And poor “CONVA”: always the cowardly lion.

You make some good points, and I cannot fault your logic. However, as an old philospher once said; “There’s the way things should be, and there’s the way things are.” You have stated very succinctly the way things should be, and I don’t disagee. Unfortunately, as someone who spends a tremendous amount of time doing the grunt work required to facillitate the nominations process for GOP candidates, and then even more time working to get them elected, I learned long ago that there is a time to be principled and there is a time to be practical. Every action has consequenses and benefits. In this case, for this particular primary, I believe that the harm out-weighed the good. Apparently, the leadership of RPV agreed.

Now, if the GOP and VDEM primaries were held on different dates, then I don’t think the value of a loyalty oath increases. I prefer conventions. I think they are the purest form of selecting a nominee, and an oath should be part of the delegate application. Don’t sign the oath/Don’t get seated.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on the role independents play. I understand that you are worried that “moderates” and “liberals” who call themselves independents will support more moderate GOP candidates, and will disolve the electoral power that conservatives can muster. Very valid concerns from someone who is clearly a conservative. Please consider this point-of-view from another conservative: We have many citizens who are Federal employees, and are accutely sensitive about joining a party. Many of my friends and neighbors fall into this category. They are conservatives. They vote Republican. They often ask me who I am supporting for the nomination at the local, state and federal level, and they are usually supporting the same person. I have asked them to join the local committee. They won’t because they are worried that if their name shows up on some party membeship list, it could hurt them professionally. However, they care who the nominee is and want to participate in that process. Making them sign a document, that will end up in a file would keep the more reluctant at home. I want these people to be able to vote for Republican candidates whenever they can. I want them under our banner for the general election, so I want to include them at every step of the process in the hopes that when they retire or change jobs, they will join the party. We can’t afford to let the tent get too small.

Well, Mr. Thomas, to answer your question, I DO believe that “true independents” should not be permitted to vote in GOP primaries, as a matter of free association, and that’s why I defended the use of the pledge (more openly and arguably more effectively than RPV did itself). I don’t believe that those rights are diminished by the context (canvass, primary, or convention) in which the Party selects its nominees. While we may “need independents if we are going to be successful,” that is in the general election. As a matter of free association, the RPV should be (and is) permitted to limit effectively participation in nominating processes to geniune Republicans. “Open” primaries are the way to anarchy, and result in a Party which is less about ideas than it is about personalities, a result which I have always rejected and argued against. And I am not talking about an onerous burden: a simple declaration (of the type required by registration by Party) would suffice. But in the absence of party registration under Virginia law, the RPV must resort to the only device available to it under the Party Plan, in this case, the pledge.

Sadly, I think the evidence demonstrates the RPV applied this eminently defensible principle in a way that was not well thought out (see SCC member Rick Hendrix’s comments on my blog), and was unwilling to defend that policy when the far Left — like some here — do what they do: attack, attack, and attack some more. To paraphrase the late Jim McClellan (who ran as the GOP nominee against Wat Abbitt in 1985), as quoted by Judge Bork at the 1988 Federalist Society Student Convention at UVA law school, they’re “not Liberals. I don’t know what they are. Nihilists, maybe.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm3CtlvMA90

I can appreciate your point-of-view. I am not sure what is so disturbing to you about my belief that a “loyalty oath” would prevent independents from voting in a Republican primary. Whether or not it’s lawful under our party plan really doesn’t mean that we shoul,d do it. Is it that you don’t think it right that a true independent vote in our primary, or that we won’t make them sign some pledge that they will support the nominee, regardless of outcome? If it is the former, I will say that we need independents if we are going to be successful. If it is the latter, all I can say is oaths do have a place, but this isn’t it. Conventions and Mass Meetings yes. Open primaries no.

As to whether or not the GOP will be criticized for taking actions such as these, I have to disagree. The GOP has been taking a beating in the press for the last two election cycles. There is such a thing as “bad press”. We don’t get the same treatment that the Democrats get. Not happy about it, but it’s a fact-of-life. The press that we were getting about the oath was almost uniformly negative. The VGOP was being portrayed as “exclusionary” and “paranoid”.

I have read many of your blog posts on multiple sites. I can understand your position. I do, however, believe that the oath is like body-armor with the plates removed, and provides a false sense of security. Anything short of registration by party will not accomplish the desired objective.

I am sorry that Julie Lucas does not live in your district, Jim, because I, among MANY readers of BVBL I am sure, would LOVE to see you and her run head to head. Last time I checked, her winnings this time were even higher than the last…and she had TWO opponents vice one!

I realize that you are hung up on people who post anonymously. On this, you and I agree, but I will say that the reasons are different. I am not too keen because when it comes to politics, I am of the belief that you ARE of one party or the other; whereas you, my friend, are of the belief that if you do not know their name, you cannot peronally attack them every chance you get either on your own blog, or this one.

You are like the soccer parent who is screaming about the bad call months after the fact. Get over it, move on, and TRY and be a bit more friendly - you will be amazed how many more people will actually listen to what you say if you are nice vice full of vitrol and vinegar.

Loyalty oaths offend me. But being clear which side you want to hang with as part of registering to vote is a-okay with me.

James Young…that’s a good one. Sick jerk…I’d love to know what rolls around your twisted mind to come up with one.

“The nature of the blogosphere” is also that has-beens and/or never-wases make pretensious claims under the cloak of anonymity. And then there is the has-been/never-was who tries to attribute to them qualities they lack the courage to demonstrate themselves.

People with “better connections” or “resumes” than I don’t worry about a free exchange of ideas or having their names attached to the ideas they espouse. They are, in my experience, by and large men and women of honor, a quality of which the OWW has demonstrated herself woefully devoid. Witness her assertion that I “need[] a check-up from the neck up.” Nice. The last person to make such a suggestion was a [Jesse] Jackson delegate to the 1984 Democrat Convention. And there was once a place where such was resorted to against political enemies: the Soviet Union. Congratulations, Old Whithered Wench: you’ve just resorted totalitarian tactics. Despicable.

Of course, if they had “considerably better connections, and most certainly resumes,” than I, they wouldn’t have to bother with the kinds of attacks which characterize virtually all of their posts.

As for Steve’s comment, I agree with his conclusions (though only the fourth among his premises), and have fewer concerns than he about the impact upon “independents.” I am particularly disturbed by the second among his premises, because I believe that it would still be lawful, under existing Art. I of the Party Plan, to challenge any primary voter to “express in open meeting either orally or in writing as may be required their intent to support all of its nominees for public office in the ensuing election.” Whether it is prudent to do so is, of course, another question.

The third among his premises presupposes that those entitles require a GOOD reason to criticize the GOP which, of course, they do not.

[Ed note: comment edited.]

Oaths do have a place. Conventions and Mass meetings are one. If a convention delegate is challenged because he or she has voted in several Democratic primaries, signs an oath, votes in the convention, and then supports the other party’s candidate in the General, then this should be the last convention of Mass Meeting they get to vote in. Another scenario would be the oath that a candidate takes. If they lose, and run as an independent, or endorse the opposition’s candidate, then they shold be removed from the party.

Bottom Line: We need Party ID Registration. Anything short of this just makes us look silly.

I’m just curious, “Clean it up”: When were you ever paid for offering your opinions? What political organizations have you ever led? Have you ever been more than a pimple on a flea complaining about those who actually have accomplished or tried to accomplish something productive?

BTW, I don’t “spend[] all [my] time spouting off about [my] non-existent political success,” though I certainly seem to have to spend a great deal of time here responding to inaccurate personal attacks. Perhaps your misimpression would be cured if you bothered to view such comments in context, i.e., that they appear AFTER personal attacks. It’s certainly an odd world which you inhabit, one in which you view self-defense as “spouting off.”

And I didn’t “insult[] females”; I insulted A female. Too bad you can’t tell the difference. Of course, I can’t account for your sickness, save to note that there are all manner of mental illness far beyond my limited knowledge of them (my degree is in law, not medicine), but I would suggest professional help, for what that is worth.

I agree with your assessment of Dennis, an old friend and ally, though I question the tactical wisdom of paying the $35 fee to participate in the straw poll to create a buzz about a candidate. One wonders whether that money will not have been better spent, in retrospect, in getting GOP voters to the polls for the primary. Time will tell, I suppose. I find it difficult to believe that the outcome will be sufficient to boost a second- or third-tier candidacy.