The ads: Two of the candidates seeking the 2nd Congressional District seat are airing TV ads until Election Day that feature parents of Maine soldiers stationed in Iraq.

The two ads offer contrasting interpretations of U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud’s vote on supplemental funding for American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the spot sponsored by Republican nominee Brian Hamel, a lone woman sitting against a black backdrop chides Michaud for voting “against supplying our soldiers the equipment they need.”

Maureen Doore of Dover-Foxcroft says her son Joseph is a sergeant stationed in Baghdad fighting the terrorists. Michaud “put party politics ahead of our soldiers,” she says.

In Michaud’s ad, a couple sit in what appears to be their home, talking about their son Todd, who has served 20 years in the Marine Corps. He was sent to Iraq on Sept. 11, they say. The father is Ed Desgrosseilliers, a 20-year Navy veteran whose service included a tour in Vietnam.

Patriotic background music accompanies the conversation between the Marine’s parents, who praise Michaud because he “voted to give troops like our Todd everything they need to get the job done and get home safe.” The father adds that Michaud has been endorsed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars PAC.

The two ads appear to contradict one another over Michaud’s congressional voting record on military funding for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The facts: Hamel’s ad refers to House Resolution 3289, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal year 2004 on Oct. 17, 2003.

On that day, Michaud voted against passage of the $87 billion measure, according to thomas.loc.gov, a federal congressional Web site. Michaud voted for a motion (along with 188 other Democrats and one Republican) during floor debate that would have sent the bill back to committee. During debate in the House Appropriations Committee, Democratic Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., had attempted to offer an alternative bill, one which would have provided about $5 billion less than the $19 billion for reconstruction proposed in the GOP bill and put that into troop support instead, according to CongressDaily. It also would have turned half of a $14 billion reconstruction grant in the alternative measure into a World Bank-administered loan. Finally, it would have used money from tax cuts given to those in the wealthiest bracket to pay for the entire package.

That alternative was blocked by Republican leadership from reaching the House floor. Michaud said he objected to the Republican leadership’s bill, the only one House members were allowed to consider, and said he would have voted for the Democratic alternative, if available. The alternative proposed more funding for soldiers and equipment than the Republican bill.

Michaud did vote for a $63 billion supplemental bill in April 2003 with money to equip troops and he voted for the fiscal year 2005 defense authorization that included money for troop equipment and pay raises.

According to the VFW-PAC Web site, both Michaud and U.S. Rep. Tom Allen received that organization’s political endorsement for re-election this year.

Our view: In hindsight, the Democratic option for funding the reconstruction of Iraq looks better than it did at the time. We criticized the idea of turning the reconstruction aid into a loan, fearing that the new debt would add another hurdle to Iraq’s reconstruction. Little did we know that reconstruction money wouldn’t be allocated in a timely way and that the occupation of Iraq would be handled so poorly.

Both Hamel and Michaud can legitimately claim that the ads are accurate, but the real issue was never about providing soldiers with the equipment they need. It was about how to pay for other things, like sewers, roads and schools, and about whether Republican House leaders could score political points against Democrats.

We are confident Michaud would not stand in the way of body armor for soldiers in harm’s way.