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]

Originally Posted by me3

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]

Originally Posted by me3

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.

[kylejack]

Originally Posted by skiingff

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?