The GOP accepts no presidential dissent (Primary voters must sign loyalty oaths)

Roanoke Times ^ | 11/28/07 | Roanoke Times

[dangus]

Nice to see how many FReepers unquestioningly accept a left-wing rag's hit piece on the Virginia GOP.

1. It's not a loyalty oath, just a statement of current intent.
2. It's nothing new, just the new "macaca."
3. It's necessitated by the DEMOCRAT party of Virginia, which long ago wrote primary laws designed to permit Democratic sabotage of the GOP.

So unless you all think it'd be really cool that Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton became the next GOP Presidential nominee, STHU.

[roses of sharon]

Virginia has Republican voters? Who knew.

[roses of sharon]

This is why I laugh when FR bemoans a “split” in the GOP because of the evil Rudy, lol!

They hate the GOP, party politics, and don’t even fund them anymore.

[TYVets]

I would be willing to bet there is a catch 22 somewhere in the loyalty oath.

[adorno]

I take it you think your word is non-binding too. Honest people take their word seriously, so this says a lot about you; thanks for the warning.

In the context of the case at hand, a loyalty oath is non-binding and ludicrous. In politics, there is no such thing as a binding pledge or loyalty oath. A person has the right to change his mind if he or she just can't stomach the preferred candidate from a party.

A person that changes his mind because his conscience won't allow him to go along with a "loyalty oath" is far more honest than the one that just feels that he needs to honor a pledge that he made in the past but that he can't justify in the present.

[af_vet_rr]

The Republican Party of Virginia has no interest in thoughtful voters. It only wants mindless party loyalists who will vote Republican no matter what.

This is why the GOP is no longer the party it used to be - we have too many people who vote for somebody with an "R" next to their name, regardless of whether the candidate is conservative or liberal.

As far as I'm concerned a liberal is a liberal, whether they have a "D" or an "R" next to their name. If people continue to blindly vote, then we will end up with people like Guiliani - the only difference between liberal Republicans and Democrats is how long it will take for us to slide into full-blown socialism.

Lately when I talk to people in my area who work/volunteer for the state GOP, they don't care for it when I say I'll vote for the candidate who comes closest to my conservative beliefs, and if that person is a Republican, great, and if it's a 3rd party, then so be it. A lot of other Republicans in my area feel the same way, which is why the state GOP is not as happy and cheerful as they used to.

[Carry_Okie]

The point is that it is NOT a “loyalty oath”.

The point of my post is that the poster had said that the oath was "non-binding." There's no such thing as a non-binding oath.

[rhombus]

Only idiotic fools would employ this tactic, the GOP has its share of them...

As opposed to the less foolish tactic of...

[GraniteStateConservative]

Virginia’s primaries are non-partisan, meaning anyone can vote for anyone. The intent, here, is that the Republican Party doesn’t want a whole bunch of Democrats sabotaging the Republican primaries, as had been done routinely in the past.

It's a very retarded policy because it doesn't accomplish anything, like all policies that are retarded. The "problem" is that the primaries are nonpartisan. Make the primaries partisan if you want to not make them nonpartisan anymore. Even people who are supposed to be holier than thou like priests and preachers lie. Unless you're putting voters really under oath, this is pointless. It's worse than pointless because it makes the Virginia GOP look like it's run by idiots.

[Charles Martel]

There’s a reason for this because Democrats can skew the results in what amounts to an “open primary”, but it does seem silly.

Okay, I missed my morning cup of coffee today, so please connect the dots... how does a Republican loyalty oath do *anything* about Democrats skewing the primary results?

[gracesdad]

“The intent, here, is that the Republican Party doesn’t want a whole bunch of Democrats sabotaging the Republican primaries, as had been done routinely in the past.”

Can you name some examples, particularly statewide? I’m not talking about, say, a city council race. I’m curious because I can’t think of any offhand.

[gracesdad]

Let’s not forget that Virginia is unlikely to have any impact on the primary anyway.

[Doohickey]

Since Bush was a foregone conclusion by the time the VA primary rolled around, I voted for Dean in the RAT primary instead.

[rhombus]

Which is exactly the kind of thing the GOP is trying to prevent. Good luck to them. I don’t expect what they are doing will work at all.

[Petronski]

It’s an asinine requirement. Just lie.

[longtermmemmory]

I think this is ronpaul fallout.

It also dovetails with the fact Giuliani is totally unacceptable to most republicans. giuliani only has a plurality, NOT a majority.

No Giuliani, NO PROBLEM.

[VictoryGal]

> 1. It’s not a loyalty oath, just a statement of current intent.

yeah? And what’s to keep a Dimocrat from invading the primary GOP vote regardless, and lying on the “statement”?

> So unless you all think it’d be really cool that Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton became the next GOP Presidential nominee, STHU.

You really think this “statement of intent” makes this less likely? OMG hilarious. All it does is make Republicans with strong morals less likely to vote in the primary. The Dims are LAUGHING at this worthless piece of paper (to them).

[dangus]

I should have written, “a whole bunch of Democrats ATTEMPTING to sabotage the Republican primaries.”

It’s impossible to state when a vote has been cast as deliberate sabotage. New Hampshire has an open primary withOUT the loyalty oaths, and has chosen such luminaries as Pat Buchanan and John McCain. Is that Democratic interference or New England Yankee contrariness? The Virginia law is worse: Not only are independents allowed to vote in Republican primaries, but Democrats are too.

[dangus]

It has nothing to do with Ron Paul or Rudy Giuliani. As the Pilate damned well knows, the policy has existed for years.

[dangus]

Whoops, this isn’t the Richmond Pilate (Pilot), it’s the Roanoke Times.