Skip to comments.Lastest from the VFW
Posted on 10/18/2010 10:21:56 AM PDT by ponsdorf
It seems the VFW is doing what it can to ameliorate the VFW-PAC situation. It's a bit sad more can't be done, but there it is.
How about a little more info rather than giving some random blog a hit? Or is the blog yours?
VFW NATIONAL COMMANDER MOVES FOR DISSOLUTION OF POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
EROSION OF PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THIS ORGANIZATION CAN’T CONTINUE
October 18, 2010
I have reviewed the Political Action Committee (PAC) Board of Directors response to our request to rescind this years Congressional endorsements. I disagree with their assessment.
It is now evident to most of the VFW leadership, both National and especially the departments, that the VFW has been subjected to extreme negative publicity throughout the nation, and the recent endorsement decisions have, in fact, harmed the VFWs reputation and future ability to fulfill our mission.
I cannot let this erosion of public support for our great organization continue. The apparent lack of the committee to address these concerns will lead to a proposal by me, as Commander-in-Chief, to amend the by-laws at the 112th National Convention for the purpose of dissolving the PAC.
Meanwhile, under the authority granted to me as Commander-in-Chief in section 619 of the VFW National By-Laws and under section 620 of the Manual of Procedure, I am withdrawing all PAC appointments effective October 15, 2010.
Accordingly, Im asking the VFW national council for a vote of no confidence in the VFW PAC.
Richard L. Eubank
Isn’t the VFW-Pac similar to the AMA (American Medical Association) in that it only represents about 15% of vets or 15% of doctors?
If only the GOP had the same level of cojones to handle the “mavericks” in their ranks.
The VFW-PAC doesn't even represent its members regardless of the percentages. I, for one, am glad to see it go. It was a disgrace to our organization. (Of course, it was no less a disgrace than the VFW awarding an honor to that scumbag congressman, Murtha, who slandered the Haditha Marines.)
Well, it’s NOT my blog. It IS one that has been keeping a rational view of this issue in the forefront.
I’ve linked to it before both here and on my blog. The way the VFW deal with this is of import to me, at least.
At that, did I miss some element of protocol?
It would have been great to include pertinent info... or even just do as I did, and post a link direct to the VFW’s announcement, and paste it in.
Aha... I did consider that, but opted to point to a place where something other than the raw data is being discussed.
Simply a choice here rather than anything nefarious.
The issue seems to me to be focusing rather than a ‘shotgun’ approach. YMMV
Thanks though, for the prompt.
>>>Simply a choice here rather than anything nefarious.
When in doubt - go to the source... don’t quote a blog, quoting someone else.
And don’t quote your own blog by excerpting, or merely linking to your blog. That’s called “blog pimping” and is discouraged.
Last note on this issue from here.
Call it simple synchronicity. I had noted the post on the VFW website and WAS planning a post on my own blog, but first I checked around. Seemed to me some background was in order?
There was really no doubt involved, only a matter of perspective - I suspect.
I will, indeed, adjust in the future.