VFW Threatens Me With a National Press Conference!

[skiingff]

Don't they have anything better to do - e.g., helping homeless & disabled vets!??!


Subject: Correction to your announcement on VFW endorsement
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:34:32 -0500
From: "Gerald L.. Peterson" <gpeterson@vfw.org> Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: info@militaryforpaul.com
CC: "Salvatore Capirchio" <scapirchio@vfw.org>, "Gerald L.. Peterson" <gpeterson@vfw.org>, don@ronpaul2008.com

October 31, 2007
To: militaryforpaul.com
From: Veterans of Foreign Wars-Political Action Committee

Sirs,

Please correct immediately your announcement about the “Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Endorses Ron Paul”.

Your full statement is as follows.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Endorses Ron Paul

Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) is an American veterans organization with over 2 million members. VFW works on behalf of American veterans by lobbying Congress for better veterans' health care and benefits. The VFW also maintains a nationwide organization of employees and volunteers to assist veterans with their VA disability claims and job placement.

VFW also donates hundreds of thousands of dollars and millions of hours for community service. One of their most popular programs, Operation Uplink, provides free phone cards to overseas service members.


The political action committee for VFW, VFW-PAC, has repeatedly endorsed Ron Paul throughout his congressional career.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Veterans of Foreign Wars Political Action Committee does not endorse Presidential Candidates. The VFW-PAC endorsed Ron Paul in the 2004 and 2006 Texas Congressional races. The body of your statement is correct on what the VFW organization does for Veterans. However, by your title, you are implying that the VFW is endorsing candidate Ron Paul for the 2008 Presidential election. This title is untrue and needs to be corrected immediately. If this announcement is not corrected we will have no choice but to notify our 2 million members and the national media with a press conference that this announcement is untrue, deceiving and manipulative. This would be a great disservice to Ron Paul’s campaign and we are sure that he and his staff only want to disseminate the truth. The integrity of the VFW-PAC endorsement recommendations must be maintained.


Gerald L. Peterson
VFW-PAC
200 Maryland Ave. N.E.
Washington, DC 20002
gpeterson@vfw.org
202-544-8495





My response:

Hi Gerald-

As you clearly stated, the site makes the following statement (emphasis added):
"The political action committee for VFW, VFW-PAC, has repeatedly endorsed Ron Paul throughout his congressional career."

You also stated that VFW-PAC has endorsed Ron Paul in both the 2004 and 2006 Congressional races. This statement will stand, with the following modification (emphasis added):
"The political action committee for VFW, VFW-PAC, endorsed Ron Paul in both the 2004 and 2006 Congressional races."

You are incorrect that we were trying to imply VFW endorsed Ron Paul for President. To the contrary, the text clearly read, "Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) endorses Ron Paul." We didn't state "for Congress" or "for President," we simply said you endorsed him and that's correct (as you yourself indicated). With all your fancy lawyers, I'd think you'd realize this. You have no legal basis to stand on, so your statement of facts is incorrect, and I'd like to point that out to you. Not as a response to your ludicrous claims and demands (shouldn't you guys be spending time helping Veterans instead of picking on the little guy?) - but instead because of a concern brought up by a fellow Ron Paul supporter - the site has been updated to reflect that this endorsement was indeed for Congress in 2004 and 2006, to avoid any possible ambiguity.

We, Sir, have no need to be ambiguous, as apparently (and regretfully) may be perceived by the reader of the website, because Ron Paul's record speaks for itself.

In reference to your "threats" of bringing my PAC national media attention - go ahead. I would like to make it crystal clear that we are a PAC, and in no way, shape, or form associated with the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee. To imply otherwise would be false and only make you guys look like hypocrites ("MilitaryForPaul.com can't 'deceive' [your term, not mine], but we at VFW can!").

Also, it would not do a disservice to the Ron Paul 2008 PCC or its staff, because again, we are in no way, shape, or form associated with them whatsoever. We are an independent Political Action Committee and totally separate from the campaign. The campaign has nothing to do with us.

Again, if you want to give us free publicity, be my guest. But if you mention anything about the campaign being involved, you will be proven to be hypocrites.

Respectfully,
Brandon Lloyd
Americans United for Freedom PAC

[me3]

That's a condescending response you wrote back.

I'm not sure it's WWRPD.

[American]

WOW, keep us updated with what happens with this....

[JoshLowry]

It's their brand and the endorsement statement could use some clarifying.

I would work with them instead of try to pick a fight with them.

[kylejack]

You are incorrect that we were trying to imply VFW endorsed Ron Paul for President. To the contrary, the text clearly read, "Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) endorses Ron Paul." We didn't state "for Congress" or "for President," we simply said you endorsed him and that's correct (as you yourself indicated).

VFW-PAC, not VFW. Not the same thing. VFW cannot endorse.

[skiingff]

That's a condescending response you wrote back.

I'm not sure it's WWRPD.

The problem is they're trying to bring the Campaign into this, and they know the site has nothing to do with the Campaign. I don't take kindly to that. It's one individual (me) trying to do something useful for Ron Paul, and they're going after me for wording that is factually correct.

That wordage had already been taken down when I received the e-mail, and NOT because of them. But because if there was even a 1% chance the site was being ambiguous, no one wanted to take that chance. I had already been aware of this and taken action.

Again, they're nitpicking at dumb stuff, so they get a dumb response.

[bbachtung]

I wouldn't push it with them, they've been very good to RP over the years, and he will be fighting for his political life if he loses the Republican nomination (there will likely be a well-funded, national party backed opponent of RP in the primary for his Congressional seat).

[NinjaPirate]

That's a condescending response you wrote back.

I'm not sure it's WWRPD.

I don't think so. The letter sounded like they were trying to strong arm him. If it didn't seem like VFW were bullying him, I might've supported their side.

No I won't back down, no I won't back down, you can stand me up at the gates of Hell but I won't back down. :D

[kylejack]

The problem is they're trying to bring the Campaign into this, and they know the site has nothing to do with the Campaign. I don't take kindly to that. It's one individual (me) trying to do something useful for Ron Paul, and they're going after me for wording that is factually correct.

That wordage had already been taken down when I received the e-mail, and NOT because of them. But because if there was even a 1% chance the site was being ambiguous, no one wanted to take that chance. I had already been aware of this and taken action.

Again, they're nitpicking at dumb stuff, so they get a dumb response.

VFW is prohibited from endorsing a candidate, therefore the title is wrong. VFW-PAC operates separately from VFW, even if they have similar goals.

[spiteface]

I agree with them. The headline was misleading and your response to changing it was ridiculous. If you were going to change it, why couldn't you have just done so graciously? Why is it so hard to just admit that maybe, just maybe, you could have made a mistake?

[margomaps]

Please, do not pick a fight with this group. If you perceive they are picking a fight with you, then try to be the bigger man, and use a little diplomacy.

Your response to their e-mail should be featured in "How To Make Enemies 101". This campaign needs friends, not enemies. It is my belief that you are likely doing far more harm than good by responding to them in the manner you did.

[margomaps]

I agree with them. The headline was misleading and your response to changing it was ridiculous. If you were going to change it, why couldn't you have just done so graciously? Why is it so hard to just admit that maybe, just maybe, you could have made a mistake?

Bingo.

[speciallyblend]

That's a condescending response you wrote back.

I'm not sure it's WWRPD.

better then loading your muskets and storming their offices;) (SARCASM)


well what would the founding fathers do with Ron Paul,they sure wouldnt write a letter,they would shove them to the ocean back to british. lil sarcasm there,but wouldnt it be nice

The letter was fine;)

Hold All ACCOUNTABLE,no need to back down,we have the Truth on our side.

[Quick]

So, what exactly is your goal here? To me, it looks like you are just being passive aggressive towards them and your response is nothing short of childish.

Saying that "Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Endorses Ron Paul" isn't the same as "Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Endorses Ron Paul For President" is ridiculous. What do they endorse Ron Paul for then? How about you be specific, instead of letting your readers imply that they endorse him for president, because what else would someone who is running for president be endorsed for? His

They don't support him, so take it down. Get your facts straight, and stop trying to pick fights with potential groups of Ron Paul voters.

Disgusting.

[Lord Xar]

Hey,

I would NOT get in a war of words. You must understand that it is very easy to make enemies. Those 2 million members could be a donation pool, but not only that. You want their legitimate support. IF you get an email saying "not for presidential" - you must respect it. You heard from the horses mouth. He is saying, do not put that. Perhaps you could modify your statement to read "...have endorsed Ron Paul in 2000, 2004, etc.."

I don't know. I never think its a good idea to make enemies when you don't have to.

I would write back and apologize for your tone and actually make a phone call to them and find out what is a good compromise. I would not get condescending and I DO believe you will hurt the campaign.

But please iron this out. Think of this as a business. When interacting with clients, you put on your polite game face. You make friends, and work on compromise. You don't make enemies to win a small battle. Because the war still needs to be won, and their support could be invaluable down the road.

Email him or call him, say he caught you on a bad day and you want to work out something that is beneficial and applicable to both of you. that is my opinion.

[Hurricane Bruiser]

Just because they gave a dumb response doesn't mean we should stoop to their level. You can catch more flies with honey than with a fly swatter.

[NinjaPirate]

I agree with them. The headline was misleading and your response to changing it was ridiculous. If you were going to change it, why couldn't you have just done so graciously? Why is it so hard to just admit that maybe, just maybe, you could have made a mistake?

He said that he changed the wording BEFORE they wrote him:

"That wordage had already been taken down when I received the e-mail, and NOT because of them. But because if there was even a 1% chance the site was being ambiguous, no one wanted to take that chance. I had already been aware of this and taken action."

[me3]

The problem is they're trying to bring the Campaign into this, and they know the site has nothing to do with the Campaign. I don't take kindly to that. It's one individual (me) trying to do something useful for Ron Paul, and they're going after me for wording that is factually correct.
I know that you mean well, but you can't take this stuff personally when getting into a pissing battle with a key endorser and supporter PAC of Dr. Pauls.

If you thought their email was dumb, it was a good opportunity to write back something smart. WWRPD?

[micahnelson]

Unless you want to read the head line "Ron Paul Falsely Claims Support of Veterans" You should probably address this privately and work something out.

[RPinSEAZ]

My response:

Hi Gerald-

As you clearly stated, the site makes the following statement (emphasis added):
"The political action committee for VFW, VFW-PAC, has repeatedly endorsed Ron Paul throughout his congressional career."

You also stated that VFW-PAC has endorsed Ron Paul in both the 2004 and 2006 Congressional races. This statement will stand, with the following modification (emphasis added):
"The political action committee for VFW, VFW-PAC, endorsed Ron Paul in both the 2004 and 2006 Congressional races."

You are incorrect that we were trying to imply VFW endorsed Ron Paul for President. To the contrary, the text clearly read, "Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) endorses Ron Paul." We didn't state "for Congress" or "for President," we simply said you endorsed him and that's correct (as you yourself indicated). With all your fancy lawyers, I'd think you'd realize this. You have no legal basis to stand on, so your statement of facts is incorrect, and I'd like to point that out to you. Not as a response to your ludicrous claims and demands (shouldn't you guys be spending time helping Veterans instead of picking on the little guy?) - but instead because of a concern brought up by a fellow Ron Paul supporter - the site has been updated to reflect that this endorsement was indeed for Congress in 2004 and 2006, to avoid any possible ambiguity.

We, Sir, have no need to be ambiguous, as apparently (and regretfully) may be perceived by the reader of the website, because Ron Paul's record speaks for itself.

In reference to your "threats" of bringing my PAC national media attention - go ahead. I would like to make it crystal clear that we are a PAC, and in no way, shape, or form associated with the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee. To imply otherwise would be false and only make you guys look like hypocrites ("MilitaryForPaul.com can't 'deceive' [your term, not mine], but we at VFW can!").

Also, it would not do a disservice to the Ron Paul 2008 PCC or its staff, because again, we are in no way, shape, or form associated with them whatsoever. We are an independent Political Action Committee and totally separate from the campaign. The campaign has nothing to do with us.

Again, if you want to give us free publicity, be my guest. But if you mention anything about the campaign being involved, you will be proven to be hypocrites.

Respectfully,
Brandon Lloyd
Americans United for Freedom PAC

IMO, your response was disrespectful, provocative and not altogether truthful. "Endorses" and "Endorsed" clearly have two different meanings. If you wanted to be straightforward, your title would have said "VFW-PAC endorsed Ron Paul". Otherwise, the wording is dishonest.

[NinjaPirate]

Just because they gave a dumb response doesn't mean we should stoop to their level. You can catch more flies with honey than with a fly swatter.

vinegar...

[kylejack]

He said that he changed the wording BEFORE they wrote him:

"That wordage had already been taken down when I received the e-mail, and NOT because of them. But because if there was even a 1% chance the site was being ambiguous, no one wanted to take that chance. I had already been aware of this and taken action."

The title is still wrong.

http://militaryforpaul.com/vfw.html

For the record, though, I am amused that they threatened to hold a press conference.

[me3]

Hold All ACCOUNTABLE,no need to back down,we have the Truth on our side.
It's arrogant to think that it's okay to steamroll Dr. Paul supporters. The attack mentality around here is counter-productive. We're talking about 2 million potential (and likely) Ron Paul voters.


Disgusting.
And that is a condescending remark back at the OP. How about taking the high ground? WWRPD?

[speciallyblend]

ooo brother here we go on the whos right ,what if crap again .

LOOK the response was just fine and it put them back where they should be.

[kylejack]

ooo brother here we go on the whos right ,what if crap again .

LOOK the response was just fine and it put them back where they should be.
VFW did not endorse Ron Paul ever, so the title is wrong. VFW-PAC did endorse him, for 04 and 06.

[speciallyblend]

let them have a national press conference,would be great for Ron Paul and many veterans do support ron paul, BRING IT ON

[me3]

ooo brother here we go on the whos right ,what if crap again .

LOOK the response was just fine and it put them back where they should be.
2 million potential Ron Paul voters, and it's ok to push them back?

Is that what you are saying? It's a good idea to fight and argue with one of the biggest support groups Dr. Paul has?

[rs3515]

Wow, something needs to be done about this. The VFW has been extremely supportive of Ron Paul for many years and several major campaigns. They also have significant influence in Washington.

For us to lose the trust and respect of thousands of VFW members because of one person's righteous attitude is disastrous.

I first read the press release on militaryforronpaul.com several days ago and thought it was *extremely* misleading. TAKE DOWN THIS ENDORSEMENT NOW.

[me3]

let them have a national press conference,would be great for Ron Paul and many veterans do support ron paul, BRING IT ON
You just earned my ignore list.

[micahnelson]

let them have a national press conference,would be great for Ron Paul and many veterans do support ron paul, BRING IT ON

We have passed the point where any attention is good attention. The headline on the site looks fine now, so I think it should be settled.

There is no need to be antagonistic or so defensive. If they endorsed him for congress that means they are friendly to us, lets not burn bridges by putting words in their mouths.

The corrected headline is much better.

[speciallyblend]

If anyone here thinks they can do better ,THEN MAKE YOUR OWN PAC and back off,it will be fixed im sure,but if they want to threaten which they did.Then lets have the news conference so it can be settled, many veterans support ron Paul and there will be many in the organization that will support us,bring the media attention on,it can only help.

It's pretty petty of the vfw and it will blowback in favor of us in their own ranks ,bring it on

[kylejack]

The corrected headline is much better.
And by better you mean....still patently false?

[rs3515]

let them have a national press conference,would be great for Ron Paul and many veterans do support ron paul, BRING IT ON

If you think this offers Ron Paul any benefit, you're ignorant. I've been posting on here and DailyPaul.com for the past two days that this release is misleading. * REMOVE IT NOW *

[NinjaPirate]

2 million potential Ron Paul voters, and it's ok to push them back?

Is that what you are saying? It's a good idea to fight and argue with one of the biggest support groups Dr. Paul has?

Are you saying that he should just lay down and take that threat?

Okay, his wordage was wrong, and should change it, but for them to threaten to go public with this is just going overboard. THEY could have been more diplomatic about this instead of threatening to push "The button."

[kylejack]

If anyone here thinks they can do better ,THEN MAKE YOUR OWN PAC and back off,it will be fixed im sure,but if they want to threaten which they did.Then lets have the news conference so it can be settled, many veterans support ron Paul and there will be many in the organization that will support us,bring the media attention on,it can only help.

It's pretty petty of the vfw and it will blowback in favor of us in their own ranks ,bring it on
You're fucking with their tax exempt status. VFW is prohibited by law from endorsing a candidate, and you are muddying the issue by leaving it up without correcting it. Why can't you just correct the FACTUAL INNACURACY in the headline?

[speciallyblend]

It's one guy trying to be a lil power baby in the vfw,if the pac did endorse Ron Paul,then im sure many members are as well ,let them deal with it internally ,then we can bring it to the media ,most members of the veterans will support Ron Paul,this guy seems to be a lil power broker baby trying to silence the best message in america he is probably a rudybot.
MAKE YOUR OWN PAC, I'm sure our Pac will make what changes need to be ,but there is no reason to run like a dog because this lil power hungy twerp wants to flex his rudybot muscles.

[NinjaPirate]

let them have a national press conference,would be great for Ron Paul and many veterans do support ron paul, BRING IT ON

Calm down, Killer.

[rs3515]

Geez! How hard is it to either (A) remove the press release that was stupid in the first place, or (B) clearly state in the headline "VFW-PAC" and not "VFW". The VFW does not support him, it is the PAC!!

[OceanMachine7]

I would take it down and then ask what it would take to secure VFW-PAC's endorsement of Paul for the current Republican primary.

[JoshLowry]

The problem is they're trying to bring the Campaign into this, and they know the site has nothing to do with the Campaign. I don't take kindly to that. It's one individual (me) trying to do something useful for Ron Paul, and they're going after me for wording that is factually correct.

That wordage had already been taken down when I received the e-mail, and NOT because of them. But because if there was even a 1% chance the site was being ambiguous, no one wanted to take that chance. I had already been aware of this and taken action.

Again, they're nitpicking at dumb stuff, so they get a dumb response.

Well all the wording has been corrected now and it is pretty clear as to what you mean.

The only thing I would change is add PAC to then end as they are seperate entities.

[speciallyblend]

It;s not my pac i was saying our as in grassroots,if you dont like what they are doing im saying stop bitchin and make YOUR OWN PAC

[kylejack]

Well all the wording has been corrected now and it is pretty clear as to what you mean.

Thanks!

The wording of the headline is still patently false.

[UtahApocalypse]

This could outright kill MILLIONS in support for Ron Paul, Please do NOT mess this up.

[RPinSEAZ]

Are you saying that he should just lay down and take that threat?

Okay, his wordage was wrong, and should change it, but for them to threaten to go public with this is just going overboard. THEY could have been more diplomatic about this instead of threatening to push "The button."

What rational people do is call and work out a title that is acceptable to all and still expresses the support that VFW has publicly given Paul in the past. Refusal to work for the best end result makes me believe that militaryforpaul.com is more interested in getting publicity for the PAC rather than raising support for their supported candidate.

[skiingff]

Well, it's settled now. It stands corrected.

"Grona said Paul has been endorsed by the VFW in his congressional races in part because of his support for veterans' benefits."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5223477.html

That's my source.

[rs3515]

It's one guy trying to be a lil power baby in the vfw,if the pac did endorse Ron Paul,then im sure many memebers are as well ,let them deal with it internally

One guy trying to be a lil power baby? Come on ... you don't realize you and the guy who made the disrespectful reply to the VFW are doing the same thing?

[me3]

Are you saying that he should just lay down and take that threat?
WWRPD?

[speciallyblend]

the vfw letter was written by a sorry lil power hungry twerp,who purposely threatened skiingff/pac.

you guys attacking or bashing,when she was dealing with it,would of made great british agents in the revolution back in the day it seems.

[aksmith]

It's one guy trying to be a lil power baby in the vfw,if the pac did endorse Ron Paul,then im sure many members are as well ,let them deal with it internally ,then we can bring it to the media ,most members of the veterans will support Ron Paul,this guy seems to be a lil power broker baby trying to silence the best message in america he is probably a rudybot.
MAKE YOUR OWN PAC, I'm sure our Pac will make what changes need to be ,but there is no reason to run like a dog because this lil power hungy twerp wants to flex his rudybot muscles.

I have to assume at this point that both you and the guy who originally posted the misleading Heading are working for another campaign. Shame on you for being blind to how much this could hurt the campaign. Want a veterans organization to hold a press conference calling Dr. Paul a liar? Yeah, that would be just great. Or, if your intention was to hurt the campaign, as I suspect, then well done, Mr. Guiliani.

Never let it be said that all Ron Paul supporters are smart.

[rdenner]

That's all I can think to say to you sir.. YOU ARE A FREAKING ASS HAT..

Why the fuck would you pick a fight with these guys. Jesus are you fucking brain dead...

Here is a letter I just fired off to the man you just freaking insulted..

I SUGGEST others do the same

I am just a lowly supporter of Dr Ron Paul. I became aware of a war of words between yourselves and the above Ron Paul support group. We are currently admonishing this individual for being such a childish FOOL. HE DOES NOT SPEAK for the majority nor even a small minority of Ron Paul supporters.

I for one think your response was both valid and reasonable. HE DID make it seem like you had endorsed Dr Ron Paul for President, no matter what his childish responses say.

PLEASE don't hang Dr Ron Paul on this issue. This guy, though a very good Ron Paul supporter, BY NO MEANS speaks for the National Campaign and he MOST CERTAINLY doesn't speak for us Ron Paul supporters.

I can only say that I sincerely apologize for this persons ridiculous and childish behavior.



Corporate LAN Team
Global Information Technology Group

[evadmurd]

Most of the time it isn't what you say it is how you say it. IMHO, the way it was done was disrespectful and unnecessary, albeit, I'm sure you got your point across. Unfortuantely you have nothing to stand on if they "go negative" with it. HOPEFULLY they do know the difference between you and the RP campaign (who would never respond in such a fashion)

[NinjaPirate]

What rational people do is call and work out a title that is acceptable to all and still expresses the support that VFW has publicly given Paul in the past. Refusal to work for the best end result makes me believe that militaryforpaul.com is more interested in getting publicity for the PAC rather than raising support for their supported candidate.

Or maybe the guy who wrote it is just on a power trip. He shouldn't talk to someone like that. It's disrespectful. If VFW has a problem with it, then they sent him an e-mail with a little more tact, and sort it civilly.

[rs3515]

Well, it's settled now. It stands corrected.

"Grona said Paul has been endorsed by the VFW in his congressional races in part because of his support for veterans' benefits."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5223477.html

That's my source.

I think we're missing a key point here. Whether we like it or not, this campaign and all its supporters are going to be held to a higher standard than the Houston Chronicle or anyone else. We are not going to have the benefit of the doubt. We need to be using some common sense with things like this especially when titles are blatantly false.

I could also mention the Chronicle article makes passing mention of an endorsement nearly 3/4ths through the text. It is not in flashing neon on the title.

[kylejack]

That's all I can think to say to you sir.. YOU ARE A FREAKING ASS HAT..

Why the fuck would you pick a fight with these guys. Jesus are you fucking brain dead...

Here is a letter I just fired off to the man you just freaking insulted..

I SUGGEST others do the same

I am just a lowly supporter of Dr Ron Paul. I became aware of a war of words between yourselves and the above Ron Paul support group. We are currently admonishing this individual for being such a childish FOOL. HE DOES NOT SPEAK for the majority nor even a small minority of Ron Paul supporters.

I for one think your response was both valid and reasonable. HE DID make it seem like you had endorsed Dr Ron Paul for President, no matter what his childish responses say.

PLEASE don't hang Dr Ron Paul on this issue. This guy, though a very good Ron Paul supporter, BY NO MEANS speaks for the National Campaign and he MOST CERTAINLY doesn't speak for us Ron Paul supporters.

I can only say that I sincerely apologize for this persons ridiculous and childish behavior.



Corporate LAN Team
Global Information Technology Group
Good stuff.

[me3]

It's completely ignorant to attack or alienate a group of Ron Paul supporters and potential voters. With a membership of 2 million, that could mean as many as 250,000 primary votes for Dr. Paul.

WWRPD?

[James R]

"Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Endorses Ron Paul"

"The political action committee for VFW, VFW-PAC, endorsed Ron Paul in both the 2004 and 2006 Congressional races."


skiingff, with all due respect the VFW has a good point when they say they do not endorse presidential candidates. Gerald is right to be upset about your quote, and it would be very bad if they sent millions of subscribers a letter saying that they do not endorse Ron Paul. Consider saying that "The VFW endorsed Ron Paul in 2004 and again in 2006 as a congressman." That would be a fact, it may actually be MORE effective than simply saying he has their endorsement. Furthermore, it would likely not be objectionable to the VFW. Also, the Ronald Reagan military quote is even better than the VFW endorsement, so you can use that instead. I recommend sending another letter of apology for using strong language "you and your fancy lawyers" and inquire about saying "The VFW endorsed Ron Paul in 2004 and again in 2006 as a congressman."

[speciallyblend]

let me laydown and bow to the lil power trip and just swallow this assholes letter sorry thats not me. but im just commenting.
I thought the letter was fine,you dont ,gotta love america,
I would say your lucky you didnt write letter like that to me,I would of had more to say then that letter..

i read both letters ,his response was reasonable and direct ,YES DIRECT.

[RP4ME]

lets choose our battles wisely. Ask yourself is being right more imp. than helping Paul get elected. I dont blame you fo rbeing upset but this could backfire badly on Ron.

[NinjaPirate]

WWRPD?

Not just lay down and take a threat. Heh.

I'm not encouraging that he should pick a fight, but to just state that he shouldn't be talked to like that. It was unecessary on VFW's part.

[kylejack]

From: "Gerald L.. Peterson" <gpeterson@vfw.org> Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: info@militaryforpaul.com
CC: "Salvatore Capirchio" <scapirchio@vfw.org>, "Gerald L.. Peterson" <gpeterson@vfw.org>, don@ronpaul2008.com

They CC'd Don. Just fix it. Don has been very helpful here in the forums, and we're lucky to have him.

[speciallyblend]

aks get a life ,i think your the troll

EVERYONE has a opinion,and personally you have an opinion i dont agree with. THATS LIFE DEAL with it

[me3]

Not just lay down and take a threat. Heh.

I'm not encouraging that he should pick a fight, but to just state that he shouldn't be talked to like that. It was unecessary on VFW's part.
You didn't answer WWRPD. You only wrote what he wouldn't do.

How would he resolve this?

[TVMH]

I agree with them. The headline was misleading and your response to changing it was ridiculous. If you were going to change it, why couldn't you have just done so graciously? Why is it so hard to just admit that maybe, just maybe, you could have made a mistake?

I concur. The effort is well-intentioned, but the title IS misleading since the present-tense was used.

This is a good reminder to all of us...whenever we make a statement, that statement must be factually correct.

The Gerald-guy is correct...you need to change the wording to past-tense if you want to keep the post alive.

You might think about apologizing to him, also...we need to play nice with others. :D

[WillInMiami]

You should have agreed to comply immediately. The last thing in the world that Ron Paul needs is for the American people to believe that Ron Paul or his campaign has told a lie. Although you are not part of the official campaign, engaging in dishonest tactics will be associated to him and it will hurt his bid for the nomination.

It was unwise and careless of you to send the reply you sent them. You should send them another reply retracting the first and stating that you will comply immediately with their request.

[Nickel]

the vfw letter was written by a sorry lil power hungry twerp,who purposely threatened skiingff/pac.

you guys attacking or bashing,when she was dealing with it,would of made great british agents in the revolution back in the day it seems.

Wow... you are way off base!

Even if the email was "written by a sorry lil power hungry twerp" why not call or email for clarification first? It wouldn't have been that difficult, now you guys have twice the work to do... unless you comfortable with side-tracking the campaign by having to comment on this.

I say this partly in jest and partly in seriousness, "Is that you Rudy?"

[speciallyblend]

Not just lay down and take a threat. Heh.

I'm not encouraging that he should pick a fight, but to just state that he shouldn't be talked to like that. It was unecessary on VFW's part.

ENUFF SAID YOU SAID IT ALL,

[rs3515]

They CC'd Don. Just fix it. Don has been very helpful here in the forums, and we're lucky to have him.

Absolutely I was just going to say the same thing. I noticed they CCed the national campaign. I'd highly suggest it is fixed, or better yet removed, as soon as possible.

[Hurricane Bruiser]

To: Gerald L. Peterson

I am writing to apologize on behalf of the many Ron Paul supporters who appreciate what VFW does and very much dislike the rude response that you received from info@militaryforpaul.com when you asked him to retract what had been written. I, nor anyone else that I have been talking with want to misrepresent anything and the response you received was rude in my opinion. Please do not let this one person's rudeness affect your view of Congressman Ron Paul. We try to police our own and tell people to be nice but it doesn't always work.

I have been a donor to VFW in the past and greatly appreciate what you do.

Sincerely,

Victor Zill

[speciallyblend]

Wow... you are way off base!

Even if the email was "written by a sorry lil power hungry twerp" why not call or email for clarification first? It wouldn't have been that difficult, now you you guys have twice the work to do... unless you comfortable with side-tracking the campaign by having to comment on this.

I say this partly in jest and partly in seriousness, "Is that you Rudy?"

WHY NOT THE LIL TWERP call the pac before making a threating letter and bringing it to the national press thats the F_____ POINT get real
***************************
EXACTLY SKIING WAS never contacted at all,just got this letter. so backoff or start your OWN PAC

[rs3515]

I'm amazed, I've been writing posts for 2 days saying this thing needed to be removed from both here and DailyPaul.com ... ugh.

[NinjaPirate]

You didn't answer WWRPD. You only wrote what he wouldn't do.

How would he resolve this?

RP would've stood up for himself, and would have worked with them. Which I agree. What irks me is how VFW threatened to take this public, which is unecessary.

[kylejack]

WHY NOT THE LIL TWERP call the pac before making a threating letter and bringing it to the national press that the F_____ POINT get real

EXACTLY SKIING WAS never contacted at all,just got this letter. so backoff or start your OWN PAC

This...IS contact. They have not contacted the press. They've just advised that they might have to, to protect their tax exempt status if he doesn't change it.

[skiingff]

Thanks for all your input.

Again, the wording was made more concise before I was contacted by the VFW.

As for the tone of my message, they know it's my personal opinion and not representative of anyone else.

I posted here to get your opinions on this issue, and I thank you for them. I will personally contact the VFW to word this correctly.

I owe that to Ron Paul.

Sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong; and I thought I presented a logical argument here, but that's why I brought it up.

Thanks for helping me reach a decision on what action to take from here!

Please do not respond to this thread any further, I will take this issue up with the VFW and work out a solution that is acceptable to them.

[ConstitutionGal]

To post something that seems intentinally misleading in order to garner attention to ANYTHING is, IMHO, immoral. When I first saw the headline, I immediatly thought "awesome". Then, when I actually read the article, I was incensed at having been misled.

This is NOT going to do the campaign any good whatsoever. Does the term 'blowback' ring any bells with you?

[aksmith]

aks get a life ,i think your the troll

EVERYONE has a opinion,and personally you have an opinion i dont agree with. THATS LIFE DEAL with it

Yeah, but my opinion is that I don't speak for anyone but myself. What this thread has done is to make someone not affiliated with the campaign a spokesman for the campaign. And one who could do serious damage.

I think you should go punch your boss in the balls. You disagree? Well, everyone has an opinion. Deal with it. How about I go punch your boss in the balls and intimate that it came from you? Two very different things. And it's amazing you don't see the difference.

[speciallyblend]

To: Gerald L. Peterson

I am writing to apologize on behalf of the many Ron Paul supporters who appreciate what VFW does and very much dislike the rude response that you received from info@militaryforpaul.com when you asked him to retract what had been written. I, nor anyone else that I have been talking with want to misrepresent anything and the response you received was rude in my opinion. Please do not let this one person's rudeness affect your view of Congressman Ron Paul. We try to police our own and tell people to be nice but it doesn't always work.

I have been a donor to VFW in the past and greatly appreciate what you do.

Sincerely,

Victor Zill

suck up,why dont you write a letter about there rude first letter,it all could of been solved by a simple phone call ,yet he chose to threatin her, geez you guys attack the Ron paul supporter instead of defending her,since all they had to do is pick a phone up,instead they chose to send a rude letter threating her. ooo brother

[me3]

Understand that the campaign proper would probably have to distance itself from this PAC if it wants the VFW PACs support. Blowing it up like this is a lose, lose situation for the campaign, and the RP friendly PACs.

[aksmith]

Thanks for all your input.

Again, the wording was made more concise before I was contacted by the VFW.

As for the tone of my message, they know it's my personal opinion and not representative of anyone else.

I posted here to get your opinions on this issue, and I thank you for them. I will personally contact the VFW to word this correctly.

I owe that to Ron Paul.

Sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong; and I thought I presented a logical argument here, but that's why I brought it up.

Thanks for helping me reach a decision on what action to take from here!

Please do not respond to this thread any further, I will take this issue up with the VFW and work out a solution that is acceptable to them.

Thank you.

[Nickel]

WHY NOT THE LIL TWERP call the pac before making a threating letter and bringing it to the national press thats the F_____ POINT get real
***************************
EXACTLY SKIING WAS never contacted at all,just got this letter. so backoff or start your OWN PAC


I think the point is if whomever can't run this PAC properly, maybe they shouldn't run it at all.

Just fix the mistake before you get in over your head. :rolleyes:

[kylejack]

suck up,why dont you write a letter about there rude first letter,it all could of been solved by a simple phone call ,yet he chose to threatin her, geez you guys attack the Ron paul supporter instead of defending her,since all they had to do is pick a phone up,instead they chose to send a rude letter threating her. ooo brother
"Email us info@militaryforpaul.com with questions, comments or suggestions."

No phone number is provided on the website.

[James R]

To: Gerald L. Peterson

I am writing to apologize on behalf of the many Ron Paul supporters who appreciate what VFW does and very much dislike the rude response that you received from info@militaryforpaul.com when you asked him to retract what had been written. I, nor anyone else that I have been talking with want to misrepresent anything and the response you received was rude in my opinion. Please do not let this one person's rudeness affect your view of Congressman Ron Paul. We try to police our own and tell people to be nice but it doesn't always work.

I have been a donor to VFW in the past and greatly appreciate what you do.

Sincerely,

Victor Zill

Hurricane Bruiser, please add my name, James Reiher, to your letter. State that I'm trying to get them to simply say "In 2004 and 2006 the VFW endorsed him for congress." or use another quote.