It doesn't matter who you want elected,the point is rolling thunder is not allowed to endorse anyone.There are Bikers that support Bush and there are Bikers that support Kerry.What gives the leaders of Rolling Thunder the right to say we all support Bush when we all don't.I don't like to read that I support Bush on Bush's website when I don't.I would rather see Nader win myself .

I don't understand why you say we are not "allowed" to endorse anyone. That is patently false. Our non profit status as a 501(c)(4) most certainly allows us to endorse a political candidate. Endorsing a political candidate does not make us an affiliate (joined with in a dependent or subservient way) of any party. To suggest that it does is, I'm sorry, obtuse. I also reiterate what I said earlier and that is that National sent word to the individual chapters to poll their membership as to who they wanted to endorse. Is that not how other organizations decide who they are going to endorse (labor unions and such)? What is a more fair way to do it? If the individual chapters did not do that, then that is on the leadership of those chapters. Many of the activities that we do, as we all know, have nothing to do with politics. Visits to the V.A., sending packages to our troops, school visits, parades, flag installations, etc. However, we also are involved in trying to get legislation passed to benefit our vets, their families, and active military. It is crazy to think that we aren't going to use what political influence we have.

Under MISSION STATEMENT:

Rolling Thunder®, Inc. National is NOT
connected with or an affiliate of any
other organization or political party
and we do not raise funds for profit.

Nuff said.

And as far as your article goes about
Kerry, it was already rebuked on this
forum. THAT is why it didn't go any
further. Most of the information in the
article in question came from a fellow
by the name of, J. Micheal Waller. Who
is... well BidMamou put it best when she
said, "I love it.........this is the best
you can do to bolster your opinions about
Kerry? J. Michael Waller is a "Vice-President"
of the American Foreign Policy Council,
an "organization" that is a supposed
"think tank" for right-wing, cold war
thinking. What he writes is opinion based
on his own opinion and his "facts" are
often shown to be simply made up by him
and his "colleagues" to "prove" his
right-wing agenda. He is not a journalist
or a news reporter - he is an apologist
for the right wing "fringe" who is most
certainly not taken seriously in DC and
whose organization begs for money on their
less-than-candid site about their political
agenda. The reason they have to beg for
money is that they get none from legitimate
scholarly support funding sources as their
fact-finding research abilities are nil."
And who ever said the Left-wing is backing
John Kerry? Oh...that's right! Maybe you
heard it on Hannity and Colmes or O'Rielly.
Psst... I'll let you in on a little secret.
The left is out for Nader, not Kerry... but
don't tell your goosesteppin' brethren. They
might not let you play with them anymore.

And who the hell are you to dog on John
McCain!!! He's more of a war hero, and
has more honor than everyone you've ever
met rolled into one! By dissin' McCain
you've shown everybody just where you're
coming from sweety. McCain should be our
President, and would be if it wasn't for
the dishonorable tactics of the Bush
Administration during the 2000 primaries.

But I digress. Exactly why this organization
and it's members should keep the political
PARTISANSHIP out. All it does is divide us,
when we need to be united for our brothers.
If you want to discuss what is being
proposed by political leaders right now,
that's all well and good. But I'm afraid
Bush is going to get the short end of the
stick on that one.

First of all, check Webster's for definitions for connected and affiliated. We aren't. In your words, nuff said.

Second, I am not your sweety. I did not denigrate you in my post. I tried to be respectful and would appreciate the same. You don't know me. You don't know what my political beliefs are, my background is. You find it convenient to attempt to pigeonhole me into one category. I have never heard of Hannity and Colmes, for the record. I have heard of O'Reilly, although I have NEVER watched his program thank you very much. I do not need to watch any program, news or otherwise, that assumes that I need them to tell me how to think. I have had many an argument about Bush and the things he has done that I am not pleased with. I, at least, have the courage to say that. You, and so many others, make Kerry sound like the second coming.

Third, as for needing that article "to bolster my opinion of John Kerry". I don't. I was fighting in this issue at the time of the committee hearings. I have friends who were at the hearings. I have the transcripts for the hearings. I am well aware of what happened. Many aren't and Sydney Schanberg's article provides an incredibly accurate synopsis. I also like the fact that 1. It's published in a left wing publication. 2. He has written as many articles, if not more, that are derogatory of Bush. 3. His reputation as a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist is impeccable. People could learn from his integrity. Not many are willing to look at both candidates objectively. I am the first to admit that my objectivity for John Kerry went out the window 12 years ago. Did you even know his name 12 years ago? Maybe you did. But many that are beating their breasts for him now, didn't. Don't take my word for any of it. Or Sydney Schanberg's. Talk to people who have been fighting in this issue since the time of the hearings. Find people who were there. Get it firsthand from someone. Most can't be bothered to do that much research.

Fourth, where do you get that I said one word about John McCain's military service? I did not. He was co-chair of the Committee and shares the blame. This has nothing to do with his military service. Do you skew everything you say to that degree? Also, you don't know who I've met. I've had the privelege of meeting a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, several former POWs, the man who mentored me in the POW issue was a veteran of WW2, Korea, and 4 tours in Vietnam. He would also boot me in the ass if he knew I was referring to him as a hero. I have been honored to meet many. It is one of the benefits of being involved, seriously involved, with veterans' issues.

Fifth, as for current issues, I posted that with regard to the Montagnard predicament. We don't know what Bush would have done because it wasn't allowed to come to the floor for a vote so we could find out. I do know that the VA funding is up 33% since 2001. A million more vets are being treated in the VA system then were being treated in 2001. This is from Secretary Principi's own words. Is it enough, no. But it's a helluva lot better than it was 3 years ago, even with the billion dollar cut that I have heard is being discussed. How many have written their congressperson or Senator voicing their objection to the cut? Or will they wait until after the fact, as with this issue, and complain about it then. I know from Anne Mills Griffiths, the head of the National League of Families, that they are not endorsing Kerry, that President Bush, for the first time, has put into specific language the criteria that Vietnam must meet in order to be seen as "cooperating" in the effort to account for our missing men. If they don't meet this criteria, they don't get any financial aid from us.

The only thing you said that holds one drop of water with me is "All it does is divide us, when we need to be united for our brothers." In that you are correct. When the membership was polled, why didn't you send your email to National then, expressing your opinion that we should not involve ourselves?

Lisa, you just as well give up, you can not "reason" with a FOOL ( Harry Moyer), he is like a fly in the bedroom after you turn the light out, a "nuisance".
Webster's says a Nuisance is "that which annoys or causes trouble; a person or thing that is troublesome or obtrusive.{Fr-L nocere, to hurt.} In that, you will find Harry's picture ........

"I also reiterate what I said earlier and that is that National sent word to the individual chapters to poll their membership as to who they wanted to endorse. Is that not how other organizations decide who they are going to endorse (labor unions and such)?"

I'll tell you one union that DID NOT poll their membership before, during, or even now, about endorsing Kerry, and that is the I.A.F.F.(International Asso. of Fire Fighters), the first union to endorse Kerry. Not once did they open their mouth to send a memo, have their "Local President, to ask a membership, that is 87% conservative(55% Republican, 35% Democrate)if they wanted to back Kerry, Bush, Nader, or Johnboy Walton for that matter.
That's why we started www.firefightersforbush.com to have a place to vent about the I.A.F.F. To date, the union is under alot of pressure to answer to the endorsment. You may have noticed now, that when Mr. Kerry speaks at a rally, you see very few yellow"FIREFIGHTERS FOR KERRY" shirts behind him. Long term members along with "probies" are leaving the union, knowing that the leadership has taken a big dump on them.

So to answer your point, I hope other unions do a much better job at "looking out for their membership that PAYS their big saleries".

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I don't understand why you say we are not "allowed" to endorse anyone. That is patently false. Our non profit status as a 501(c)(4) most certainly allows us to endorse a political candidate. Endorsing a political candidate does not make us an affiliate (joined with in a dependent or subservient way) of any party. To suggest that it does is, I'm sorry, obtuse. I also reiterate what I said earlier and that is that National sent word to the individual chapters to poll their membership as to who they wanted to endorse. Is that not how other organizations decide who they are going to endorse (labor unions and such)? What is a more fair way to do it? If the individual chapters did not do that, then that is on the leadership of those chapters. Many of the activities that we do, as we all know, have nothing to do with politics. Visits to the V.A., sending packages to our troops, school visits, parades, flag installations, etc. However, we also are involved in trying to get legislation passed to benefit our vets, their families, and active military. It is crazy to think that we aren't going to use what political influence we have.

I wonder why RT endorsed Bush the first election over Gore?Bush never did anything for vets while Gov of Texas?Now he has even done more to hurt vets than to help them and yet RT endorses him again?

As it was explained to me. Both Gore and Bush were invited to the national convention, to either come themselves or send a representative with a platform. Gore never even deigned to reply. Bush sent two reps.

Lisa - Like Fireboss said -
you can't reason with Moyer
He is bought and paid for by
SKerry

Just a wannbe Warrior trying
to talk the talk but when it
was showtime in Vietnam
couldn't walk the walk

That's why Today he's with the Boy Scouts
Cause he couldn't hang with Real Men

He really needs to be pitied
He has been carrying a tremendous
burden all these years knowing
the only reason he's Free to spout
his Socialist agenda is because
of the effort of Greater Men that
he long discovered he could never be

So don't let him bother you Lisa (and
Fireboss) He's just a worthless WIMP
Voice crying in the wilderness begging
for recognition cause he hasn't did
anything in his pathetic little life
to earn or deserve any crediability

Rangers Lead The Way !

Jim
Out