Except in this case, she’s mad at you about how someone else said it.
Agree, they’d probably do better if they called it something less ooky sounding. Its not like its an oath to die for the GOP, or even to vote for their eventual nominee. Just a promise that your going in with the intention of supporting them. Its a pretty weak kind of loyalty.
Makes one want to sign the Loyalty Oath as “Washington Irving”. Or “Irving Washington”.
Seems legit.
I don’t think it would.
When I was in college, I was in Minnesota, a Caucus state, and those of us attending the Caucuses had to make a similar pledge.
I went the Democratic one and when two students from my school said they couldn’t promise to vote for the Democratic candidate, but that they were there to see what the Democrats had to offer because they didn’t like the way George H. W. Bush had governed, by a vote of the people in the hall they were prevented from becoming part of any of the Caucuses, but allowed to observe.
Some people objected to this, but I personally didn’t since the two were well-know conservative activists who didn’t like George H.W. Bush because they didn’t think he was conservative enough(to their credit they didn’t hide this).
It struck me as perfectly reasonably that in the Democratic Caucus you’d only want people choosing the Democratic candidate if they intended to vote for the Democrat over George H. W. Bush.
That said, there was no way they could have enforced the loyalty oath.
Any LegalDopers care to chime in on this? VA is an open primary state, and has been for a long time. There is no party registration. This makes local campaigning by the parties a pain in the ass, since you have to guess who is “your” likely voter. I think both the R and D parties would love a switch to party registration and closed primaries, but nobody wants to make the suggestion, or pay for the change.
The “loyalty oath” might be enforceable by allowing the local Republican parties to challenge a voter in the next Democratic primary, forcing said voter to participate in the next Republican primary instead. That wasn’t what the linked article said, but the news can be skimpy on important details.
The VA State Board of Elections is bipartisan. I’m confident the R members agreed to this request to hurt the Paul campaign, and the D members agreed to let the Rs make themselves look like Stalinists.
I’m a life-long Democrat and a registered voter in VA. I will not cross party lines in the upcoming primary, or in any other primary. I think it’s not cricket. Since there’s no Democratic primary, I won’t be voting on Presidential primary day. My candidate will be on the ballot in November, so it’s OK with me.
Are party primary elections governed by general election laws? I don’t think they are, but I’ll defer to our legal experts on the matter. That is to say, it’s not an election for a government official, but just for whomever is going to run for that party.
I don’t see why the GOP would want to do this, or how it would work even if they did. The oath is just saying you intend to vote for the Republican in that election, it doesn’t say anything about what you’ll do in the next primary (or even that election, just what you “intend” to do at that moment).
Apparently, the VA GOP agrees with you.
Um, they do THIS time. As was mentioned upthread that has not always been the case for the VA GOP, or at least their voters.
The only way this oath makes sense is if you think that it makes no difference who is nominated because they are all the same anyway. Since I don’t believe that’s true, and I don’t think most voters think that’s true, swearing to support a party is goofy.
I’d take their loyalty oath, but I’m not sure it would overrule my crossed my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye agreement with the Democrats. And even that’s probably meaningless now that I have a pinky promise with the Greens.
I take it you’ve never been much of a believer in “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
As a registered voter in Virginia, I was furious when I found out about this on Saturday. Other people were quick to remind me that the wording does NOT say “vote for,” but merely “support.” The Republican candidate for president will have my support in the same way every candidate has my support: I can support the fact that they are taking an active role in trying to positively influence the world (whether or not I agree with the exact definition of positively influence is a different case).
All the same, this makes me furious. The whole point of an election is to choose the candidate you want to win, not to coerce citizens into supporting one particular candidate. Campaigning is one thing. Requiring voters to sign their name to an oath is quite another.
The VA Republicans should propose legislation to have party registration and partisan primaries. The Rs have the governorship, an effective majority in the state Senate (20-20 with the Republican Lt Gov to break ties), and a two-to-one majority in the House of Delegates. They could pass this easily for future elections, and help both political parties in the state. They could even keep the primaries “open” by allowing registered independents to vote in a primary of their choosing.
That would not help the 2012 candidates, but they knew the rules of the game when they signed up.
If one subscribes to the premise that matters of “right” and “wrong” become so debased when politics is involved that neither quality applies, one can still declare a belief in “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
So the guy who gets the first wrong in prevails? An odd sense of justice you have there. Republicans have exploited liberal guilt about fair fights for years. It’s about time that changed.
If the GOP has a problem with the primaries, then why not just close them? If I lived in VA you can bet your ass I’d vote to sow discord in the other party. They can eat a dick for all I care. Don’t like it? Close the damn primary then!
No computer access yet Rick?
The loyalty oath is stupid and unamerican in my opinion. That said, I think these operation chaos type shenanigans are reprehesible. I have however been having fun telling my uncle on every opportunity that I am caucusing for Bachmann/Cain/Newt and he needs to get on board (I’m not really, I couldn’t support these guys even as a joke. The means are NOT justified by the ends). During the last election he switched parties for the sole purpose of supporting Hillary, going all the way to the state level to do so. I remember occasions less than a year earlier where he called her a feminazi but he was unshakebpable in his sincerity that he was a Hillary supporter. Of course, as soon as Obama won, he bacame an avid tea partier. And right wingers think liberals are soft on ethics…
Reprehensible or not, I don’t think there’s much evidence that they’re meaningful. The primary voting public, even in a small state like Iowa, is too large. There isn’t a large enough body of people that are motivated enough by complicated strategic voting schemes to have an effect.
Another reason I suspect this effort is aimed at Paul rather then some fear of organized Democratic shenanigans.
Here’s the thing, though. With no Dem primary this year (unless you want to contribute to Obama’s 100%) then it would make sense for a Dem voter to vote and try to hijack the GOP nomination just for kicks.
I agree that the loyalty oath has no teeth and that here and everywhere, primaries should be closed. That’s the whole point of them. Republicans get together and pick their candidate and the Dems do the same. Why have Independents or members of other parties as part of that process?
I wonder how it would pan out if they had a closed primary AND a loyalty oath? I don’t think I would sign that. I’m a member of the GOP, but if they put up a weak candidate, I not committing to vote. I’m a member, not a lackey.
I believe from the beginning this was not only to stop Dems from skewing the results but to also give pause to Paul supporters. A lot of them are not “real” Republicans.