Update: Response from Obama campaign official/PAC President
Some of you may remember this post wherein I discussed how Col. Richard Klass serves as both the President of The Council for a Livable World’s Veterans Alliance for Security and Democracy (CLW-VETPAC ) and as the Co-chair of Vets for Obama.
I followed up that post with this one which noted that despite being officials within the Obama campaign, both he and the VetPac vice-president produced a video that stated that they were not affiliated with any candidate or party.
So I wrote to Col Klass:
Your video claims that your group “is not affiliated with any candidate or party”. And yet you are the Co-chair of vets for Obama, and your vice president is a democratic delegate for Obama. Would you care to explain the seeming discrepancy for attribution on my blog?
Last night Col Klass responded, and in toto it reads:
Thanks for your interest in CLW-VETPAC.
First, the video was produced at no cost to CLW-VETPAC and was put on the net so that those who wanted to could pay for it to be shown on television with their name as responsible Second, like all Political Action Committees (PAC) we are in the business of supporting candidates who share our views. Our primary focus is progressive veterans but we also endorse against those who we deem anti-veteran. We endorsed Senator Obama for president in some part because of Sen. McCain’s shameful record in this regard. In addition to the items mentioned in the video, Sen. McCain has received a “D” grade from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America while Sen. Obama received a “B”. Sen. McCain has supported Disabled American Veterans legislative priorities 20% of the time, Sen. Obama 80%.
All of our Board members are free to endorse any candidate they want as individuals.
Now, I hope by now you know how I feel about these assinine and inaccurate scorecards. But that isn’t the BEST thing about his response. Here is the last 3 sentences thereof:
Yes, I am a volunteer for the Obama campaign as is Ms. Walker. But the organization has no ties to the campaign or to any candidate beyond endorsing and, in some cases, financially supporting them. That is what PACs do.
Someone please explain how those first two sentences can logically follow with each other. No ties to the campaign, except the people who are running the PAC are also on the campaign?
Category: Politics
I’ll explain how this is logical, it’s because….ummm, no wait, it’s because….no nevermind. I don’t understand.
Holy crap!
I need windshield wipers for my computer monitor because I was laughing so hard I sprayed soda all over it.
Orwell couldn’t manage doublespeak that brilliant.
Um, it’s not, of course. This idiot was a Colonel? This idiot must have been taking lessons from BillyJeff, on the meaning of IS. If one volunteers for Obama then one is tied to it, whether directly or not…just to calrify for the Colonel.
I can explain it — some lawyer wrote it.
When everything is “equally good”, nothing is too stupid that you can’t say it.
Ten years ago, I used to say a little shame would go a long way. Now a little drop will do ya’.
As long as you can utter something, the game is still on. Wouldn’t want to be judgemental now and evaluate someone’s dumb ass reply.
The only way you win today is if you shock your opponen into silence.
We have been reprogramed. Where it used to be people who did bad things were punished, now it’s anyone who makes the group feel uneasy is punished.
“This idiot was a Colonel?”
So was Mary Ann Wright, and the Abu Ghraib clown was a Brigadier.
You’re not alone in wondering what happened.
I don’t think it’s constructive for people who support Veterans to degrade other veterans. This gentleman, Col. Klass, was not degrading McCain as a veteran but just said that he has a shotty record on veterans issues. I am still undecided but as a veteran supporter with veteran family members, scorecards from the Disabled American Veterans and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans against the war do give me pause for concern.
I see no reason for veteran support groups like above to lie, and, even if they wanted to, the legislative facts are the facts. Why did McCain not support the new GI bill? He was only one of two Senators that didn’t show up to vote! And the other one was for health reasons (Kennedy). I know McCain was a veteran, and I know we all consider him a hero to the Armed Forces and a hero to the American people, but I want to know who has been a greater supporter for veterans issues? Show me the facts.
TSO: Fe Fi Fo Fum, methinks I smell a troll dum-dum.
On the off chance this is a geniune statement, read EVERYTHING I wrote before it. Look at the votes from the IAVA scorecard, and then look them up. They aren’t what they say they are. McCain didn’t support the GI Bill because the Pentagon and the CBO stated it would hurt retention. Contrary to what IAVA and other say, recruitment and retention are different. We don’t need more privates, we need more NCOs, and you can’t call a trade of one for one as a wash. And if you want facts, you need to look for yourself. We’re in the middle of the silly season, and if you buy shit that either side is pumping out, then you need help.
If a democracy is predicated on a well informed electorate, we are verging into very dangerous ground, because most voters are anything but well-informed.