Funny thing is, I doubt many of Paul’s supporters would give a rat’s ass about lying on the form about what support they will give in the general election.
I sincerely do not get the point of it. From what I can tell, it’s only designed to scare away voters who aren’t 100% fully invested in some juicy GOP goodness. Otherwise what’s the point? It has no bearing on anything anyone does anywhere – so why go through the trouble of putting it on the table if it’s not designed to be some symbolic scare tactic of one stripe or another?
It would be like me inviting you over for dinner and making you sign a contract stating that you will love my meatloaf. Even if you don’t, what the hell am I going to do about it after you’ve hidden it under your green beans – make you give back the bite you’ve already eaten? Similarly, what will be the repercussions of someone going back on the pledge? Nothing.
I repeat. I don’t get it.
It makes certain people feel good. Like they’ve “done something”. Nothing more than that.
It’s a moral obligation, not a legal one. There’s nothing to stop people from pledging to support the candidate and then not except for their individual senses of honor, but I know that I wouldn’t be willing to pledge something like that and go back on my word.
I mean, I don’t fully get what you don’t get the point of. Would you sign a pledge to do something without having any intention of doing it?
How is it a moral obligation? It has no teeth; there are no ramifications of obeying/disobeying it; there isn’t even a mechanism to figure out if someone did or didn’t stick to it.
Listen, if I walked into a convenience store and was confronted by a man insiting that before entering I sign a pledge to consider buying a six-pack of Bud … well, number one, I’d tell him to fuck off … but really, what would be the point to that other than as advertising? What would be the ramifications of buying a six-pack of Michelob instead? A stern look from the petitionee?
It’s the same friggin’ thing … “Sign this pledge that you will consider doing something that you have no moral, legal, ethical, or anything else, obligation to follow up on.”
It’s fluff, pure and simple.
Republicans are big on pledges. They’re always signing some pledge or other. You can blame it on Grover Norquist.
It’s a moral obligation because if you say you’re going to do something, you should do it. That’s the whole point of a moral obligation…that it doesn’t have teeth, but it’s just a matter of conscience.
And if the people requiring the pledge are assholes, then there is no moral obligation whatsoever. They can pinkie-swear all they want - people will decide that their sense of what’s right outweighs any ridiculous pledge.
Having a bully say you have to sign something before you can vote does not create a moral obligation on your part.
Number one, what they’re asking is so nebulous it hardly matters. “Support” the nominee for President. Ok – good luck, Mitt. Now who one votes for is nobody’s business but his own.
And B, it’s a spit in the face of the open primary concept. If they only want Republicans to vote in it, close the fucker up. But if it’s open, you can’t tell people to de facto register a party in order to vote – even if it’s only a “moral obligation.”
No kidding. I am toying with the idea of confronting each of the candidates at New Hampshire town hall appearances to see how many of them I can get to pledge to never, ever raise the debt limit. Michele Bachmann is already on record, and if I can appear like a sincere Tea Partier, I bet most of them would fall for it.
Once you sign it it does. If I took that oath, I’d feel obligated to stand by it.
So you’d support the Republican candidate for president even though you didn’t want to because you were made sign a pledge to vote in an open primary? Or would you just not vote in that primary to avoid a moral conundrum?
I feel it’s probably the latter, in which case, congratulations GOP for another stellar pissing on the democratic process.
For the 18th time, the Oath doesn’t require you to do anything in the future. If you decide to vote for Noam Chomsky in the general election, your free to do so without breaking your word. It only requires that you go into the primary vote with an intent to support the GOP nominee. Obviously you can intend to do something and have events or just further consideration change your mind.
For the 19th time … it’s an open primary. Nobody gets to dictate to anyone else how they vote.
For the 20th time, the party can do whatever it wants. This is not an activity to elect someone to public office.
Great, they can do whatever they want … including this cockamamie non-binding, bullshit, oath, which only serves as a scare tactic in the first place … in an *open *primary, because, of course, not fronting the stupid thing might mean that a Not-Really-A-Republican might go against the party’s marching orders.
Pathetic, if you ask me.
I long for the day where a group of Democrats sign a loyalty oath to Obama - in any context - so I can watch every Tea Party member head explode in unison.
Well, I wouldn’t vote in the primary anyway, because I’m a Democrat (and when I lived in VA, I didn’t vote in the Republican primary. Voted in the Democratic one). But if it had been the Democratic party that did something like that, then no, I wouldn’t vote in the primary.
Which is precisely what an oath like this is designed to do – to make sure only the “right people” vote and to drive away the infidels.
Call me when one of us requires an elections commission somewhere to enforce our outrage.
For the record, I don’t really see the point of open primaries. If you don’t want a winner-take-all system, don’t have one; use approval voting instead. That said, this loyalty oath thing is (1) pointless, and (2) stupid.