http://capitolfaxcom.disqus.com/NoneenSun, 05 Nov 2006 13:33:55 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057838<p>I am a former VFW member; I joined because I am a proud vet, and I left because the right-wing pablum in every publication they mailed to me; I am a moderate, and while I know the VFW PAC does endorse intelligently (Mikulski) for vets, this kind of endorsement does not surprise me. Anyone voting on VET issues should vote Duckworth. I might point out that abortion, gun rights, gay marriage and other hot button conservative issues are not vet issues. Some vets may care about them, but they have nothing to do with the VA or proper management of the military.<br>Semper Fi,<br>Terry</p>Terry MahoneySun, 05 Nov 2006 13:33:55 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057837<p>My sense is Duckworth is gonna win this thing. I didn't think even Roskam's poor campaign could lose in this Hard R gerrymandered district.</p><p>But my sense is Tammy has the Big Mo. The energy seems to be on her side. The VFW thing has blown up in Roskam's face, and the GOP's negative attacks have gone way over the top.</p><p>Yesterday for the gotv effort, it looked like all Roskam could muster out were a handful of mostly college kids to go door to door. Then you had party chairman Andy McKenna there in a suit, doing nothing, but dropping some buzzwords that someone put in his head, like "microtargeting."</p><p>It looks like a tsunami is racing towards the GOP that will leave few survivors on Tuesday.</p>PeachySun, 05 Nov 2006 12:32:47 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057836<p>Btw, Did The GOP vets who didn't get the VFW endorsement pull this con?</p>TedbaxterSun, 05 Nov 2006 01:11:45 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057835<p>Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Nowwww I see. ???</p>TedbaxterSun, 05 Nov 2006 01:08:42 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057834<p>[Tedbaxter - Saturday, Nov 4, 06 @ 10:48 am:]</p><p><i>Ok. Roskam gets the VFW endorsement. And why is this bad for him again?</i></p><p>Because Roskam didn't serve in the military, he more than likely doesn't meet the criteria ("Must be a citizen and have been in certain combat areas. VFW Membership is available to all U.S. Citizens, <b>honorably discharged from the U.S. Armed forces who have earned an overseas campaign medal.</b>") Thus - the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Get it?</p>KittSun, 05 Nov 2006 00:44:30 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057833<p>[ Wumpus - Friday, Nov 3, 06 @ 12:33 pm]</p><p><i>Did Roskam complain when the trial lawyers backed her? Noooo, now she complains about this.</i></p><p>Is this a serious response? The VFW is an organization for veterans - Peter Roskam is not a veteran.</p><p>As a veteran and a woman, I understand the confusion on the part of the VFW. It's like they can't quite get their WW2 mindset wrapped around the fact that women served and are serving, even though women served in WW2.</p>KittSun, 05 Nov 2006 00:37:31 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057832<p>ER: And I would ask those of you who feel that a disabled war hero should win just on the basis of that over someone who did not wear the uniform, if you all voted for Bob Dole in 1996….</p><p>Did the VFW endorse Bill Clinton? We are talking about endorsements from a VETERANS organization, not votes.</p>RoverSat, 04 Nov 2006 22:14:44 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057831<p>Roskam is pro-gun</p><p>Duckworth is a gun grabber</p><p>Thus, Roskam is the better choice</p>Frosty Da SnowmanSat, 04 Nov 2006 20:01:16 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057830<p>That last post should have said "used to serve in Springfield with Roskam."</p><p>I get my personal injury lawyers mixed up at times.</p>SkeeterSat, 04 Nov 2006 19:08:00 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057829<p>TO:</p><p>At this point, it is not even clear that there is a real VFW endorsement.</p><p>All they have is the endorsement of a guy who used to serve in Springfield with Salvi. It is not at all clear that he has any sort of right to endorse anyone on behalf of the VFW.</p>SkeeterSat, 04 Nov 2006 19:06:55 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057828<p>The VFW is a cut above the American Legion and members of both organizations know that.<br>The VFW is also one of the most savvy political organizations there is.<br>If they endorsed Roskam, they know he's going to win.</p>True ObserverSat, 04 Nov 2006 18:32:06 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057827<p>To think the Duckworth people called the Cegelis people sore losers!</p>T.J.Sat, 04 Nov 2006 17:34:02 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057826<p>Please remove the last posting, I see now that it was headlined as a Roskam response. My faith in you Rich is fully restored.</p>Calling-u-outSat, 04 Nov 2006 17:09:58 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057825<p>Wow rich -- If you are going to cut and paste "facts" from an e-mail from the Roskam campaign you can at least take out the obvious "we" reference (see item #1).</p>Calling-u-outSat, 04 Nov 2006 17:07:04 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057824<p>Get ready to say hello to Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth. Peachy is 100% correct. The backlash on this will carry Major Duckworth to Washington.</p>Mike WilliamsSat, 04 Nov 2006 16:07:08 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057823<p>It's my experience that local VFW's don't get involved in endorsing political candidates--and they will tell you that right up front if you ask them for an endorsement. So then to claim outrage when the national group endorses, well, it speaks for itself. If they were that outraged, their was nothing to stop the Bloomingdale VFW from endorsing Duckworth months ago.</p>AnonSat, 04 Nov 2006 12:54:09 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057822<p>Tedbaxter, I'm sure if Roskam could find some Teamsters to complain, he would. But I don't see the Teamsters out there complaining. I do see a lot of VFW members out there, outraged they were kept out of the loop and not consulted.</p><p>Good grief, Duckwork IS A MEMBER OF THE VFW! News flash, she served in a foreign war, lost both of her legs, and nearly one arm. She sacrificed to keep America safe so spoiled suburban brats like Roskam could be free to sue people and get rich.</p><p>This is backfiring in a HUGE way on Roskam, as it should. This backroom, shady rigging up of an endorsement that he's done nothing to deserve, is a pretty good indication of the kind of guy he's been in Springfield for 15 years, and it's a good predictor of the kind of guy he would be in Congress.</p><p>Frankly, this kind of dirty, dishonest politics is hardly a surprise coming from a dog-bite attorney and a guy who used to work for Tom Delay. This kind of dishonest crap is right out of the Delay/Rove playbook.</p><p>Roskam definitely deserves to lose now. If he hangs on and wins, it has a lot more to do with the way that district's gerrymandered.</p><p>But I really think this fiasco may cost Roskam the race.</p>PeachySat, 04 Nov 2006 12:31:18 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057821<p>Ok. Maybe Peter should get some Teamsters to complain about their endorsement process. Or the Bar Assn. Wow, new political rules for the future, or left-wing bias?</p>TedbaxterSat, 04 Nov 2006 12:12:39 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057820<p>Ted:<br>It is bad because the local VFW members had no say.<br>It is bad because the only person who appeared t have any say was a guy who served in the State Senate with Roskam.<br>It was bad because the endorsement was contrary to the standard VFW endorsement criteria.<br>It is bad because it made the VFW look partisan.<br>It was bad because the person there to provide the endorsement didn't have a clue as to why the VFW was making the endorsement.</p><p>And of course it is bad because Roskam has no plan at all for Iraq and because the GOP cuts veterans benefits and fails to provide our troops with body armor, but that is another matter completely.</p>SkeeterSat, 04 Nov 2006 12:00:05 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057819<p>Ok. Roskam gets the VFW endorsement. And why is this bad for him again?</p>TedbaxterSat, 04 Nov 2006 11:48:19 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057818<p>Well said Skeeter!</p>PeachySat, 04 Nov 2006 09:20:25 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057817<p>The contrast in the respective campaigns is amazing.</p><p>While the Dems have Wes Clark and his outstanding "Because of Iraq" commercials, the GOP is bungling a VFW endorsement.</p><p>The GOP deserves to lose this one the way the campaign is being run. And then we have Charlie Johnson screwing things up downstate.</p><p>Hopefully the ILGOP will learn from this and clean house. Illinois needs two functioning parties to keep things honest. We've only got one now.</p>SkeeterSat, 04 Nov 2006 07:05:28 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057816<p>I believe a number of VFW posts throughout the Chicago area were having serious problems with declining membership eve n before this action was taken. It will be interesting to see if the outrage over this action will make that bad situation even worse, if some of the VFW members choose to leave for the American Legion or some other veterans' organization.</p><p>You have to understand that membership eligibility requirements for the VFW are tougher than those for the American Legion or other groups. To be a VFW member, a veteran has to have served overseas during a period of conflict. For example, a soldier who managed to remain stateside during the Vietnam War would be eligible for membership in the Amderican Legion and the Vietnam Veterans of America, but not the VFW. As a result, it is easier to veterans leaving the VFW for another group than it is the other way around.</p>fed up demSat, 04 Nov 2006 00:49:21 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057815<p>The VFW is supposed to endorse the candidate that will be the better advocate for vets and soldiers. Duckworth by virtue of her previous educational and work experience is the much better versed candidate on healthcare issues and because of her military experience is the much better candidate on the needs of soldiers and veterans. She's actually lived this stuff.</p><p>Peter Roskam is a lightweight. He has a long history of inconsequential "extra credit" acts like the dogtag recovery or the recycling program that while admirable on the surface reek of resume padding to bolster his credentials and advance his political career.</p>markg8Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:19:13 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/11/03/breaking/#comment-18057814<p>E.R. gets it.</p>T.J.Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:36:50 -0000