VFW PAC insurgents

| October 14, 2010 | 16 Comments

The shit storm we started over the VFW PAC endorsements for the upcoming elections continues. Yesterday the Commander called for the PAC to rescind their endorsements;

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.

The Board of the VFW PAC refused;

In the political endorsement arena, there will always be party loyalists and individuals that will not agree with the VFW-PAC decision. The Board respects their position and appreciates their activism in support of the candidate of their choice. The VFW-PAC endorsement is not designed to tell people how to vote; but to point out who has demonstrated support for veterans and America’s security.

The VFW-PAC disagrees with those who claim the endorsement process is skewed, flawed, or unfair. Some incumbents will have an advantage over another candidate because they have a good voting record on the issues. They also have a disadvantage if their votes don’t support the VFW’s position. Holding lawmakers accountable and judging them by their actions on legislative issues is a fair and necessary standard. This Congress has been very good to veterans and incumbent endorsements reflect that support.

The VFW-PAC stands by the endorsement process used during the 2010 election cycle.

Oddly enough, the PAC, on the web page of their refusal, continue to use the VFW logo. If there’s an insurrection over there, shouldn’t they fight their battle under another banner? The colonists didn’t fight the British under the King’s own flag, did they?

The PAC claims that it endorsed candidates that “have a good voting record on the issues”. Really? Over the last ten years or over the session? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were unable to pass a defense budget this year. They had to pass two budgets last year because they couldn’t pass one for 2009 in 2008. Is that a good record? Is that a position that the VFW takes – no defense budget?

What really pissed me off is that the Commander said that most of us who called the national office didn’t understand that the PAC was separate from our organization. I think I explained that the first day, didn’t I? We all perfectly understand the division, but the public doesn’t and I think that’s more important. And the candidates certainly don’t make the distinction for their constituents.

Previously, I’ve kept my personal criticism of the Board between me and my pals, now you’re all my pals. have you seen the pictures of the Board of the PAC? They all look like they rode with Pershing hunting down Pancho Villa – which is probably why they’re so out of touch with politics. They’re still excited that Woodrow Wilson has promised to keep us out of The Great War.

Hot Air outlines the absolute idiocy of the PAC’s endorsement of Boxer. In fact, Jom Hoft at Breitbart’s Big Peace has a piece today that two of the people who were endorsed by the VFW PAC, Waxman and Boxer, secured diplomatic courtesy letters for Code Pink so the smelly hippie wenches could deliver $600,000 to insurgents in Fallujah while they were fighting our troops in those streets in late 2004.

Does the VFW want to attach itself to that clearly treasonous act?

You can go through the (PDF) list and point out your own, if you want. If the list disappears, I have a copy.

At a minimum, the National Commander should forbid the PAC from calling themselves the VFW PAC and rescind the authorization for them to use the logo. If they want to endorse candidates without putting a moment’s thought into it, and if they want to argue with the membership over their inability to make distinctions beyond some survey, they don’t deserve to call themselves VFW. If they can’t do that, go nuclear and disband the PAC. If the American Legion can go all of these years without a PAC, so can we.

And, oh, the PAC still hasn’t returned my phone call a week later and they have the phone number on answering machine.

Category: VFW PAC

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (19)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. War On Terror News | October 14, 2010
  2. Attaboys All Around | Another Voice | October 14, 2010
  3. Partisan endorsements rile Veterans of Foreign Wars members | Tony's Rants | October 15, 2010
  1. Old Tanker says:

    At a minimum, the National Commander should forbid the PAC from calling themselves the VFW PAC and rescind the authorization for them to use the logo.

    Does he have the authority or does he have to wait for a full vote at the yearly convention?

  2. Adirondack Patriot says:

    The spokes-flack from VFW-PAC said:
    “The VFW-PAC endorsement is not designed to tell people how to vote; but to point out who has demonstrated support for veterans and America’s security.”

    I think candidates who served in uniform meet this criteria over and above what any non-serving incumbent may claim.

  3. Nucsnipe says:

    I put the info on the PAC out at our post meeting last night, the post members were not pleased, so there should be more angry calls to national today. Also printed out a copy of the John’s first post and left it on the bar.

  4. pmm says:

    So the VFW-PAC admits that it biases incumbents since the incumbent has to fail their vote test before they actually consider a challenger. Has the PAC bothered to publish the list of votes they actually graded.

    Of course, I’ve agreed to start volunteering for Patrick Murray, a retired Army Colonel, in VA’s 8th district as a direct result of looking into this fiasco, so I guess some good has come out of it.

  5. Nucsnipe says:

    Oops on post #3 Jonn not John and strike the “the” before, Just shows what happens when I type before getting my morning coffee.

  6. Has the PAC bothered to publish the list of votes they actually graded.
    ==========

    I would guess not. Remember when the IAVA gave all good grades to Democrats and all bad grades to Republicans leading up to the 2008 election? I think they even gave Obama a better grade than McCain. It was ridiculous.

    Yep, found it. The IAVA gave Obama a ‘B’ and McCain a ‘D’. That’s when I stopped taking the IAVA seriously and viewed them as having the same credibility as IVAW.

  7. To be fair, here is Blackfive’s coverage of the IAVA ‘Report Card’. Not to mention, the coverage here at TAH — and here — of the ridiculous ‘report card’.

    Based on that last link, I suggest someone look into possible coordination between the VFW-PAC and the Obama Administration or Democrat Party regarding their endorsements.

  8. Wrote my own piece on the subject and linked to this one of yours as well, Jonn.

  9. Thor says:

    I was able to contact one of the Board members of the VFW-PAC yesterday late afternoon (approx 1735 CDT), Mike Wysong. He said that they were doing their job per their by-laws. I asked him, even though the National Commander has asked you to not endorse anybody, you’re forging ahead with these flawed endorsements?? He said yes. Already there’s movement afoot to simply NOT fund the PAC and take it from there. (Kind of like the Dems did for the Viet Nam war) No money= no operations. A little birdie told me that the PAC was going to be either eliminated or totally revamped come next August.

  10. NHSparky says:

    I’ll be casting my vote for elimination of the PAC if that’s the attitude they’re taking on this issue.

  11. Lucky says:

    Jonn, no one has responded to me either. I called, and posted on their facebook page last week-NOTHING! I am a two tour, life member, and an Officer in my Post and I can’t get a straight answer out of National!!!!

  12. defendUSA says:

    I’ll be taking this update to my boys at AL Post 530. Seems like they would be a tad interested since they are all Vets of Foriegn Wars…

  13. dutch508 says:

    It was not a nice night last night for the VFW phone bank person who called my house.

  14. Adirondack Patriot says:

    Of the 33 endorsements by VFW-PAC for House of Representatives in New York and New England, only 2 were for Republicans.

    It is absolutely impossible — I mean IMPOSSIBLE — to imagine that the Democrat Party is stronger on national security and support for veterans than the Republican Party.

    I am addressing this with my VFW Post. War drums to follow.

  15. lucky says:

    Since the PAC refuses to abide by the ORDERS of the National Commander and his subordinates, they should cease to exist as a committee and be stricken from any and all lists

  16. patriotann says:

    Will be any senate hearings on the hill over this VFW dust up?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *