Posted on 10/13/2010 7:09:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The nasty VFW/VFW PAC political endorsement spat is boiling over into open political warfare between the two groups. When Ed posted on this story yesterday, VFW leaders were already expressing dismay over their political action committee’s “seriously flawed” candidate endorsement methodology–going so far as to raise the prospect of scrapping the PAC altogether. This posture evidently didn’t stem the hailstorm of criticism from rank-and-file VFW members, prompting leadership to release another statement, this time insisting that VFW PAC rescind its recent controversial string of endorsements:
The angry tone and tenor of the telephone calls and messages being received at national headquarters make it clear that many of our members are not cognizant of the fact that VFW National By-Laws clearly stipulate that the VFW Commander-in-Chief is not authorized to direct or otherwise attempt to introduce his control over the VFW PAC. Furthermore, no membership dues or donations made to the VFW or VFW Foundation are used for the VFW PAC.
As you know, the recent endorsements by the PAC are the subject of much controversy. Unfortunately, many questions have been raised regarding VFW’s involvement in the endorsement process and the integrity of the organization as a whole. Regrettably, many of our members and supporters are disappointed and have misdirected their anger toward the VFW as having lost its purpose.
Comrades, we cannot sit idly by while a great organization is being disparaged and maligned, even unintentionally…
As determined in the VFW By-Laws, as the national officers, we have specific responsibilities to take definitive action when events can have a detrimental impact on the organization. It is clear to us that the current situation now demands direct action; therefore, we are requesting the chairman and the directors of the Political Action Committee immediately rescind their endorsement actions.
…VFW’s values and guiding principles aren’t grounded in a desire to participate in partisan policies in political activities. As veterans of foreign wars, we gave substantially more of ourselves than most to ensure the viability and the integrity of our great democratic process. However, our recent endorsement process unintentionally provided favoritism to the incumbents. It is now evident it was unfairly skewed and actually subverted that process.
What’s almost certainly raising many veterans’ ire is the spectacle of Senator M’am gleefully touting her handy new VFW PAC endorsement on the campaign trail. Team Carly, meanwhile, is circulating a memo (drawing heavily from this debate fact-check) chronicling the myriad reasons why VFW members might take offense to their PAC’s blessing of Babs. A taste:
In 2007, Boxer Was One Of Only 14 Senators To Vote Against Supplemental Funding For The Wars In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Boxer Voted Nay and Feinstein Voted Yea)
In 2007, Then-Sen. Joe Biden Attacked Democrats For Opposing Funding For The Troops, Noting That “There’s No Political Point Worth Anybody’s Life Out There.” BIDEN: “So what did some of my colleagues say about why they voted against the money? They said they voted against the money to make a political point.There’s no political point worth my son’s life. There’s no political point worth anybody’s life out there.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Remarks At The Iowa State Fair, Des Moines, IA, 8/15/07)
In 2003, Boxer Was One Of Just 12 Senators To Oppose The $87 Billion Supplemental Appropriation For The Reconstruction Of Iraq And Afghanistan; The Bill Included Funding For Body Armor And Communications Equipment For The Troops. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Boxer Voted Nay and Feinstein Voted Yea; “Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures,” The Associated Press, 10/17/03)
“During A Committee Hearing In June, Boxer Upbraided A Brigadier General For Calling Her ‘Ma’am’ Rather Than ‘Senator.’” (Lisa Lerer and Manu Raju, “Dems Raise Concerns About Boxer,” Politico, 7/23/09)
Boxer Was One Of Only 25 Senators Who Voted Against Condemning A MoveOn.Org Ad Against General David Petraeus; Feinstein Voted To Condemn The Ad. (HR 1585, CQ Vote #344: Passed 72-25: R 49-0; D 22-24; I 1-1, 9/20/07, Boxer Voted Nay and Feinstein Voted Yea)
I suspect the hapless VFW PACers who initially thought it’d be fine and dandy to dole out endorsements to politicians like Boxer and Alan Grayson (!) are learning a valuable lesson: American veterans don’t like being jerked around, and they’re not shy about defending their honor. Just ask Dick Blumenthal.
I’d say the same thing about the NRA, they have lost their purpose. Sounds like the VFW might be able to scrape their way back a bit but the NRA isn’t even trying.
VFW-PAC is supporting some of the most far left-wing Demcrat members of congress, many times ignoring their own guidelines that are supposedly in place to require a minimum number of qualifications to even be considered for an endorsement.
Somebody’s head ought to roll. It ought to be done very publicly — and before the elections. The PAC endorsements must be rescinded — right out in the open for the whole world to see.
Since Clinton spoke, etc. (I know, they ALWAYS invite the sitting Prez) I have thought the org was going to the RATS.
Now it’s confirmed...too bad...
Makes me wonder who is behind these endorsements; the actual names of the people who did this, and the names of the people who let them get away with it.
We let this sort of thing happen too often...
Holy carp, they endorsed Grayson??? Look, I don’t support the endorsement of Sen. ma’am but at least there is a rationale, however flawed, that she is a very powerful incumbent and there might be a tactical advantage ... but Grayson??? He’s so far over the edge than you can’t even justify it on the basis of comic relief. Speaking of comic relief, did they endorse Greene in SC?
RE: Speaking of comic relief, did they endorse Greene in SC?
I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. Alvin Greene is after all, a veteran who served in the US Army and Airforce.
NH Ping, keep those cards and letters comming.
This is a trend I am seeing that the leadership in some organizations no longer represent their members. In addition to the VFW and the NRA, the AARP lost the right to speak for the seniors over Obamacare. A group of Florida doctors protested their own state’s AMA for backing Obama care against the members wishes. Many churches’ national councils have pro gay policies that are not shared by the member churches. Union workers in Cali were upset at their dues being spent to support a pro immigration rally, against their wishes. NOW long ago lost the right to speak for all women. Politicians no longer represent their constitutients, national parties, such as the RNC don’t have the interests of the members at heart. The list goes on and on. What is going on here?
vets...take back your country...perhaps the best thing to do is to flood the VFW with new memberships and change those bylaws...
“This is a trend I am seeing that the leadership in some organizations no longer represent their members. In addition to the VFW and the NRA, the AARP lost the right to speak for the seniors over Obamacare. A group of Florida doctors protested their own state’s AMA for backing Obama care against the members wishes. Many churches’ national councils have pro gay policies that are not shared by the member churches. Union workers in Cali were upset at their dues being spent to support a pro immigration rally, against their wishes. NOW long ago lost the right to speak for all women. Politicians no longer represent their constitutients, national parties, such as the RNC don’t have the interests of the members at heart. The list goes on and on. What is going on here?”
-—Alinsky 101. Radicals cut their hair, put on suits, join traditional organizations and institutions, and then quietly destroy them from within...
Let the squabble begin. Let’s get the folks who made these decisions away from any decision making capability at the PAC.
the answer to the first two parts can be found here: http://www.vfwpac.org/index.html, the third part's answer starts with the National Commander who appointed the directors.
Same type of takeover that occurs anytime membership turns over operations to professional lobbyists and fundraisers. Most are liberal in their bent and cozy with the elites in Washington. AARP lost it’s way and many family foundations started with good intent have been taken over by liberals.
The AARP never lost it’s way, it was founded as a radical leftist group using the cover of “helping grandma” and it is still a radical leftist group.
They endorsed Carol “Che”-Porter in New Hampshire.
Try most of the mainline Protestant denominations. Our United Meth. leadership are so far removed from the people in the pews, there is no longer any resemblance.
Flush the toilet of the VFW PAC scum NOW!
Cut up your VFW cards, send them in, ditto NRA. If the will of the majority of their members mean nothing, then they don’t need our dues/contributions or any other support, they are siding with the enemy.
And there’s no worse political enemy than Boxer and her crony corruptocrats. This struggle is for the very survival of the USA and our way of life, it’s not a “game”, it’s DEADLY serious.
Related thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2606904/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.