Moran’s military woes continue

UPDATE: Military Families United slams Jim Moran:

“I am calling on Virginia’s 8th District to vote out an irresponsible congressman, Jim Moran. By suggesting that military service is not “public service” Moran shows a blatant disrespect for all men and women who wear the uniform in defense of our nation,” said Jackson. “As a Navy Veteran, I am humbled by Col. Murray’s 24-year record of public service to our nation. The people of Virginia deserve a better representative than a Congressman with such blatant disrespect for military service. Congressman Moran should be ashamed, and should be held accountable by the voters on Election Day. This election presents a clear choice between a man who has served his nation with honor and dignity, and a man who instead lobs cowardly insults at those who dedicate themselves to defending this nation. Colonel Murray stands for integrity, sacrifice, and noble service, whereas Congressman Moran stands for himself and politics as usual. I urge voters to take advantage of the opportunity to replace a coward with a hero.”

See the full statement here.

UPDATE: Republican Party of Virginia releases new web ad:

UPDATE: See this video of the veterans press conference today on Moran’s comments:

Fallout from Jim Moran’s comments that his opponent hasn’t “performed any kind of public service” despite his 24 years of service in the U.S. Army is continuing into the final home stretch before the election.

This morning on WTOP Radio, Moran said his remarks were, of course, “taken out of context”.  Moran’s campaign has accused us of distortion, but his words speak for themselves.

His excuse wasn’t good enough as Moran was condemned by two military advocacy groups, the Move America Forward PAC and Combat Veterans for Congress.

MAF PAC said, “The statement shocked and offended millions of veterans around the country as well as patriots who all agree that military service is a more pure and essential public service than being a politician.”

Combat Veterans for Congress said, “We will not sit idly by as Patrick Murray’s 24-year record of honorable public service is dismissed…The American people should retire an irresponsible Congressmen like Jim Moran who has has no regard for military service. He has no right to dismiss Col Patrick Murray’s, service to his country as insignificant. As Veterans of every major conflict, we demand a public apology from Rep. Jim Moran.”

Moran’s outrageous comments aren’t his only military-related problem.

Moran claims on campaign literature (see the scan here) to have been endorsed by the Military Officers Association of America. The only problem is that he wasn’t.

As the Washington Examiner reports, on October 11th, MOAA’s general counsel, Major General Joseph Lynch (USAF-Ret.) sent a letter to Moran asking him to stop claiming endorsements from them:

As a not-for-profit organization governed by the Internal Revenue Code, the Military Officers Association of America is barred by law from participating or intervening, either directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for elective public office.

MOAA did recognize Rep. Moran in 1999 with our Arthur T. Marix Congressional Leadership Award. But the campaign flyer implies a more recent and more explicit MOAA rating/endorsement in connection with this campaign that did not occur.

Moran also claims an endorsement from the Disabled American Veterans Association which he also didn’t receive (see this Murray for Congress video).
Now, he is touting an endorsement from the Veterans of Foreign Wars PAC: “I am proud to receive the endorsement of the VFW PAC and thank the committee for their hard work and advocacy on behalf of its 2.1 million members of the VFW, its auxiliaries and their families.”
Only problem is, VFW PAC is a rogue group over which VFW has no control. contacted VFW, urging them to drop what we thought was their endorsement of Moran in light of his comments. VFW responded with this:

VFW-PAC was formed in 1979 by the delegates of the VFW 80thNational Convention as a committee that would operate as a “separate and non-partisan organization charged with the single task of working in Congress to support candidates who have taken responsible positions on issues involving national defense and legislation pertaining to the nation’s veterans”.

On September 24, 2010 VFW-PAC released its list of endorsed candidates, immediately igniting controversy over many of its choices.

VFW’s initial response dated October 82010 stated the national line officers of Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) are at odds with the VFW Political Action Committee (PAC), calling the methodology process used by the PAC “seriously flawed at best this year and in immediate need of extensive review” further stating, “Obviously, an organization’s political positions have to reflect the opinions of its members. But those opinions can’t be perceived as ‘off the wall,’ and the methodology used this year to grade candidates obviously is skewed in favor of the incumbent.  That isn’t fair, and it actually subverts the democratic process.”  It was at this time VFW line officers had decided to bring the question of continued existence of the PAC to the floor during the 112th VFW national convention in August 2011. Many of you questioned, “Why 2011?” Because the VFW By-Laws allow for the PAC Committee to exist and VFW By-Laws may only be amended by the delegates of the VFW Convention, which is held annually.

As word of the endorsements spread, members and supporters of VFW grew more irritated over VFW-PAC’s choices and demanded answers.

Not understanding that the VFW itself had no control over the endorsements, many of you continued to write, expressing displeasure asking the national commander somehow intervene.  In an open statement to VFW members, national officers stated “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.” The VFW-PAC refused, stating “VFW-PAC disagrees with those who claim their endorsement process is skewed, flawed, or unfair”.

On October 15, 2010 VFW National Commander Richard Eubank, using his authority under Section 619 & 620 of the VFW National By-Laws/Manual of Procedure, withdrew all PAC Committee appointments effective immediately. Furthermore, he is asking the VFW national council for a vote of “no confidence” in the VFW PAC (this council administers the affairs between conventions). VFW national officers are gearing up to propose an amendment to the VFW National By-Laws to dissolve VFW-PAC.

It is important to remember, VFW membership dues nor donations made to VFW or VFW Foundation do not support VFW-PAC. VFW itself does not make political endorsements.

View statements referenced above at and

David E. Prohaska
Assistant Director, Administrative Operations
VFW National Headquarters

Disrespecting the military and claiming endorsements he didn’t receive. When will it end? We can only hope that it will finally end when 8th District voters retire Jim Moran on November 2nd.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *