The VFW vs The VFW-PAC

This Ain't Hell ^ | ponsdorf

[ponsdorf]

You know you’re deep in kim-chee when the VFW’s Ladies Auxillary disses you.

[Interesting Times]

Nice post, Z. It's good to see Jonn is still in there mixing it up.

By the way, the Gateway Pundit article he mentions on the Code Pink / Boxer / Fallujah connection is a recap of my American Thinker piece from a couple of days ago.

[sinanju]

So the VFW and the VFW-PAC are separate organizations.

Just like the NRA. Politics has changed. There are no more conservative democrats any more than there are pro-life democrats, even the most chest-thumpingly old-time values, martial-minded, self-proclaimed independent of them can be relied upon to vote as ordered at crunch time.

ANY dem on Capitol Hill will vote to chip away at or utterly trash the 2nd Amendment when the time comes

[elpadre]

Does the VFW-PAC receive their funding from the parent VFW??

[NonValueAdded]

Does the VFW-PAC receive their funding from the parent VFW??

No, not exactly. There is a "suggested" contribution of $10 per member which would generate approx $15m if everyone contributed.

We have seen the list of endorsements but not the amounts. That should cause another firestorm.

IMHO the PAC's methodology is seriously flawed and totally weighted towards the incumbent. One has to really go out of their way to not qualify for an endorsement as the lists clearly shows. The bills selected had for the most part overwhelming majority votes, thus their probative value is minimal. I suppose the PAC would say "see, our strategy worked, look at how many voted for the bill."

That the board did not have a "hey, wait a minute, look at this list" moment is telling. They are either dedicated DemocRATs or totally clueless, not that those are mutually exclusive categories.

[elpadre]

clear - thanks