GOP Demands Loyalty Oath In Virginia Primary

[n2nh]

Voters in Virginia's Feb. 12 Republican presidential primary will have to sign an oath swearing loyalty to the eventual GOP ticket...

There is no practical way to enforce the GOP covenant in the constitutionally guaranteed secrecy of the voting booth. Yet the oath is a concept Virginia's GOP has considered for years.

How to make friends and influence people in a way that shows you don't trust them, the Constitution and that you're totally desperate:

Uhh... you do know about the Constitutionally Guaranteed SECRET ballot, right?? (http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--elections1126nov26,0,5164913.story)

[KG4JYD]

I heard about this. How is this legal? Isn't this a form of coercion?

[K2WH]

I always thought declaring your party affiliation should be illegal. You should be able to vote for whoever you wish.

K2WH

[al2i]

This appears to be a manifestation of mental illness in the Virginia Republican party. See the other thread about how friggin' sane Republicans think they are! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[K3XR]

You can always tell when it's been a bad news week for the LIBS, with news like CNN, Murtha, etc., they need to beat the bushes looking for anti Republican stories.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Nov. 30 2007,13:11)]You can always tell when it's been a bad news week for the LIBS, with news like CNN, Murtha, etc., they need to beat the bushes looking for anti Republican stories.
Then each and every day is a bad news day for the KONS, with news like FAUX, RUDY, etc., as you link & run after beating the uber-brush looking for anti Democrat stories.

mr. radioequalizer-clownhall-dot-sweetness-dot-KON.

[K4GUN]

Hey smart guys. Do you have any clue what you're talking about here? Obviously not. Virginia has no party registrations. You are free to vote in whichever primary you want to. The parties don't even have to hold primaries. They could select the candidates by party convention and this is still done for many offices. Primaries are intended to allow the party to select its candidate. Its not a general election nor a popularity contest.

In the past, I have voted in Democratic primaries. In order to do this, I signed a form indicating that I would not participate in the primary nor nominating process of any other party. That oath was just as enforceable as this one from the GOP which is to say, its not. Its just to try to weed out those who are only voting in the primary in order to skew the results for a weaker candidate.

Both sides have some form. The Democrats don't use the same words, but the goal is the same. They want to keep people like me from voting for idiots like Howard Screamin' Dean. If the GOP really wanted to ensure the loyalty of those participating, they'd hold a convention and only open it to party operatives.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (k4gun @ Nov. 30 2007,13:42)]Hey smart guys. Do you have any clue what you're talking about here? Obviously not. Virginia has no party registrations. You are free to vote in whichever primary you want to.
Yes, we are fully aware of that and understand that.

Quote[/b] (k4gun @ Nov. 30 2007,13:42)]In the past, I have voted in Democratic primaries. In order to do this, I signed a form indicating that I would not participate in the primary nor nominating process of any other party. That oath was just as enforceable as this one from the GOP which is to say, its not. Its just to try to weed out those who are only voting in the primary in order to skew the results for a weaker candidate.
And they say dogs are loyal! Admirable, but not so.

Here's the poop from the same Associated Press newspaper article:

Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:blue'>Virginia Democrats require no oath for their presidential primary, which will be held the same day.</span>

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Nov. 30 2007,13:11)]You can always tell when it's been a bad news week for the LIBS, with news like CNN, Murtha, etc., they need to beat the bushes looking for anti Republican stories.
Didn't have to beat the Bushes. Don't you know we've been warned to &quot;Keep out the Bushes!&quot;?? Bad week? You're kidding Danno. Take the blinders off.

Besides, you guys are making it so darned easy.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K4GUN]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Nov. 30 2007,12:23)]And they say dogs are loyal! #Admirable, but not so.

Here's the poop from the same Associated Press newspaper article:

Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:blue'>Virginia Democrats require no oath for their presidential primary, which will be held the same day.</span>
AP can report anything they like, but I live here and have signed a form from the Democratic party. As I said, its wording wasn't the same, but the effect was. Its SOP in VA. This is just another example of the mainstream media choosing an angle to make things look worse for the GOP and conservatives. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[W3MIV]

NY's Dumbokrat Troll-O-Matic is rolling up the post count.

Where ever you are, Robert, you could learn some lessons from this.

[K0RGR]

Oaths of allegiance are fundamentally UN-American. Our founding fathers railed against them, and the only place our Constitution requires them is for people elected or appointed to high positions in our government.

Refusal to take an oath of allegiance was considered treason at the time of the revolution. Benjamin Franklin refused to serve in any organization that required an oath.

I would think that any Southerner worth his salt would take up arms at the thought. After all, Southerners were required to take 'oaths of allegiance' following the Civil War to prove that they were not traitors.

How wonderful - so, you sign this oath - presumably under penalty of perjury or &quot;in sight of God&quot; or some other typical oath - and vote for the candidate of your choice. That candidate loses, and a crackpot, ultra-right-wing uber-Christian wins. Then, you're bound by your oath to vote for the weirdo even though you'd rather vote for the moderate the Democrats nominated.

Or, you choose not to vote, and the tiny minority of ultra-right-wing nuts that got this put into effect are the only ones at the polls, so their weirdo candidate wins the primary and gets the nomination.

I think the whole thing is entirely unconstitutional. It seriously interferes with the voting process and suppresses the independent and moderate vote. I think it will backfire BIGTIME on the GOP.

There's no reason that Virginia can't separate their primaries by party, just as many other states do, if that's the way they want to do it. I've crossed over and voted in the Republican primary once here in Minnesota - to vote for a popular Republican governor who was in danger of being unseated by an ultra-right-wing religious nut. I think I voted for the governor in the general election, but I'm not sure - he was re-elected by a landslide, anyway. If I'd had to, I might have changed party affiliation for that one election, just for that purpose.

This is just one more thing that will take sensible people decades to correct after the current regime is kicked through the goalposts next year.

[K4GUN]

Let's be very clear about something here. It is not your constitutional right to impact the nomination of a political party's candidate. Political parties can choose whatever method they like to choose their candidate. They can have a caucus, an open primary, a closed primary, a convention or just flip a coin. There is nothing in the Constitution about primaries nor political parties.

In 2004, the GOP didn't have a primary in VA. In 2008, we will. That's a party decision. Because a person does not declare a political party when they register to vote, that means people other than Republicans can determine who the party selects as its candidate. The GOP in VA really would prefer that Republicans decide who the nominee should be so they came up with a goofy &quot;oath&quot;. Its no different than what the Democrats did in 2004.

This isn't really news. Its just an attempt by the mainstream media to make it look like something more. Its business as usual at AP.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Nov. 30 2007,13:03)]I always thought declaring your party affiliation should be illegal. You should be able to vote for whoever you wish.

K2WH
I pretty much thought you could.

I thought the only reason you declare a party affiliation is to vote in the primaries? That makes sense to me.

But in the actual election, I thought you were free to vote for whoever you wanted.

I'm gonna register as an R and vote for some loser. I'm also going to encourage people to do the same. Hey, it works for American idol, why not for the real world. &quot;Vote for the worst&quot; as they say... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Actually, seriously, I'm gonna register as a D and vote against Hillary. I believe it to be my civic duty.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Nov. 30 2007,15:12)]NY's Dumbokrat Troll-O-Matic is rolling up the post count.

Where ever you are, Robert, you could learn some lessons from this.
Lost the thesaurus Albert? And to think I once thought that you were the engage them in conversation type of person. Have a good weekend. The News here is reporting a man wearing a bomb at one of Clinton's campaign storefronts in New Hampshire. I guess when Neocons want change they like to hear boom at the same time.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Nov. 30 2007,13:59)]I heard about this. How is this legal? Isn't this a form of coercion?
What you never heard of breaking an oath http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (k4gun @ Nov. 30 2007,13:58)]Let's be very clear about something here. It is not your constitutional right to impact the nomination of a political party's candidate. Political parties can choose whatever method they like to choose their candidate. They can have a caucus, an open primary, a closed primary, a convention or just flip a coin. There is nothing in the Constitution about primaries nor political parties.
OK, President Putin, you can elect your leaders democratically, or your party can nominate its' candidates in smoky back rooms, hand-picked by the 'good ole boys', just like always. Or, better yet, you can rig a sham election to make it look like your hand-picked nominee was approved by the voters. You're right - it may not be unconstitutional, but it does reek.

Here in Minnesota, the most rabid party members have a convention to 'endorse' a candidate. The endorsed candidate is often not the one who wins the primary, though, as the voters tend to be much more moderate on both sides of the fence.

The last time I looked, you had to be over 18 and breathing to join the Republican Party. If I choose to be a Republican for one day every few decades, why not? Oh, now you have to be a life-long LOYAL Republican in order to participate in the candidate selection process? I guess the next time I feel like voting for a Republican, I should just sit on my hands, until I come to my senses.

[K4GUN]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Nov. 30 2007,15:35)]Quote[/b] (k4gun @ Nov. 30 2007,13:58)]Let's be very clear about something here. #It is not your constitutional right to impact the nomination of a political party's candidate. #Political parties can choose whatever method they like to choose their candidate. #They can have a caucus, an open primary, a closed primary, a convention or just flip a coin. #There is nothing in the Constitution about primaries nor political parties.
OK, President Putin, you can elect your leaders democratically, or your party can nominate its' candidates in smoky back rooms, hand-picked by the 'good ole boys', just like always. Or, better yet, you can rig a sham election to make it look like your hand-picked nominee was approved by the voters. You're right - it may not be unconstitutional, but it does reek.

Here in Minnesota, the most rabid party members have #a convention to 'endorse' a candidate. The endorsed candidate is often not the one who wins the primary, though, as the voters tend to be much more moderate on both sides of the fence.

The last time I looked, you had to be over 18 and breathing to join the Republican Party. If I choose to be a Republican for one day every few decades, why not? Oh, now you have to be a life-long LOYAL Republican in order to participate in the candidate selection process? I guess the next time I feel like voting for a Republican, I should just sit on my hands, until I come to my senses.
Whatever dude. I don't mind the way it works here. Like I said, I voted for Howard Dean in 2004 because I thought he would be a lot easier to beat in the general election. If the Democrats really wanted to nominate the best candidate, they would have made it impossible for me to do that. That would be their right and I'd respect it.

So tell me what you think of Iowa. The caucuses are not very democratic, are they? They are a party function and closed to outsiders. That's the way the parties want to do it in that state and I think that's totally appropriate.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (k4gun @ Nov. 30 2007,17:44)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Nov. 30 2007,15:35)]Quote[/b] (k4gun @ Nov. 30 2007,13:58)]Let's be very clear about something here. It is not your constitutional right to impact the nomination of a political party's candidate. Political parties can choose whatever method they like to choose their candidate. They can have a caucus, an open primary, a closed primary, a convention or just flip a coin. There is nothing in the Constitution about primaries nor political parties.
OK, President Putin, you can elect your leaders democratically, or your party can nominate its' candidates in smoky back rooms, hand-picked by the 'good ole boys', just like always. Or, better yet, you can rig a sham election to make it look like your hand-picked nominee was approved by the voters. You're right - it may not be unconstitutional, but it does reek.

Here in Minnesota, the most rabid party members have a convention to 'endorse' a candidate. The endorsed candidate is often not the one who wins the primary, though, as the voters tend to be much more moderate on both sides of the fence.

The last time I looked, you had to be over 18 and breathing to join the Republican Party. If I choose to be a Republican for one day every few decades, why not? Oh, now you have to be a life-long LOYAL Republican in order to participate in the candidate selection process? I guess the next time I feel like voting for a Republican, I should just sit on my hands, until I come to my senses.
Whatever dude. I don't mind the way it works here. Like I said, I voted for Howard Dean in 2004 because I thought he would be a lot easier to beat in the general election. If the Democrats really wanted to nominate the best candidate, they would have made it impossible for me to do that. That would be their right and I'd respect it.

So tell me what you think of Iowa. The caucuses are not very democratic, are they? They are a party function and closed to outsiders. That's the way the parties want to do it in that state and I think that's totally appropriate.
You're fundamentally correct about the way things are.

It does make a fine argument for a valid third party entry, though.

See! I can be reasonable about thing for one who lacks intellectual honesty.

[K0RGR]

Yes, we do caucuses here, too, but slightly differently - the caucuses in Minnesota select the delegates to the state convention. Only a very tiny number of people show up for these precinct caucuses, in either state. And, you guessed it, they are pretty much the hard core 'party regulars'. But in Minnesota, there's still a general primary election - but it usually comes too late to be of much interest.

Iowa is a different kind of place. Do you know which state has the most incorporated cities in the U.S.? It's IOWA. Now, most of those incorporated cities are tiny. The one my wife comes from is a &quot;big&quot; town of 2,000 folks. But there's a a precinct caucus in most of those tiny burgs, so people actually have some opportunity to express themselves. No doubt, the local party bosses have a ton of influence, but there are so many of them, it's hard for any candidate to sew them all up. Besides which, anybody trying to 'railroad' something through would earn the loathing of his neighbors - not something you want to do in Iowa! People care more about their neighbors there than anyplace I've ever been!

[N3ATS]

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Nov. 30 2007,17:23)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Nov. 30 2007,13:59)]I heard about this. How is this legal? Isn't this a form of coercion?
What you never heard of breaking an oath http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Doesn't every politician take an oath to uphold the Constitution?

We all see how well that works. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif