Political Endorsements
|
|
| Also listed in: Veterans for Progress |
While perusing the 'Around Colorado' section of this webpage this morning I noticed an article in Colorado Pols regarding the endorsement of a local candidate for Congress by a veterans group I was not familiar with. I actually clicked on the link and read the post and the related 19 comments and was surprised to learn that as an active vet with the VVAW, life time member of the DAV, a 100 percent disabled Vietnam Vet there were two veterans organizations out there with the same initials I'd never even heard of. Not surprising... even in the 'Band of Brothers' some brothers are more equal than others when in comes to their own 'country club' organizations. It seems one of these organizations endorsed a candidate who creditials as a veteran doesn't exist.
It has been my experience that vet's organizations endorse candidates who are veterans themselves, for better or for worse, so imagine my surprise when I went to the endorsed candidate's website to find the statement that both his parents were war protestors...not usually a glowing remark that brings out the VFW, American Legion, of Disabled Veterans of America in force to support someone. The point here is that candidates endorsed by organizations who are not widely known, exclusive, or have a broad and active membership base take a chance on shooting themselves in the foot with their constituency, particularly if, as in the case of the 'Swift Boat Veterans' the foundations of the organization could be viewed self-serving and open to exploitation by opponents in the heat of an election. Some of us are interested in this kind of politics... some of us are REALLY turned off by it.
It has been my experience that vet's organizations endorse candidates who are veterans themselves, for better or for worse, so imagine my surprise when I went to the endorsed candidate's website to find the statement that both his parents were war protestors...not usually a glowing remark that brings out the VFW, American Legion, of Disabled Veterans of America in force to support someone. The point here is that candidates endorsed by organizations who are not widely known, exclusive, or have a broad and active membership base take a chance on shooting themselves in the foot with their constituency, particularly if, as in the case of the 'Swift Boat Veterans' the foundations of the organization could be viewed self-serving and open to exploitation by opponents in the heat of an election. Some of us are interested in this kind of politics... some of us are REALLY turned off by it.
Too often these new groups are wannabes holding only the word veterans in their title with little or no actions or accomplishments. My favorite is the "Vets Vision" organization that popped-up in 2006 as a supporter of Marilyn Musgrave.
When challenged on the basis of their endorsement, Vets Vision could only offer her supportive reponses to a survey of members of Congress. They made no consideration of actual votes in Congress. Vets Vision was clearly following an agenda to bolster Musgrave's candidacy. It's unproven if they ever have, or are capable of accomplishing anything positive for veterans.
I'm very familiar with the low credibility of a self-titled organization claiming to represent the interests of a particular group of citizens. Especially when those being represented have no contact or consent to that relationship. The real test is does that organization actual have a declared volunteer membership or better yet, a dues paid membership. Against either of these measurements I suspect that just like Vets Vision, these two new group fall short.