A “Loyalty Oath”?
By Greg L | 27 November 2007 | Virginia Politics | 44 Comments
The Washington Times reports that Virginia voters who want to participate in February’s Republican presidential primary will be required to sign a statement saying that they intend to support the eventual nominee in the General Election, something being described as a “loyalty oath.” All of this is an attempt to ensure that Republicans are the ones choosing Republican nominees.
While I agree with the sentiment here, this is just a plain dumb idea. There are no half-measures that will accomplish the ultimate result of having voters register by party, but they sure can make Republicans look pretty stupid.
UPDATE: Below The Beltway agrees: “In the end, this is immensely stupid idea. There’s no way to enforce the oath and all it will end up doing is turning people away from the Republican Party.”
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
44 Comments
Views: 1037
Loading ...
Thank God for Independents.
Well I can pretty much guarantee that I will be supporting the republican presidential candidate with the dems fielding front runners such as osama obama and hillarah clinton. I would vote for a chimp in a suit before I would vote for hillarah. There are a lot of pretty good republican presidential candidates and ZERO good democrats so this is a no-brainer regardless of the “loyalty oath” they are pushing.
Help me out here. I thought there was a Virginia primary day and when you went to the polls, you were asked if you wanted to vote in the Republican or Democratic primary. Let’s say I vote in the Republican primary. I don’t like the ultimate nominee. How is this ever policed? How stupid. I am an Independent. I don’t do pledges and oaths to vote a certain way. Does that mean I have a choice of being perhaps an oath-breaker or only voting in the Democratic primary?
What if I change my mind because the politician has waffled (like this would ever happen) on an issue important to me? Where is my recourse to go to another politician that is on spot with my way of thinking?
Agree. This is a dumb idea. We need registration by party.
Registration by party would sure rule out a lot of Independents. I would hate having to register by party. I don’t understand the benefit to either party.
This is a dumb idea … if we had registration by party. That we do not makes this the only way in which the GOP can minimally attempt to insure that only Republicans choose Republican nominees.
I find it interesting that people who call themselves “Conservatives” casually dismiss a requirement that — I would wager — substantially pre-dates the involvement in the Virginia GOP of most or all of the people now condemning it. Including yours truly.
Push to register by party I simply think is to make life easier for the candidates so they can look at voter rolls and determine who is of what party and possibly for gerrymandering reasons. The ability to jump parties in Primaries is only tool minority party has in a district to somewhat make their voice heard.
Regardless of whether or not the republican candidate waffles on your primary concern, the only other choice will be hillarah clinton. That makes the choice pretty clear don’t you think? Any of the candidates as they stand now would be a huge step up from GW. He and hillarah run about even on my loath scale.
“Registration by party would sure rule out a lot of Independents. I would hate having to register by party. I don’t understand the benefit to either party.”
“Independent” would be one of the choices, I would wager. It is in most of the states that have party registration.
The “Loyalty Oath” is very bad form. All one has to do is look at the 51st Convention to see why this is not good. A “loyalty oath” in that case would say that people like Jay O’Brien, Chris Royse, and MANY others are less Republican than those (Tom Kopko, Scott Lingamfelter) who supported the eventual nominee??? I have ZERO problem registering as a Republican because the core ideals of the Republican Party reflect mine, but to sign a “loyalty oath” seems almost as bad as a poll tax.
I think its time the “majority” started a new party. One that doesn’t include the stupidity of either extreme democrat or extreme republican social philosophy.
“I find it interesting that people who call themselves “Conservatives” casually dismiss a requirement that — I would wager — substantially pre-dates the involvement in the Virginia GOP of most or all of the people now condemning it. Including yours truly.”
Sorry Jimmy…as usual, you are wrong. To my knowledge (going back nearly 40 years) there has NEVER been an “oath” requirement in a Republican PRIMARY. Of course, there used to be some honor in politics in those days.
Let me get this straight, if I want to vote in the Republican primary, then I must sign an oath stating I will support the Republican nominee, regardless of who he is? In other words, by voting in the primary, I allow the party to dictate how I cast my vote in the general election? This is the same as signing away my right to freely vote for the candidate of my choice! If they attempt this, I will look forward to the lawsuits.
Batson D. Belfrey,
Would registering as an Independent preclude one from voting in either the Republican or Democratic primary? I am not sure how this would work.
Thumper,
The parties already have your name. If you vote in a primary, you are thought to be of that party. In other words, if you vote across party lines, you get double phone calls at election time. Oh happy day.
Dolph:
In states with party registration, you can only vote in the primary of your registered party. If you choose not to register with a party, you don’t vote in the primary.
Remember, the purpose of a primary is to choose the candidate of the party. It’s not a “pre-election.” It really shouldn’t be open to just anyone to vote as the end result does not reflect the will of the party so much as it reflects the ability to motivate turnout.
JM:
The oath is completely unenforceable so there won’t be any need for lawsuits. Because your vote is cast in private and not connected directly to you, there would be no way for RPV to know who you voted for in the general election.
Don’t republicans and democrats have their primary on the same day?
What dumb democrat would miss voting for one of their choices just to come and pick a republican? That is beyond stupid. Maybe a couple hundred people in the whole state would do it.
I can see the logic if only one party was having a primary. I’d still think it’s akin to tilting at windmills, but at least it would have a scintilla of logic to it.
I remember all of the republicans gnashing their teeth in ‘00 that the dems were going to vote for McCain (the RINO). Didn’t happen. Sure a handful of dems crossed over, but it had no impact at all.
Where is Major ___ de Coverley when you really need him? For those of you who haven’t read Joseph Heller’s classic “Catch 22,” Major ___ de Coverley, a minor but most interesting character in Heller’s book, put an end to the requirement to sign a loyalty oath before base officers could eat in the Officer’s Mess. Perhaps whoever thought up this requirement for the primary should re-read that book (and I try to every couple of years) and see how the good major took care of that problem.
I don’t ever recall having to be registered with a party in Virginia. I prefer it that way. I agree with anon. Why would you throw away your own vote to vote for the party you weren’t supporting.
What if you change your mind from year to year? How would you handle that? This year I am a Republican, next year I like the Democrats better? Do I have to re-register to vote? It seems to me that having to register by party is a way to keep the rest of us who aren’t die hard anythings out of the mix. That is probably the intent anyway.
That’s correct, Dolph - that is the intent.
The belief is that the PARTY should determine the party nominee.
I can’t say that I disagree with that too much in principle.
However, I strongly oppose registration by party in Virginia. Registration by party codifies Democrats and Republicans as THE parties. Party names and philosophies have come and gone throughout the history of our country. By mandating registration by party, the parties are, in effect, making themselves permanent fixtures in our republic. I do not like that possibility one bit.
Anon,
On the other hand, why shouldn’t THE PEOPLE determine who to run? Party membership is not that finite. What real difference does it make if I vote as a Democrat without declaring myself a Democrat? I almost feel it is an invasion of privacy. I don’t want to change the system. The one we have works fine and has worked fine for as long as I can remember.
This oath nonsense projects fear and insecurity to the general electorate - exactly what the Republicans should not be doing to get our candidates elected. If you select good nominees, you don’t need oaths and pledges. I’ve never missed voting in a Republican primary in my voting life. I will refuse to take this one. I’ll go to the polls and make them turn me away. No self-respecting Republican would sign such a thing. How is that good for the Party?
[…] finally, Greg Letiecq agrees that the pledge is a dumb move by the RPV now that they’ve been told by the Courts that they can… There are no half-measures that will accomplish the ultimate result of having voters register by […]
“This oath nonsense projects fear and insecurity to the general electorate” … if you believe the hand-wringing misrepresentations of those opposed to it.
The purpose of the pledge is NOT to provide any assurance as to how primary voters will vote in the general election, and certainly does not create any generally or legally enforceable obligation to do so. Its purpose is to ensure that it is Republicans who select Republican nominees by providing an impediment — albeit a minor one — to dilettantes or officious intermeddlers who would seek to influence the outcome of the Republican nominating process without being committed to the election of the Republican nominee selected by the process. I freely concede that it is a minor impediment, and that such an appeal to honor is probably passe among many. More’s to pity.
It’s truly tragic that, in a Commonwealth in which many purport to revere the memory of Robert E. Lee as a man of honor and dignity, that so many evade this rather salient point.
The real question is who at RPV authorized this. It was not discussed at the last state central meeting nor the executive committee meeting. Is this Hager or Judd off on a crazy tangent again ? If it’s Judd, he needs to be gone.
Why all the complaining now? RPV required a loyalty oath in the 2000 presidential primary (Bush v. McCain), too. (So AWCheney is wrong.)
park’d said on 27 Nov 2007 at 10:53 am:
I would vote for a chimp in a suit before I would vote for hillarah.
You already did!
I agree with John Light. While I would prefer to have registered primaries, even non-registered primaries are far better than the totally divisive “let’s manipulate it OUR way” convention.
However, the “oath” is a statement of intention to support the eventual nominee; it is NOT a promise to support or vote for anyone in particular. While a delegate may “intend” to support a particular candidate, intention is one thing, a promise is quite another.
Being one of few, jimmy Young sees “intent” as forever binding. However, should it become apparent that the party erred and nominated a true dufus…perhaps even a candidate perceived to be a risk to national security or sovereignty, the “oath of intention” would surely and hopefully be cast aside without a lot of consternation.
Fredo, or O.P., or whoever, I do not see “‘intent’ as forever binding.” However, I do measure intent in this context as a pledge to honor the outcome of the process. Nothing more. And inherent in a pledge to honor the outcome of a process is the possibility that the outcome will produce a nominee other than the individual one supported for the nomination. Thus, that “a delegate may ‘intend’ to support a particular candidate” does not honor the plain meaning of the pledge, as it is generally understood.
Of course, that you fear the consequences of the general understanding of the pledge is probably the primary reason why you hide your identity behind a pseudonym. Such cowardice is inconsistent with the assurance with which you attack others.
Moreover, that you still allege that the GOP has nominated a “true dufus [sic]” or “a candidate perceived to be a risk to national security or sovereignty” demonstrates just how much invested you are in the CloudCuckooland inhabited by the Gill-Haters.
I believe that the RPV should concentrate its efforts on getting voter registraton by party rather than tick off potential voters. This has been a continuous pain. I remember whenever we have a convention, this issue always comes up and creates more hate and discontent. Just have voter registration by party, have a closed primary, and be done with it.
Dittyman8, I agree that more effort should be put into getting registration by party. That the GOP was in control of the legislature for a decade and couldn’t put a bill to do so on the Governor’s desk (even if it was vetoed by Warner/Kaine) is one of the failures of the GOP legislature. However, in lieu of that, I don’t think it is inappropriate for the Party to use the limited tools available to protect the integrity of the GOP nominating process.
Bear in mind, too, that — with few exceptions (Leslie Carbone comes to mind) — the people complaining the most bitterly about this are the same malcontents who frequently seek to water down the GOP message or, indeed, dispute the notion that there is a distinct GOP message at all.
If, as James Young implies, General Lee is behind this, I will give it a second look (although I suspect he voted Democrat).
I can’t tell from the links the exact wording of the oath. If the article in the Times is correct that it requires support for the GOP Presidential nominee in the general election as a condition of voting in the primary, I wouldn’t take the oath and I assume a lot of other Republicans would similarly refuse.
If the purpose is to ensure that Republicans (as opposed to Dems, La Rouchians, or Perotistes) are voting in the Primary, the oath (if we have to have one) merely has to require folks to state that they are Republicans.
I still think it makes the GOP look frightened and defensive. Primaries can be a great way to attract new voters to the Party. Put up a lot of barbed wire around the process and you turn people away.
“Primaries can be a great way to attract new voters to the Party. Put up a lot of barbed wire around the process and you turn people away.”
That’s it, isn’t it NoVA…the last thing this crowd would want is growth in the Republican Party which might in any way threaten the tight control by the few of the many. Better to keep it a small, tightly held club rather than a vast, inclusive organization as it once was.
Sheeeeeeeeesh, jimmy, if you (and Republican party leaders who think like you) thought it possible to get away with omitting the word “intent,” thus making it a true “oath” of allegiance to the nominee, you certainly would.
However, knowing that a true “oath of allegiance” to a nominee would never pass muster, “intent” is included, but with the hope that participants will skip over it, considering themselves vote-bound in the general election.
The “intention” caveat remains a viable and essential escape, should the party “go off the deep end,” being shanghaied either by those who control proceedings of the convention or by a one-time participating religious/racist voting block.
I happen to have a friend who for the past 40 years has voted a straignt Republican ticket. However, that record of across-the-board Republican support had to end with one vote on 6 Nov 2007.
“the last thing this crowd would want is growth in the Republican Party which might in any way threaten the tight control by the few of the many. Better to keep it a small, tightly held club rather than a vast, inclusive organization as it once was.”
Pretty bold words from someone whose halcyon days in the GOP was when it was “a small, tightly held club” rather than the “vast, inclusive organization” it has become under the leadership of those she loathes, i.e., those who aren’t interesting in watering down the GOP message. She apparently didn’t notice that while she was largely inactive while raising a family (not that there’s anything wrong with that), the PWC GOP went from an organization which could have held its meetings in a telephone booth, and had only a few elected officials anywhere in the County, into one which no one disputes is the dominant political force in the County. The OWW is attempting to turn history on its head.
Of course, it is of a piece with someone who find most of her support these days among those too cowardly to sign their names. She might want to consider that there is a reason for that.
The real problem here is that she isn’t part of “the club” any more, because the “vast, inclusive organization” which is, for example, the PWC GOP of today — you know, the one that won most of the contested seats in the County — holds her largely in contempt.
As for you, “Fredo,” you’ll sound a little more rational if you read what I actually said, rather than setting up your own strawman caricature to knock down. I’m perfectly happy with the pledge as it is (I note that “NoVA Scout” attempts to misrepresent it: first by calling it an “oath”; and second, by saying it “requires support for the GOP Presidential nominee in the general election as a condition of voting in the primary”, which even “Fredo” is smart enough to recognize is wrong).
And as for your “friend” (if you have one) whose “across-the-board Republican support … end[ed] with one vote on 6 Nov 2007,” if it was for the false, trumped up smears you cite, then I suspect that he probably was not a qualified, competent voter.
[Ed note: comment edited.]
Jimmy boy, the only one who turns local Republican history on its head around here is you. You weren’t around in the days when the Committee could TRULY meet in a phone booth and I actually question if you had even been born then…you seem so young and childish.
Insofar as being largely inactive, that is true by MY definition of being active and there are many who can attest to my political activities of those years…although I didn’t devote the vast majority of my time to it. Actually, I suspect that, if I were so inclined, I could produce a more impressive political resume than you during those “inactive” years. It’s all relative…what YOU would call active, I would call inactive. I just don’t believe in rubbing my activities into anyone’s face. I’ve got a healthy ego…not an overblown one.
“The real problem here is that she isn’t part of “the club” any more, because the “vast, inclusive organization” which is, for example, the PWC GOP of today — you know, the one that won most of the contested seats in the County — holds her largely in contempt.”
BTW Jimmy, I also wanted to thank you for that compliment. That little “insider” group of yours is one to which no rational human being, much less a rational Republican, would wish to have an association. They’ve pretty much burned their bridges and made themselves irrelevant to the vast majority of electeds in PWC and beyond. Most of those who actually won had far more sense than to depend upon you and yours for a lot of help…they had their own organizations.
I love that James Young professes to know what’s good for the Republican Party when he has;
a) never run a winning campaign and;
b) was among those that thought in a time when both terrorism and immigration are the hot button issues of the day, it would be a great idea to saddle the GOP with a candidate (by whatever means necessary) who accepts funds from various entities with documented ties to terrorist groups and who for a living helps illegal immigrants fend off ICE to stay in the country longer.
Wow…now that’s a person we need lecturing us on what’s best for the Republican Party…haha.
jimmy….it must be time for dinner, I think I hear your Mommy calling you….:)
why do people hate hillary clinton so much?
no…honestly..why?..
And your resume is what, “Clean it up”? Oh, that’s right, you hide your identity so your credentials can’t be measured and found wanting.
‘Fact is, I’ve never SOUGHT and have never had any desire to run a campaign — winning or otherwise — because my professional obligations — you know, fighting and actually winning court battles against the far Left and its most effective illicit funding mechanism — preclude it. So that’s a red herring. What IS a measure is who is LISTENED to when they speak, and I suspect that the fact that any elected official would say “Who’s that?” if your name were known is yet another reason why you hide your identity. Your jealousy fairly drips from your post.
As for supporting Faisal Gill, yes, like most Republicans in the 51st District, I supported him. Sadly, he had to endure the sleazy, anonymous smears of the likes of you. Surely, you have much to be proud of. You joined a smear led by a former Democrat to attack and defeat a Republican Navy and Administration veteran in a race in which a switch of merely 250 votes would have retained a seat in the “R” column. You are continuing your attempts to delegitimize the GOP by smearing those involved in its nomination processes, when you can’t seem to get anybody who actually gets to make such decisions see it your way. Yet you continue to hide your identity.
Calling you a “cowardly weasel” would give a bad name to weasels.
Since when was Dumfries in the 51st HOD District? Gee Jimmy…you can’t even get your voting district right. You know, I bet that there’s also some sort of psycho-babble term that explains your obsession with knowing the identity of everyone commenting under pseudonyms on the blogs…particularly the ones who disagree with you. I’ll bet that there’s also something sinister in that obsession. No wonder you’re so popular.
I would prefer anonymity and non-name recognition to being recognized all over the county as a horse’s ass.
Well James Young that leaves me confused. You have stated on here that you have so much to do with the success of the PWGOP and the Republican wins, yet on the other hand you say you “never SOUGHT and have never had any desire to run a campaign — winning or otherwise.” What have you done then to be a part of the success of the local party? Your chosen candidates seem to be the ONLY ones that lose. What do you do to “support” these candidates that never seems to work. It might help to konw so all these past mistakes won’t be repeated.
We all have professional obligations……maybe not as important to truth, justice, and the American way as yours…but jobs that make our livings nonetheless. It might be a good idea that you concentrate on that professional obligation in 2009 while those of us that understand the mechanics of a winning campaign bring the 51st District seat back into GOP hands. Oh…and your other losing campaign for State Senate, when the time comes you should stay out of that one too so that seat can be won for the GOP.
OH. I think I answered my own question. You are so busy with your professional obligations that you only have time to help a handful of candidates go down in defeat — all the others seem to win. THAT’S your contribution to the success of the GOP in Prince William County….I’ve got it now. haha