Whenever you see the political ads that say that "police, firefighters, teachers and super-heroes all endorse so and so or measure such and such a ballot measure", what they really mean is that their unions endorse so and so or such and such a ballot measure. That is especially true when you see an ad referring to police endorsing a liberal candidate since most police tend to be conservative. Such an endorsement has now reared its ugly head in California's senatorial race, where the Veterans of Foreign Wars-PAC has endorsed Barbara Boxer of all people.
And why is it surprising that this group is endorsing Boxer? It is stunning since Boxer voted to withhold supplies to the soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan because "there was no clear exit strategy." She is also the one who publicly upbraided a general testifying before her committee for addressing her as "Ma'am instead of "Senator". Boxer, a far-left liberal, has never been known as a friend of the military.
VFW-PAC's critics maintain that this is typical of the group, which is known for endorsing incumbents, no matter who they may be. This endorsement is downright embarrasing.
That's true of all endoresment, by all organizations, of any stripe. When a candidate in the Republican primary announces that they have the endorsement of the Republican Central Committee, it means about as much.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why candidates bother to solicit these endorsements, since only those already committed to the candidate pay much attention. I suppose it sounds good in the TV ads that voters have also stopped paying attention to in large numbers.