When we found that VFW-PAC had endorsed the OPPONENT of Ilario Pantano, Mike McIntyre, we were puzzled, and decided to send our members a message urging them to contact VFW-PAC and urge them to correct the poor decision.
Pantano is a veteran, he served in Iraq, he is a member of VFW. McIntyre, who never served, could not be a member of VFW. Shouldn’t groups like the NRA and VFW give preference to endorsing it’s own members wherever possible?
Furthermore, while it is understandable that a PAC might lean towards endorsing incumbents, because incumbents usually have an institutional advantage over challengers, I would NEVER expect the VFW-PAC to endorse an anti-military, anti-war incumbent who voted against the surge, wants to close GITMO and wants to give the terrorists constitutional rights OVER someone who DID serve, DID fight in the war in Iraq, and obviously supports his fellow troops, and especially supports their missions in defeating America’s enemies.
And yet that’s what VFW-PAC has done in North Carolina, and now we find, several other states.
Over at BLACKFIVE, Mr.Wolf, is as befuddled by VFW-PAC’s confusing behavior as I am. He writes:
| What was so disturbing was the email listed someone we all know- LTC(r) Allen West, and how the VFW, of all people, THE VEE-EFF-FRICKING-W, As you may recall, when I returned from Iraq one of the first things I did was join VFW and Legion as ‘life members’. Now, it seems, the time has come to rip, burn, and toss my Lifetime Membership for the VFW. I feel like they have completely left us at the station here…..It appears they don’t give a RATS ASS who supports vets or who WAS a vet.” |
VFW-PAC is at odds with MAFPAC. In a majority of key races, they have endorsed OUR OPPONENTS! VFW continues to support candidates who were against the surge, who are anti-military, or who did not serve, in races where they could have supported candidates who DO have military experience, did serve, and supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ilario Pantano (NC-7) – VFW-PAC Endorsed Anti-Surge Mike McIntyre! They could have supported a Marine!
Joe Miller (AK-Senate) – VFW-PAC did not endorse Army veteran Joe Miller
Chris Gibson (NY-20) – VFW-PAC Endorsed Scott Murphy who called Military/ROTC RACIST! Chris Gibson is a Colonel in the US Army
Kelly Ayotte (NH-Senate) – VFW-PAC did not endorse either candidate
Michael Grimm (NY-13) - VFW-PAC Endorsed Mike McMahon NOT A VET! They could have supported a Marine!
Scott Rigell (VA-2) – VFW-PAC Endorsed Glenn Nye NOT A VET. They could have supported a Marine!
Mark Kirk (Il-Senate) – VFW-PAC Endorsed Navy Reservices Mark Kirk – they got one right!
Morgan Griffith (VA-9) – VFW-PAC Endorsed Fred Boucher who was AGAINST the Surge!
I think that a PAC must always reflect the values of the parent organization. In this case, the PAC should have looked for candidates –whether Democrat, Republican or even Independents, who were veterans first. If they had a track record of slashing benefits for active duty or veterans, then this would have been a mark against them. The same goes for any statements made in the past that were anti-military (not to confuse it with showing a diligent and intelligent ability to talk about the pros and cons of war). I think any organization must be careful by offering a blanket approval of all veterans, because they may or may not reflect the current values of the organization. And, I think we have to be very careful also not to let party affiliation be the overriding tip in the scale.
For instance, let’s say we had a veteran already serving who consistently voted against increases for veterans and active duty services. On the other hand, a fresh candidate comes to us, who is not a veteran, but has consistently worked on troop support projects (and I’m not just talking “photo ops.”) More than likely, the fresh candidate with no track record might reflect the values of the organization more than the person who has worked against our mission.
I just think due diligence has to be shown for each and every candidate. This way the organization is well represented.
P.S. In the case of the VFW, due diligence was not taken. They have a loaded plank of individuals who have not supported the military or benefits, and have proven themselves to put their own beliefs forward rather than making informed decisions. The VFW PAC, and the only people to blame are the board of directors for lack of oversight.
The so called VFW PAC, really just the VFW, has also indorsed Harry Reid in Nevada. You know ole Harry, the one who said “We Have Lost the war in Iraq.” Also the one who pushes amnesty for illegal aliens, ramroded the disastrous health care fiasco, the same harry that is stating that he has a duty to spend our tax money, and don’t forget Tax and Trade, and his wholeheartly support of the socialist communist regime in Washington who are literally destroying our once great Nation. One last comment, the VFW had BHO as a speaker at their convention in 2010, and kissed his ass.
Yes it’s very unfortunate Paul. I don’t care how Harry Reid may have voted for this or that bill, the simple fact that he emboldened our enemies by saying we’ve lost the war is reason enough to go against him. That single statement put more of our troops in danger than all the troops that were helped by his voting for a modest increase in VA benefits (which Republicans voted for too). The VFW or its PAC is LITERALLY giving their endorsement to someone who gives provided a morale boost and emotional comfort to the enemy!
Perhaps MAFPAC should make Sharron Angle another one of it’s endorsed candidates
Mary Kilroy has the endorsement of the VFW -Pac who’s running against Steve Stivers, the National Guardsman from Ohio who served in Iraq, Kilroy is a socialist liberal!
VFW Leaders Act on PAC Endorsements
October 12, 2010
Comrades,
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. It is vitally important that you take a direct role in alleviating this current flood of criticism by reminding members and supporters that:
– The VFW PAC was created by the VFW members and not by VFW national leaders. 2/3 of the delegates of the 80th VFW National Convention (1979) voted to establish PAC as a standing committee.
– VFW By-Laws stipulate that VFW leadership does not direct PAC activities and that the VFW convention is the governing body of the organization. As such, it is only the delegates at the convention that can determine the continuation of the PAC.
– Encourage VFW members to get involved in their VFW Posts and to exercise and further direct their concerns to convention delegates so that there can be an informed debate on the existence of the PAC.
That is a future process. But, as indicated, we also have an immediate necessity on the recent PAC endorsements. 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.
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.
We also want to stress this request means no endorsement for any Congressional candidate.
Richard L. Eubank
Commander-in-Chief
Richard L. DeNoyer
Senior Vice Commander-in-Chief
John E. Hamilton
Junior Vice Commander-in-Chief
I guess this is the best they , the VFW leadership can do! How sad!
VFW National Commander Moves for Dissolution of Political Action Committee
I have reviewed the Political Action Committee (PAC) Board of Directors’ response to our request to rescind this year’s 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 VFW’s 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, I’m asking the VFW national council for a vote of “no confidence” in the VFW PAC.
The VFW-PAC is a disgrace to the membership of the VFW. The lack of oversight by the national organization’s leadership only compounds the obvious incompetence of their actions. The NRA has made similar blunders and both organizations have stabbed their members in the back. The fact that liberalism was allowed to gain the control of national affairs of each organization and in turn succeeded in reducing forever the effectiveness for which both organizations were established. Sad times for the VFW and the NRA to have their message betrayed in such an open and misinformed way.
News from the VFW Dept of Wisconsin. It doesn’t stop folks!
Reference the “News for Today” item, among other things it includes a letter from our VFW National Comdr regarding his letter outlining action he executed regarding the VFW PAC which placed the “Feingold for Senate” full page add at the back page of the current VFW News.
I know that there were many complaints from VFW members including myself, it appeared that our VFW supported Feingold for WI Senator. That may be true for some but many of us do not support professional politicians, like me who raised a similar complaint during his last election. At that time apparently our complaint did not reach the “top” like they did this time. We have so many experts in our membership that it is hard to understand why his full page add without remarks pertaining to the VFW PAC members support could pass inspection.
Semper Fi,