Veterans have spoken and the VFW Leadership could not help but hear.
"As determined in the VFW By-Laws, as the national officers, we have specific responsibilities to take definitive action when events can have a detrimental impact on the organization. It is clear to us that the current situation now demands direct action; therefore, we are requesting the chairman and the directors of the Political Action Committee immediately rescind their endorsement actions." VFW News
While this is a "request," I cannot find the endorsement list on the VFW-PAC website, though it does still appear in links by Veterans who have rightfully spoken against the endorsements.
"VFW By-Laws stipulate that VFW leadership does not direct PAC activities and that the VFW convention is the governing body of the organization. As such, it is only the delegates at the convention that can determine the continuation of the PAC."
They request that those that care, defend the VFW and encourage participation at all levels, which will be important when it comes time to vote on removing the PAC in 2011.
I will note here, that one member and reader has suggested that we should all flock to his post to create the voting block. I cannot endorse that for a number of reasons. One is the fact that it would put many smaller posts at risk of losing their charter, which would adversely effect members and future members in smaller communities. Two is that I have no idea what happens at that post, nor can I become involved in it. It would be a matter of blind trust that Veterans in MD would do the things I endorse. No, I recommend you find a post near enough you that you can actively participate to the extent you desire. Supporting small posts is important to their survival and gives you a bigger say in their actions and direction.
To give you a little history on this, if you are just learning about it: Last week the endorsement list came to my attention by way of Jonn of This Ain't Hell. One of his readers, Bev Perlson, who is an active Supporter of Our Troops had brought it to his attention. While we joined Jonn in condemnation of the endorsements, we also argued against the burning of VFW membership cards as an appropriate response. We recognized that the list was an endorsement of incumbents(75%) over challengers (0%), rather than one party over the other. We recognized the first steps taken by the VFW Leadership. We continued our call to defend the VFW from the calls to destroy it.
This week the Burn Pit (American Legion's blog) put out a very balanced article explaining why they didn't endorse candidates in any way while carefully not telling readers whether they should vote out the PAC next year or burn their cards this year. A key point made though was that the author said he is often confronted with similiar reactions and has learned that nothing can be done to fix the anger. (I like to think this was a subtle way of agreeing with my position, even if the author doesn't know I waded in.)
As Jonn considered the situation, including his friend's article at the Burn Pit, he also decided that he would agree to maintain his voice and membership in the VFW. It is the kind of level headed decision I expect out of Jonn, so I was relieved to have a voice of reason in the debate, but not surprised that he made the decision.
In the meantime, Mr. Wolf, maintained his call for the total exodous from and financial devastation of the VFW if his demands for abdication of the leadership were not immediately followed. He followed his oft updated calls for this at Blackfive, with a hit piece at Big Peace, without reference to any voice of dissent from his dictates.
The debate also brought to my attention SFC MAC who found the endorsements as reckless as other Veterans did. I'll certainly be taking more looks over there!