wed, 10/29/2008 at 1:32 pm.

All of that discussion was in the Pilot at the time. Thelma Drake (and many others) wanted the benefits to accrue after six (I believe) years rather than three because that is a more natural time to go to college after being trained by the military and serving your country (it takes about two years to train a new recruit). And the benefits were not portable to a spouse or child, but now they are. The GI bill that was passed is better than the one Ms. Drake chose to vote against. And I agree wholeheartedly with her vote. Cheers, MGM