Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Thor on October 07, 2010, 05:38:43 PM
-
I'm a Post Quartermaster at my local Post. I know that National doesn't necessarily represent the voices of the various Posts, but there seems to be some massive fallout due to the recent posting of the VFW-PAC's endorsements. Here is a .pdf file of the endorsements:
http://www.vfwpac.org/Revised%20Endorsement%20List%20Sept%2024-1.pdf
The fallout starts here:
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=20754
and continues on here:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/10/burn-your-vfw-cards-vote-vets-runs-vfw-pac.html
and here:
http://www.mafpac.org/?p=717
In short, it seems that National is endorsing non-Veterans over Veterans and several anti-Veteran politicians. What has happened to the "Vets helping Vets" meme?? In MY opinion, this is reprehensible, at best. The VFW should be JUMPING at the opportunity to endorse a Veteran over any Non-Veteran!! However, that doesn't seem to be the case!! >:(
All I will say is, "Stand By for Heavy Seas and Rolls !!"
-
The VFW should be JUMPING at the opportunity to endorse a Veteran over any Non-Veteran!! However, that doesn't seem to be the case!! >:(
So a vet candidate is always better than the non-vet candidate? Firstly, even a lifelong civilian might do better at representing the interests of vets, than a vet politician could. Secondly, the VFW should be supporting candidates that will put the interests of the whole population over the interests of any particular group (like vets). I thought the great thing about us vets was that we were willing to sacrifice ourselves for the good of others.
-
[align=center](https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.ajc.com%2Fpolitical-insider-jim-galloway%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F03%2Fmurtha.jpg&hash=bc275f00157ff6e818257baab248a585a3929fda)[/align]
That is all.
-
[align=center](https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.ajc.com%2Fpolitical-insider-jim-galloway%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F03%2Fmurtha.jpg&hash=bc275f00157ff6e818257baab248a585a3929fda)[/align]
That is all.
That is enough....
-
So a vet candidate is always better than the non-vet candidate? Firstly, even a lifelong civilian might do better at representing the interests of vets, than a vet politician could. Secondly, the VFW should be supporting candidates that will put the interests of the whole population over the interests of any particular group (like vets). I thought the great thing about us vets was that we were willing to sacrifice ourselves for the good of others.
While I agree in part, if you read through the list there are many politicians that the VFW-PAC endorsed that are anti-military and/ or have worked against the military and its veterans. If there were a strong Pro-veteran candidate and one that abides by the Constitution, that was a civilian, I could perhaps go for that. I mean, I voted for Carter, a Navy Veteran. We all see how THAT worked out. However, read the endorsement file. I included it for a reason.
-
I was just taking issue with the blanket statement you made, which would be wrong, regardless of who's on the list.
-
Like the NRA, the VFW should be a "single issue" (well, maybe two) proponent.
Veterans and National Security
The NRA has a rating system that they use to determine which candidate they'll endorse , the VFW should have a similiar system.
In the Illinois Senate Race Mark Kirk (R, Rep-IL-10) http://www.kirkforsenate.com/ is a US Naval Reserve Officer and Veteran of Kosovo and Afghanistan. I'm voting for Mike Labno (L), http://www.labno4senate.com/ because of Kirk's 2A record (very Anti) and his vote for Cap and Tax. He's a RINO and being a veteran doesn't earn him any points with me.
When Chris Lauzen , State Senator (R-IL-25) came and spoke at the Aurora Sportsmen's club, he endorsed Mike Labno over Mark Kirk. It was very refreshing to here one of the Senior Republicans in the State not simply follow the party line, but voice his true opinion and not endorse the RINO, but also endorse the (L) candidate.
-
I'll trade you Senator Webb for a rotting dog carcass. At least the dog carcass might vote along lines I favor more often than Webb.
I've got a state senator who is a Korean War vet. His main claim to fame is his desire to make it impossible to buy/sell/touch/think about guns. I'll give you him and half the water treatment plant that discharges a mile upstream from the water purification plant, and two NFL draft picks. I don't want anything in return. :angel:
Being a veteran is no guarantee that the candidate will do anything that supports veterans' issues, or that the candidate is more likely than not to be either conservative or constitutionally-minded. If the VFW supports those who "think right/correctly" over veterans who do not, the the VFW has served its membership well.
I don't know because I don't know about folks outside my state. 4 out of 11 in Virginia are ones I'd suppport, and I'm more selective than most who might make it 7 out of 11.
stay safe.
* ETA comments on Va candidates endorsed.
-
You are right. Being a Veteran means only that you served. It doesn't mean you volunteered or served proudly or with Honor. A lot of Vets were drafted and are still very bitter about that fact.
-
At the end of the day, the VFW National Commander has decided that they are going to reconsider even having a PAC. It will be decided at the National Convention next August. http://www.vfw.org