As I noted yesterday, the Virginia Republican Party will require everyone voting in next year’s Presidential Primary to sign a statement that they will support the parties’ nominee in the 2008 election.
Not surprisingly, the news received some negative reaction from even the most Republican of Virginia bloggers. Leslie Carbone noted that, though the oath is unenforceable it puts people who actually think that oaths mean something in an impossible position:
There’s no way to enforce the oath, but that’s no comfort to people (like me) who keep our vows. If this ruling stands, I won’t be able to vote in the Virginia Republican primary. Read my lips: I don’t make vows I don’t keep.
Kat at Cathouse Chat notes that it’s the Republican Party that needs to return to the voters that support it, not the other way around:
Why would I want to swear loyalty to a party which is supposed to represent its base – and refuses to do so? I wouldn’t stay married to a man who screwed me over like this, and you better believe that I’d never consider being loyal to a Party which cannot adhere to its foundational principles.
(…)
Ladies and gentlemen of the Republican Party, whether on the State or National level, please – return to us, and we will return to you. And then, perhaps, we will again be a country worthy of God’s favor.
And, finally, Greg Letiecq agrees that the pledge is a dumb move by the RPV now that they’ve been told by the Courts that they can’t have a closed primary:
There are no half-measures that will accomplish the ultimate result of having voters register by party, but they sure can make Republicans look pretty stupid.
In the face of this and other negative reaction, its seems as though the RPV is backpedaling in this story from WMAL:
[W]hile some might interpret that to be a promise of party loyalty, GOP leaders aren’t going that far. Shaun Kenney, a spokesman for the state party, tries to clarify it.
The concern is that Democrats are somehow sabotaging the state party by voting for Republicans instead of their own candidates.
Virginia is one of 20 states with an open primary, and since a recent court decision said the open primary is constitutional, Kenney says it’s the closest thing to party registration they can achieve under the law.
The hope is that it gives Republicans at least some peace of mind that the candidates who win have the most support from inside the party heading into the general election. But violating that pledge of sorts isn’t supposed to lead to anything more than a guilty conscience.
See, here’s the problem. Virginia has an open primary and anyone can vote in it. If the RPV wants to ensure that the party’s nominee is selected only, or at least primarily, by “party members”, then they should choose that candidate at a convention. Calling a primary in a state where primary voting isn’t limited to registered party members means that you accept the fact that people who aren’t diehard activist Republicans will have a say in who your nominee is.
Deal with it.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:02 am
The real question is who at RPV authorized this. It was not discussed at the last state central meeting nor the executive committee meeting. Is this Hager or Judd off on a crazy tangent again ? If it’s Judd, he needs to be gone.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Interesting, though, isn’t it, Doug, that many (but not all) of the same people who would complain about a convention process are ALSO complaining about the pledge? ‘Fact is, they LIKE Democrats interfering in GOP nominating contests.
BTW, it requires a statement of “inten[t] to support all of the Party’s nominees in the ensuing election,” NOT “a statement that they will support the parties’ nominee in the 2008 election.”
To paraphrase Judge Wilkinson “[Lawyers] are in the business of taking language seriously….”
November 28th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
James,
It’s still a dumb oath and a dumb idea.
Personally, I don’t like primaries to begin with, open or not, because I don’t think that state and local election officials should be involved in what is really an internal party matter.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
A pledge I can live with:
I pledge my intention to support my Republican candidate by voting for him in the General Election should he win the Republican nomination.
This should satisfy the RPV, since it addresses the problem of disingenuous voters from other parties trying to sway our primary, while not forcing Republicans to vote for a candidate they don’t support.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
This is also a really easy way to tick off independent voters. I don’t have a problem with upsetting Democrats intent on disrupting our primary, but I didn’t even think that was going to be a big issue this year. Instead, we just turn off every independent with a legitimate desire to support a Republican in the primary. This is really dumb.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Your reply is nonsensical.
It’s only undesirable if you DO NOT INTEND to support who are voting to support. It has nothing to do with your party affiliation. The only people who can legitimately object are those who wish to vote in our Republican Primary but who have no intention of voting for that candidate should he happen to win.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Douglas,
If the GOP put forward candidates people actually wanted to vote for, this wouldn’t be a problem would it ?
November 28th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Oops. I just replied to Benny, thinking he was replying to my previous post. Duh on my part.
But here’s a solution in the form of a pledge I can live with:
“I pledge my intention to support my Republican candidate by voting for him in the General Election should he win the Republican nomination.”
This should satisfy the RPV, since it addresses the problem of disingenuous voters from other parties trying to sway our primary, while not forcing Republicans to vote for a candidate they don’t support.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
The pledge I suggested above (and again below) wouldn’t be a problem for anyone who HONESTLY supports the candidate they vote for.
“I pledge my intention to support my Republican candidate by voting for him in the General Election should he win the Republican nomination.”
This should satisfy the RPV, since it addresses the problem of disingenuous voters from other parties trying to sway our primary, while not forcing Republicans to vote for a candidate they don’t support.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Ostensibly, the object of open primaries is to accord the general population of voters the opportunity to choose the best qualified candidates of any party affiliation.
Unfortunately this noble intent is warped by the infantile short sighted extremists determined to wall themselves off from the majority of unwashed heathen voters who lay in the middle ground of the politic.
Unfortunately the majority of GOP candidates tend to alienate the middle with their extreme right wing positions that often border on the bizzare.
J. Heller’s “Catch 22″ offers an insight on the banality of “loyalty” oaths.
Oddly, while in the Air Force, I ran into a “loyalty oath” situation during the First Bush Gulf War. Seems as if the enforcement of the UCMJ was not good enough.
David, the Regular Crewchief
USAF, Retired