Did he not know the verbiage contained in the NDAA? One must wonder.

I understand Congressman Rigell defended his NDAA vote by saying something to the effect that not voting for the bill would have taken food off the tables of our military personnel.

Say what?! Congressman Forbes, also a Republican and very pro-military, voted against the NDAA because it was too flawed, according to his office.

How can it be that the 2nd District  representative and his 4th District colleague and fellow Republican are so far apart on the NDAA?

Congressman Rigell votes for a bill (i.e., the NDAA) that has the potential to restrict civil liberties by using the military to detain U.S. citizens within the country, increase health care costs to veterans, cost taxpayers more by adding a new unified command for military health, and recently comments he would not honor the no-tax pledges he signed when running for office.

Has he switched parties and I missed it?

These certainly are not the actions and words of a TRUE Republican, not to mention a huge lack of credibility when it comes to his promises on the issue of taxation.

Ah, but this is the person who contributed $1,000 to Obama and said he was "...moved by his [Obama's] rhetoric."

Perhaps the Republican Party and voters should have paid greater attention to those two bits of information back in 2010, rather than allowing him to downplay them.

They certainly seem to explain some of his recent actions; that, or he's clueless.

Either way, enough is enough. I say it's one and done for Congressman Rigell.