The VFW-PAC has PISSED some People OFF!!

[Karin]

Yes, this was on the news this morning.  Even more puzzling was the VFW's official response.  Something about "we have a problem with our process" or some such.  Reminded me of the New York GOP backroom committee who selected Scozzafava last year. 

[Wretched Excess]

you would think that an organization's "leadership" would be more in harmony with it's membership.

AARP endorsed obamacare, and their membership was ready to storm their headquarters with torches and pitchforks.

[seabelle]

I found this at the VFW website:

http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=5596

KANSAS CITY, Mo., Oct. 8, 2010 - The national line officers of Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) are at odds with the VFW Political Action Committee (PAC), calling the methodology process used by the PAC “seriously flawed at best this year and in immediate need of extensive review,” in the wake of the recent congressional endorsements made by the committee.

“Even though the law requires that VFW-PAC be a separate organization, the acronym ‘VFW’ is attached to the committee and the natural assumption is that the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States is somehow making the endorsement decisions. Nothing could be further from the truth, but perception is reality,” said National Commander Richard Eubank.

“Obviously, an organization's political positions have to reflect the opinions of its members. But those opinions can't be perceived as ‘off the wall,’ and the methodology used this year to grade candidates obviously is skewed in favor of the incumbent. That isn’t fair, and it actually subverts the democratic process.”

Because of the controversy surrounding the endorsements, VFW line officers have decided to bring the question of continued existence of the PAC to the floor during the 112th VFW national convention in August.

I wonder who else they've endorsed?

[Chris_]

I wonder who else they've endorsed?

Kendrick Meeks

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/54322469/VFW-PAC-Endorsements

[seabelle]

Kendrick Meeks

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/54322469/VFW-PAC-Endorsements

Apparently endorsing non-vets over some highly qualified vets.....let the membership card burning begin!

http://bigpeace.com/mrwolf/2010/10/11/burn-those-vfw-membership-cards/

[Eupher]

you would think that an organization's "leadership" would be more in harmony with it's membership.

AARP endorsed obamacare, and their membership was ready to storm their headquarters with torches and pitchforks.

And based on this result, you'd think that AARP members would begin to get a clue - AARP does not give two shits about its members. It's all about money, insurance, and politics. Too bad most of its members are blind to this kind of thing.

[TVDOC]

And based on this result, you'd think that AARP members would begin to get a clue - AARP does not give two shits about its members. It's all about money, insurance, and politics. Too bad most of its members are blind to this kind of thing.

Actually they have......AARP has lost over two million members in the past year.

doc

[Eupher]

Actually they have......AARP has lost over two million members in the past year.

doc

This business with AARP is only important to me because Mrs E is ga-ga over this money-grubbing socialist group, and I wouldn't present an AARP card if it were the only discount in town. BUT, where are you getting your information?

The only thing I can find is AARP's loss of 60K members in Aug. 09 - for a group that numbers 40 million, that's chump change. No doubt SOME seniors did their homework and saw Obamacare as the sham that it is, but where did you find that 2 million have left?

5% is still a fairly small number, no matter how you stack it. And does that number of losses factor in with the regular losses due to death and complacency?

I'd like to think that America's seniors are waking up, but I ain't so sure....too many of 'em stay fairly clueless.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Just a minor point but I believe taht Randy Cunningham wasn't a crook untill afer he was in office for a few years . Nothing he did during his Navy career has ever been in question. It;s not much but it's about all the guy has . IF it wasn't so serious what he did he would be a hero to many today. Some guys just don't know when to stop I guess.

He was in the House, so he ran for election every two years.  That means he was a crook when he was running in several election cycles, a crook with a distinguished military record, but still a crook.  The fact that he was a crooked weasel had nothing to do with his Navy career, nor did I say it did.

[Doc]

This business with AARP is only important to me because Mrs E is ga-ga over this money-grubbing socialist group, and I wouldn't present an AARP card if it were the only discount in town. BUT, where are you getting your information?

The only thing I can find is AARP's loss of 60K members in Aug. 09 - for a group that numbers 40 million, that's chump change. No doubt SOME seniors did their homework and saw Obamacare as the sham that it is, but where did you find that 2 million have left?

5% is still a fairly small number, no matter how you stack it. And does that number of losses factor in with the regular losses due to death and complacency?

I'd like to think that America's seniors are waking up, but I ain't so sure....too many of 'em stay fairly clueless.

American Seniors Association (which we joined) is only one of several conservative seniors groups......during the run-up to ObamaCare, they offered "free" one year memberships to any seniors (65 or older) that mailed in their AARP cards, and pledged not to renew........they received over two million cards.   And they are only one of several groups that we looked at, offering similiar benefits, so there are likely seniors that joined other conservative seniors groups as well.....

AARP is open to anyone age fifty or over, so it really isn't a group strictly for seniors, and many join for discounts on travel (tour packages), auto insurance, auto club, hotel discounts, etc. (AARP membership is not required to participate in the United Health Care Medicare plans that are offered under their name) that has nothing to do with senior advocacy.  Those are likely the bulk of the alledged forty million.......and since they are really not a group that is interested in seniors, but are in fact a "liberal political advocacy group"......I would expect them to lie.......kinda like the DUmp has 100,000 "members".  Similiar claims have been made by the Brady Campaign and MoveOn.org, which have also been refuted opon close scrutiny.

As an example.......my wife joined AARP in 1995 (so we could get a deal on a cruise package), and never renewed her membership since........they STILL carry her as a member, and mail out new cards every year.......just like DU.......their "membership" numbers are very likely bogus.

Further, as a quasi "non-profit" they don''t really have to support their membership claims.

Mrs E is ga-ga over this money-grubbing socialist group,

The above makes you a much more tolerant person than I........I couldn't dream of being married to a liberal........as those that I've met (intentionally very few) possess such a foreign value structure that I simply couldn't tolerate being in the same room with them on an ongoing basis.......not to mention having enough in common to base a relationship.......

doc

[zeitgeist]

American Seniors Association (which we joined) is only one of several conservative seniors groups......during the run-up to ObamaCare, they offered "free" one year memberships to any seniors (65 or older) that mailed in their AARP cards, and pledged not to renew........they received over two million cards.   And they are only one of several groups that we looked at, offering similiar benefits, so there are likely seniors that joined other conservative seniors groups as well.....

AARP is open to anyone age fifty or over, so it really isn't a group strictly for seniors, and many join for discounts on travel (tour packages), auto insurance, auto club, hotel discounts, etc. (AARP membership is not required to participate in the United Health Care Medicare plans that are offered under their name) that has nothing to do with senior advocacy.  Those are likely the bulk of the alledged forty million.......and since they are really not a group that is interested in seniors, but are in fact a "liberal political advocacy group"......I would expect them to lie.......kinda like the DUmp has 100,000 "members".  Similiar claims have been made by the Brady Campaign and MoveOn.org, which have also been refuted opon close scrutiny.

As an example.......my wife joined AARP in 1995 (so we could get a deal on a cruise package), and never renewed her membership since........they STILL carry her as a member, and mail out new cards every year.......just like DU.......their "membership" numbers are very likely bogus.

Further, as a quasi "non-profit" they don''t really have to support their membership claims.
The above makes you a much more tolerant person than I........I couldn't dream of being married to a liberal........as those that I've met (intentionally very few) possess such a foreign value structure that I simply couldn't tolerate being in the same room with them on an ongoing basis.......not to mention having enough in common to base a relationship.......

doc

Hey, that sounds just like the dumpster membership list.

[Eupher]

American Seniors Association (which we joined) is only one of several conservative seniors groups......during the run-up to ObamaCare, they offered "free" one year memberships to any seniors (65 or older) that mailed in their AARP cards, and pledged not to renew........they received over two million cards.   And they are only one of several groups that we looked at, offering similiar benefits, so there are likely seniors that joined other conservative seniors groups as well.....

AARP is open to anyone age fifty or over, so it really isn't a group strictly for seniors, and many join for discounts on travel (tour packages), auto insurance, auto club, hotel discounts, etc. (AARP membership is not required to participate in the United Health Care Medicare plans that are offered under their name) that has nothing to do with senior advocacy.  Those are likely the bulk of the alledged forty million.......and since they are really not a group that is interested in seniors, but are in fact a "liberal political advocacy group"......I would expect them to lie.......kinda like the DUmp has 100,000 "members".  Similiar claims have been made by the Brady Campaign and MoveOn.org, which have also been refuted opon close scrutiny.

As an example.......my wife joined AARP in 1995 (so we could get a deal on a cruise package), and never renewed her membership since........they STILL carry her as a member, and mail out new cards every year.......just like DU.......their "membership" numbers are very likely bogus.

Further, as a quasi "non-profit" they don''t really have to support their membership claims.

The above makes you a much more tolerant person than I........I couldn't dream of being married to a liberal........as those that I've met (intentionally very few) possess such a foreign value structure that I simply couldn't tolerate being in the same room with them on an ongoing basis.......not to mention having enough in common to base a relationship.......

doc

I concur with the business about the AARP cards coming in every year, regardless. As I'm the one who deals with the money, bill-paying, etc., I can certainly say that I'm not paying membership. I saw an envelope come in the other day with the membership cards. I threw the one with my name on it away.

I believe they're a 501(c)(4), which puts 'em in the lobbyist camp, as so-called "non-profits":

    *  501(c)(4) exemption status gives civic organizations the authority to operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare issues. Net earnings by such organizations are devoted exclusively to charitable, recreational, and/or educational purposes.
    * 501(c)(4) exemption status also gives organizations an unlimited ability to lobby for legislation to benefit it's members while being allowed to participate in political campaigns.

link

As to being married to a liberal, she's not a rabid, DU-type moonbat. As an educator, she's drunk the Kool-Aid and is comfortable in the role. We don't discuss politics at home because she loses the arguments and doesn't like to lose.

I've often wondered how Mary Matalin and James Carville get along.....

[Thor]

Here's the entire rundown on the entire VFW-PAC thing. http://thors-spot.blogspot.com/

The problem is in the way the candidates are selected by the PAC. They have to vote 7 times in favor of some veterans' issues bills (different ones), if they are running for Senate. 10 times, if they are running for Congress. Where the problem lies is that newcomers, like Jesse Kelly, Charles Lollar, Col. West, etc.  don't have a voting record in Washington. So, because of that, the PAC automatically endorses the incumbent as long as the boxes are checked. Bear in mind, this doesn't mean that the bill has to pass, only that they voted for it. It WILL be addressed next August at the next National Convention. There are MANY Combat Vets that are EXTREMELY pissed. Either the PAC goes away or the way they perform their selection gets changed.

[Thor]

Further news on the subject. The VFW National Commander contacted the PAC and asked for them to simply NOT endorse anybody. The VFW-PAC opposes his request and intends on remaining steadfast in their endorsements. 

[NHSparky]

Further news on the subject. The VFW National Commander contacted the PAC and asked for them to simply NOT endorse anybody. The VFW-PAC opposes his request and intends on remaining steadfast in their endorsements. 

Opposes is a nice way to put it.  The PAC effectively told the VFW and their members to go pound sand.

Sounds like they need to go bye-bye.

[TVDOC]

Opposes is a nice way to put it.  The PAC effectively told the VFW and their members to go pound sand.

Sounds like they need to go bye-bye.

This hit the national conservative talk radio circuit today......heard it on Laura Ingram's show this morning.......she has asked the VFW national commander to be interviewed on her show.......

doc

[dutch508]

Further news on the subject. The VFW National Commander contacted the PAC and asked for them to simply NOT endorse anybody. The VFW-PAC opposes his request and intends on remaining steadfast in their endorsements.  

**** them then. They don't speak for me or many more Vets.

[Thor]

Had our post meeting. 75% of the attendees are pissed, 17% had no idea or anything to add, and the other 8% supports the PAC's decision (we don't to guess on their political persuasion, do we?) Anyways, the outrage is there and this is how it starts, from the ground level and on up.

[Eupher]

Further news on the subject. The VFW National Commander contacted the PAC and asked for them to simply NOT endorse anybody. The VFW-PAC opposes his request and intends on remaining steadfast in their endorsements. 

That's sorta like cutting your nose off to spite your face, ain't it?

What would it take for the VFW to simply dissolve the PAC? And reorganize it under new management?

[Thor]

That's sorta like cutting your nose off to spite your face, ain't it?

What would it take for the VFW to simply dissolve the PAC? And reorganize it under new management?

The National Convention, which will be held next August. Per our by-laws, it has to be voted on by the delegates. In the interim, our post is sending a letter to National requesting that the current PAC members be relieved of duties until this entire issue is resolved.

[Thor]

An update can be found here: http://thors-spot.blogspot.com/

In short, the PAC is going to go away.

[Eupher]

An update can be found here: http://thors-spot.blogspot.com/

In short, the PAC is going to go away.

 

[Crazy Horse]

Good to hear.

Reid made a point during that debate to point out that the VFW endorsed him.

[NHSparky]

Good to hear.

Reid made a point during that debate to point out that the VFW endorsed him.

I guess he missed this letter:

[Eupher]

Not surprising, given that Reid has his head buried so far up his own ass that he can't see his rectum due to the hanging hemmorhoids.