I Think This Is A Misstep On Sean Parnell's Part

Yesterday Sean Parnell, the GOP candidate running for PA17, tweeted:

@WithHonorAction, which claims to be a “cross-partisan” PAC that primarily supports veteran candidates, just dumped $250k of dark money into #PA17 to prop up @ConorLambPA.

I’m deeply disappointed that a group whose stated mission is “advancing veteran leadership in public office” would get involved in a race between two veterans. I’m a combat veteran. I fought & bled for America. With Honor should not be picking sides in this race.

For those keeping track at home, this brings Conor “I’m-not-taking-any-dark-money”’s total outside spending to over 1.5 MILLION.

There's a lot to unweave here in Parnell's disappointment-tweet.  First, let's take a look at With Honor. This is from their "About" page:

With Honor Action is a cross-partisan movement dedicated to promoting and advancing principled veteran leadership in elected public service. For too long, gridlock and partisan bickering have plagued Congress, putting a halt on progress at the expense of the American people. Now a new generation of veterans has stepped up to serve again, committed to putting their country before party politics, and we are proud to support them in their efforts to change Congress.

As a part of our overall effort to highlight the importance of veterans and veteran issues, we support principled military veterans in Congress and help amplify their cross-partisan agenda that finds solutions for the American people. We also work with veteran candidates on the nuts and bolts of running for Congress, helping them organize their own campaigns and build a winning strategy.

And according to Ballotpedia:

With Honor is a nonprofit, cross-partisan organization based in Washington, D.C., that comprises With Honor Action, a 501(c)(4) organization, the With Honor PAC, and the With Honor Fund super PAC. As of February 2020, the With Honor Action website described the group as "dedicated to promoting and advancing principled veteran leadership in elected public service."

Here's how the website describes the structure of the organization. While With Honor Action doesn't solicit donations online, the PAC and the FUND both do.

The PAC:

Contributions to the With Honor PAC, a federal “hard-dollar” PAC, are used to make contributions to principled, next-generation veteran candidates who have taken the With Honor Pledge to lead with integrity, civility, and courage.

And the Fund:

Contributions to With Honor Fund, a federal Super PAC, are used to fund independent expenditures and other strategic national support to help elect a group of the most competitive and principled next-generation veterans who will lead our nation with honor and build a coalition that will help fix our broken political system.

So let's see if we can find some numbers for each.  First the PAC.

According to this page at Open Secrets, in the 2018 cycle, the total for what they gave to members of both parties was almost exactly the same ($123,758 for Democrats and $123,810 for Republicans). Interestingly, so far for the 2020 cycle they've leaned a little red with ($71,354 for Democrats and $84,427 for Republicans). But again, as this election cycle is still...um...cycling, those numbers will undoubtedly change.

Now let's take a look at the Fund:

According to the chart on this page at Open Secrets, With Honor Fund has actually given more money to Republicans (both in the 2018 cycle and so far in this cycle). For example in the 2018 cycle, With Honor Fund spent more than $800,000 to aid Dan Crenshaw of Texas but only about $23,000 to aid Conor Lamb.

I haven't been able to track down Parnell's numbers but if it's from the Fund, then it's not going to the Lamb campaign (as they are independent expenditures).

On the other hand, I suspect that Parnell's complaint is not that With Honor gave any support to Conor Lamb, but that he didn't get any. (Look at how much support they've given Dan Crenshaw, for Jeebus' sake!).

Or that this, from the mission statement, is getting in their way:

For too long, gridlock and partisan bickering have plagued Congress, putting a halt on progress at the expense of the American people. Now a new generation of veterans has stepped up to serve again, committed to putting their country before party politics, and we are proud to support them in their efforts to change Congress.

Perhaps, given a choice, a Fox news contributor who believes that "from an evolutionary stand, it used to be women were attracted to your strength because you could defend them from dinosaurs" might not be the clearest way of clearing out the gridlock and partisan bickering in Congress.

Might be something to keep in mind when discussing feminism on Fox News, where, by the way, you also said:

I also think that modern day feminism has driven a wedge between men and women. The idea that a woman doesn't need a man to be successful, the idea that a woman doesn't need a man to have a baby,  the idea that a woman can live a happy and fulfilling life without  man, I think it's all nonsense.

Perhaps it's beliefs like that have secured you firmly to the rightwing partisan gridlock crowd.

Also Sean, from an evolutionary stand, human beings have only been on the planet for a hundred thousand years or so, give or take. As far as I know, the massive dinosaur die off occurred about 66 million years earlier.

So there probably was never a woman attracted to a man because he could defend her from a dinosaur.