December 29, 2011

Virginia GOP to Require "Loyalty Oath" To Vote in the Primary;
UPDATE: Loyalty Oath is Illegal?

— Gabriel Malor

Ugly.

Anyone who wants to vote must sign a form at the polling place pledging to support the eventual Republican nominee for president. Anyone who refuses to sign the pledge will be barred from voting.

During a brief meeting Wednesday at the state Capitol, the State Board of Elections voted 3-0 to approve three forms developed by the election boardÂ’s staff to implement the loyalty pledge requested by the state GOP.

The board also held a drawing that determined Texas Rep. Ron Paul will appear first on the primary ballot, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the only other candidate who qualified for the ballot.

It's designed to weed out spoilers from the Democrats, who won't be having a primary, and probably also from among the Ronulans. But do they really think that folks that would vote simply to upset the election are going to abide by a loyalty pledge?

And, on the other hand, aren't they more likely to weed out folks who do take oaths seriously and who cannot commit to supporting all of the possible GOP candidates? I know I can't take that oath in good conscience because there is no circumstance under which I will support Ron Paul for president.

Comments poll: Would you take that oath?

Update: This was too good not to promote up to the main post:

83 Here's how we're going to enforce this:

If you say, "I swear I'll vote for any Republican in the general election" 15,000 times, we'll just take your word for it.

If you say it between 10,000 and 14,999 we're going to need to verify your vote in some fashion.

Posted by: The Virginia GOP at December 29, 2011 12:55 PM

Stupid Party, your table is ready.

The Oh-It-Gets-Worse Update: The loyalty oath requirement is probably illegal.

State election law requires that primary election requirements, like, e.g., a loyalty oath, be approved by the State Board of Elections at least 90 days before the primary. The State Board of Elections approved this change only yesterday. Virginia's election is on Super Tuesday, March 6, which is only 68 days away.

On the one hand, great, I can plan to vote that day. On the other hand: goshdamn these state parties are filled with complete idiots.

Thanks to Slu for the link.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:36 AM | Comments (281)
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

1

Wow, what a fuck up. And to think the Virginia GOP did so well in the 2009 and 2010 election.

 

A loyalty oath? That's going to go over well. How about you just let candidates buy their way onto the ballot like New Hampshire does.

Posted by: Ben at December 29, 2011 07:38 AM (wuv1c)

2 Virginia resident here. No fucking way am I taking that pledge. How is this even legal?

Posted by: MDH3 at December 29, 2011 07:39 AM (GKyUC)

3 They can kiss my translucent white ass.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at December 29, 2011 07:39 AM (Qxdfp)

4 Uh oh. A Republican adviser let slip his inner Obama.

Posted by: hadsil at December 29, 2011 07:40 AM (HYDTz)

5 Negative. Not with Ron Paul in the running.

Posted by: Doug at December 29, 2011 07:40 AM (YWZwH)

6 This is outrageous. Have they lost their minds?

Posted by: MDH3 at December 29, 2011 07:41 AM (GKyUC)

7

It's over man. Game over. Game over, man.

 

It's Romney

Posted by: Ben at December 29, 2011 07:41 AM (wuv1c)

8 I live in Virginia. I intend to walk to my polling place and vote for whomever I want to vote for, in the primary and in the general, and the state GOP can go suck one. I don't consider myself to be bound by any supposed "pledge" that stands between me and my right to vote.

Posted by: Brewdog at December 29, 2011 07:41 AM (jg+Fr)

9 Perhaps we could draw a distinction between "support" and "vote for".  Yeah, I know, it's splitting hairs, but that might be an out...

Posted by: Lone Marauder, pre-denounced for your convenience at December 29, 2011 07:41 AM (/bVuS)

10 Registration follies + loyalty oaths = WTF are you guys smoking in VA?  It sure ain't tobacco anymore, that's for sure...

Posted by: DarkLord©says Ia! C'thulu ftaghn! at December 29, 2011 07:41 AM (GBXon)

11 Ew. Creepy.

So yeah, that's my answer.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 29, 2011 07:41 AM (nOAmB)

12 I don't think an oath under compulsion is binding.  It's in the Magna Carta, or somewhere.

Posted by: toby928© at December 29, 2011 07:42 AM (GTbGH)

13 oh for God's sake

Posted by: phoenixgirl all in for perry at December 29, 2011 07:42 AM (Ho2rs)

14 No, I would tell them I can't promise to that... and then come back an hour later and let them know I changed my mind.

Posted by: Serious Cat at December 29, 2011 07:42 AM (2YIVk)

15 are loyalty oaths even legal? Shit i'd take it with no intention off keeping the oath. like the fuckers administering the oath have ever kept one of theirs!

Posted by: Bannor at December 29, 2011 07:43 AM (6AXh/)

16 the circus has come to virginia and it looks like it's gonna be a doozie

Posted by: phoenixgirl all in for perry at December 29, 2011 07:43 AM (Ho2rs)

17 I'd rather see a 10 question knowledge test.

Posted by: FireNWater at December 29, 2011 07:43 AM (qmw4U)

18 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 07:43 AM (8y9MW)

19 One of the joys of the secret ballot is I get to vote for whomever I want. Asking me to take a loyalty oath is kinda craptastic. Besides, if anyone should be taking a "loyalty" oath, it should be the eventual nominee. That person should taking an oath to not become a "lets just slow the growth of government/democrat lite" douche once elected.

Posted by: DanB at December 29, 2011 07:43 AM (sWgE+)

20 Something up with the drinking water in Virginia?

Posted by: Christina Hendricks' Mighty Jugs Supports Rick Perry's Hair for President at December 29, 2011 07:43 AM (g6f6y)

21 "Comments poll: Would you take that oath?"

Not only no, but HELL NO!

Here we have the Stupid Party doing once more what it does best- being stupid and handing sound bite fodder to the Democrats.

Posted by: Nighthawk at December 29, 2011 07:43 AM (OtQXp)

22 Nope. And I'm a Virginian so I'll get to exercise that right.

Posted by: RWC at December 29, 2011 07:43 AM (fWAjv)

23 I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president

Oh, you could drive a truck through the loopholes in this.

Posted by: toby928© at December 29, 2011 07:44 AM (GTbGH)

24 The problem is, people who would use subterfuge in order to screw with a primary would not be bothered by faking an oath.

Posted by: Truman North at December 29, 2011 07:44 AM (I2LwF)

25 My God it's not even 2012 and this election is running out of sharks to jump. No way in hell would I sign that.

Posted by: alexthechick at December 29, 2011 07:44 AM (7Ipu/)

26 I'll takes the othses on the Precious!

Posted by: Ron Paul at December 29, 2011 07:44 AM (qzHix)

27 If Paul and Romney supporters were honest, than no one at all would vote in the Virginia Primary.

Posted by: Serious Cat at December 29, 2011 07:44 AM (2YIVk)

28 So what do they propose to do to enforce said document obtained under duress?

You da lawyer GM.

I personally don't want to lie to render my LEGAL vote. This is just screwy on so many levels.

Why not have the friggin' candidates sign it so they won't go all full retard third party on us?

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at December 29, 2011 07:45 AM (Qxdfp)

29 If you want to do this more elegantly, only allow people to vote in the R primary if they have been enrolled for at least 4 years.

I don't think many liberal leaning voters would be willing to give up a shot in voting in D primaries so that for the next presidential election they could vote in the R primary.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2011 07:45 AM (7BU4a)

30 Can you say "disenfranchised"?  The lawyers will.

Posted by: Doofus at December 29, 2011 07:46 AM (YEelc)

31 I'm not signing shit. That's stupid.

Making me do that would probably cost the Republicans of VA any vote I'd be willing to cast in a primary.

If they REALLY want to weed out "spoiler" Democrats, then have as a condition for voting that you've been registered as a Republican for at least a month prior to the primary.  That would probably weed out maybe 90% of anyone voting in the primary *just* so that they could.

Posted by: looking closely at December 29, 2011 07:46 AM (6Q9g2)

32 Why is there no adult leadership in the Virginia Republican party? Why was there no one to put a stop to this?

Posted by: Brewdog at December 29, 2011 07:46 AM (jg+Fr)

33 I fully intend to vote for the Republican nominee; Rick Perry.

Posted by: toby928© at December 29, 2011 07:46 AM (GTbGH)

34 Do they *try* for stupid in the VA GOP?  If I were a Democrat or 'Independent', I'd sue in a heart-beat.  In as much as a vote is protected political speech- and also supposed to be free from coersion- preventing me from voting in a legally open primary (that is, the legislature has declared that primaries are open), requiring me to sign any "oath" loyalty or otherwise is an attempt to either coerce my vote, or restrict my voting rights.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 07:46 AM (8y9MW)

35 I would actually vote for any of the Republicans over Obama, but no way am I swearing a loyalty oath to the GOP. I have never crossed over to vote a primary, and I consider myself a loyal party man, but this is disgusting and vile. I wouldn't swear an oath to anything other than my country, my wife, my brothers, or my God. No way will I do that for a political party. I spit on the Virginia GOP, and maythe bastards who came up with this rot until they feel genuine repentence.

Posted by: Roy at December 29, 2011 07:47 AM (EuD1c)

36 This is like those "No Guns Allowed" signs. All they do is keep the good guys out.

Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at December 29, 2011 07:47 AM (2Oas0)

37 i understand wanting to weed out dems . still a little authoritarian there. You Must Vote for whom We decide you must?

Posted by: willow at December 29, 2011 07:47 AM (h+qn8)

38 So what do they propose to do to enforce said document obtained under duress?

You da lawyer GM.

I personally don't want to lie to render my LEGAL vote. This is just screwy on so many levels.

There is no method of enforcement except one's own conscience. I'm from the rather old-fashioned school that believes a man should say what he means and mean what he says. I'm not going to take a damn loyalty oath knowing that I intend to "drive a truck through the loopholes" later, as toby writes.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2011 07:47 AM (I2U+E)

39 Ace called the GOP "The Stupid Party" yesterday....darnit if he's not right. 

Seriously, do they sit around and try to think of ways to make us all look like idiots?

Posted by: Coldstream at December 29, 2011 07:47 AM (qrCKL)

40 And it's a pledge, not an Oath™.

Posted by: toby928© at December 29, 2011 07:48 AM (GTbGH)

41 At some point it would be nice if Mitt Romney, the presumptive beneficiary of this "loyalty oath" would step and nicely ask the crazy people in Virginia to knock it off already. People who want me to get in line behind Mitt? Tell him to get in line first, there's 75% of the Republican Party in this one.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 07:48 AM (Gc/Qi)

42 Seriously, the GOP needs to die. It alternates between blowing its enemies and fucking its constituents.

I guess you could say, to coin a phrase, that the GOP is a stuttering cluster-fuck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: jwpaine at December 29, 2011 07:48 AM (FUozQ)

43 A pledge of future intentions.  Yeah, I don't this carries much moral freight.

Posted by: toby928© at December 29, 2011 07:48 AM (GTbGH)

44 The Virginia GOP screwed up with the nominating process and now they have only Romney and Paul. Given that, I think more Paultards will refuse to a loyalty oath than Romney supporters. That said, I think the loyalty oath is perhaps the only thing they can do to prevent a Paultard takeover.

Posted by: Ghost of John Brown at December 29, 2011 07:49 AM (cBcNP)

45 How on earth could they enforce that? Last I heard the voting process is secret ballots, but if they try to pull that off then everyone running should be on the ballot. Also, what if Romney and Paul aren't nominated, does that mean you forfite your right to vote?

Posted by: Ann NY at December 29, 2011 07:49 AM (fxo1o)

46 #39
+1 to that.

I'd even squelch down the vomit in my throat and vote for Ron Paul over Obama. . .if it ever really came down to that (which I HIGHLY doubt), but I don't feel like I owe my local Republican party jack shit in terms of professed loyalty.

Posted by: looking closely at December 29, 2011 07:49 AM (6Q9g2)

47 And it's a pledge, not an Oath™.

You say potato, I say hearty root vegetable.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 07:49 AM (8y9MW)

48 Oh and I've been a Romney man this whole cycle. Lot's of us are good partymen, who will not just vote, but contribute to the winner of the GOP process.

Posted by: Roy at December 29, 2011 07:50 AM (EuD1c)

49 Time to take over Mexico.

Posted by: SouthTexas at December 29, 2011 07:50 AM (0vZEC)

50 It's like Republicans across the country are sorting good ideas and bad ideas into separate piles, then throwing out all the good ones and rolling around naked in the bad ones.

Seriously guys...when I said we could beat Obama if we nominate a ham sandwich it was a figure of speech, not a challenge.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2011 07:50 AM (ehlWj)

51 I will vote for whoever the hell I want and I will never sign a  party loyalty oath.  If the system itself cannot be trusted to work correctly, then change it. Not for nothing, this stupid idea is an embarrassment.

Posted by: snowcrash at December 29, 2011 07:50 AM (w3YD7)

52

WTF....no seriously, WTF.....

How is it remotely enforcable? Thing is, it isn't....but it will burn a lot of bridges.

 

 

 

Posted by: Crowsting,who knows that Obama=SCOAMF at December 29, 2011 07:50 AM (61BD9)

53 Well, I could take the oath since I do intend to support whoever the Republican nominee is......unless it's Ron Paul who I believe has no chance of becoming the nominee. No moral problem, and I'm old-school on this kind of stuff as well.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 07:51 AM (Xm1aB)

54 "I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president"

Ah, but my name is not "The Undersigned." Loophole! Winning!

Posted by: Brewdog at December 29, 2011 07:51 AM (jg+Fr)

55 #48

This presumes that the primary voters of VA are stupid enough to vote en masse for Paul, and/or that there are enough "mischief maker" non-Republican primary voters to swing the election.

I don't think either thing is likely to hold true, but again, they could at least limit the possibility of the second thing by limiting Republican primary voters to

a. Actual registered Republicans, who have
b. Been registered for some period of time prior to the actual primary.

Posted by: looking closely at December 29, 2011 07:51 AM (6Q9g2)

56 I take my word seriously.  So, no, I wouldn't sign a loyalty oath.  I took an oath to defend the Constitution, not some shitty bunch of politicians. 

Posted by: no good deed at December 29, 2011 07:52 AM (mjR67)

57 Holder justice to the rescue! The requirement that one should be able to sign one's own name is unconstitutional, or something. Just sayin'.

Posted by: I am the walrus, goo-goo-ga-joo at December 29, 2011 07:52 AM (ybkwK)

58 If Ron Paul weren't in the race maybe I'd roll my eyes and do it knowing it was meaningless. With him and his racist crap? No.

Posted by: Mama AJ on her cool new phone at December 29, 2011 07:52 AM (XdlcF)

59 Seems to me the state Republican parties should have had precautions already implemented after the open primary bullshit we had to endure in 2008. Why didn't they?

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 07:52 AM (Xm1aB)

60 Stupidity this breathtaking is...I don't even know what.

Posted by: MDH3 at December 29, 2011 07:52 AM (GKyUC)

61 Seriously guys...when I said we could beat Obama if we nominate a ham sandwich it was a figure of speech, not a challenge.

You do know I'm a registered Independent, right?

Posted by: The Ham Sandwich at December 29, 2011 07:52 AM (GBXon)

62 I'd sign that Loyalty Pledge. In Blood. Not *my* blood, mind you. But somebody's gonna be bleedin' if they try to make that pledge a prerequisite.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 29, 2011 07:53 AM (h6mPj)

63 The GOP is dead to me....DEAD!

Posted by: Paladin at December 29, 2011 07:53 AM (lP8dE)

64 This disincentivizes you from going over to the side of the invading aliens how, exactly?

Posted by: M. Murcek at December 29, 2011 07:53 AM (ToZXn)

65 I guess you could say, to coin a phrase, that the GOP is a stuttering cluster-fuck of a miserable failure. Nice turn of a phrase. I wonder where else we can use it? . . . .

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 29, 2011 07:53 AM (EV5/9)

66 #65
Because they're stupid.

Posted by: looking closely at December 29, 2011 07:53 AM (6Q9g2)

67 Stupidity this breathtaking is...I don't even know what.

Miraculous.  In that nothing this stupid should be able to occur in this universe. 

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 07:53 AM (8y9MW)

68 No frickin' way. Who ever the waterhead is that's running things for the GOP in VA needs to be removed.

Posted by: lauraw at December 29, 2011 07:54 AM (pV3WY)

69 I hope President Obama does something to stop this terrible mistake. I would tell Attorney General Holder to take action now. Please President Obama save us from ourselves...........

Posted by: Ferd Berfall at December 29, 2011 07:54 AM (48wze)

70 I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess a "Federal judge" forced this to be an open primary in the first place, like in SC.  Am I right?

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 07:54 AM (73tyQ)

71 You have to say how you will vote - but on the bright side, you do not have to prove you are legally eligible to vote...

Posted by: M. Murcek at December 29, 2011 07:55 AM (ToZXn)

72 Would I take that oath? Sure, I'm gonna vote for the ham sandwich anyway, unless its Pauloon, in which case I'll stay the fuck home on election night, and support him on my middle finger.

Posted by: maddogg at December 29, 2011 07:55 AM (OlN4e)

73 Sort out decent Congresscritters, use 'em as the core of a new party.

F--- the GOP.  Conservatives shouldn't be voting for a center-left crew anyway.

Posted by: DarkLord© sez we need a new party, STAT! at December 29, 2011 07:55 AM (GBXon)

74 I think this is a wonderful idea, honestly.

Posted by: Mitt Romney at December 29, 2011 07:55 AM (TpXEI)

75 Heck, I'll take the oath now: I will support the Republican nominee against Obama.*

*Providing, of course, that the Republicans nominate one of the current candidates: Bachmann, Huntsman, Romney, Perry, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich.

Posted by: JohnJ at December 29, 2011 07:55 AM (Tt6ky)

76 I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess a "Federal judge" forced this to be an open primary in the first place, like in SC.

I actually sort of doubt it.  Texas has open primaries, too, after all.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 07:55 AM (8y9MW)

77 Here's how we're going to enforce this:

If you say, "I swear I'll vote for any Republican in the general election" 15,000 times, we'll just take your word for it.

If you say it between 10,000 and 14,999 we're going to need to verify your vote in some fashion.

Loyalty Oaths and Barriers To Ballot Access- Your Virginia GOP At Work. You're Welcome!


Posted by: The Virginia GOP at December 29, 2011 07:55 AM (ehlWj)

78
Late Wednesday the state Republican Party released a lengthy defense of its procedures...

The statement says the state GOP “counted Governor Romney's signatures, reviewed them for facial validity, and determined he submitted well over 15,000. Never in the party's history has a candidate who submitted more than 15,000 signatures had 33 percent invalidated. The party is confident that Governor Romney met the statutory threshold.”



The members of the state GOP leadership then individually walked over to their shiny new Mercedes, each with a Romney 2012 bumper-sticker, then took a short ride to the airport to catch a chartered flight to Aruba.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 29, 2011 07:56 AM (3wBRE)

79 No, I would not take that oath.


We've been (rightly so) making fun of Iowa, but it looks like Virginia's party  needs an overhaul as well. 

Posted by: Y-not at December 29, 2011 07:56 AM (5H6zj)

80 I live in VA-7 (Cantor) and am totally disgusted with the primary process. Romney vs. Paul -- WTF??? If I bother to vote in the primary, I will take the oath but will vote for Paul as a protest against the Stupid Party's primary policies. If the general election is close in Virginia, I will vote for the Republican. If not close, I will vote Libertarian, again as a protest. Oath be damned!

Posted by: Disgusted at December 29, 2011 07:56 AM (XQxLj)

81

Gabriel Malor: I know I can't take that oath in good conscience because there is no circumstance under which I will support Ron Paul for president.

Sounds like someone's tribe just hasn't been able to purchase ole man Paul the way that they purchased little Barry Soetoro - lock, stock, and barrel.

Believe it or not, Gabe, this nation is filled with folks who recognize that as a reason to vote FOR Mr. Paul.

 

Posted by: Mordechai Geldmannstein at December 29, 2011 07:57 AM (Bjf6P)

82 DRAFT SOMEBODY, or folks, we are fukt.

Posted by: Bluesman at December 29, 2011 07:57 AM (9wOfB)

83 @73, evidently! Son of a bitch. There has to be a way to get this overturned. Oh, and I love how they do it during Christmas week, when no one is in the office except the poor slobs who answer the phone.

Posted by: MDH3 at December 29, 2011 07:58 AM (GKyUC)

84 Sounds like maximizing for Romney to me... of course if my candidate were on the ballot I'd do it knowing that I can just not show up on election day if it happens to be Ron Paul.

I knew he was a racist back in the 1990s... there ain't no spooky "new revelations" for me... he used the racists to build his funds at a time the libertarian movement drifted in that direction as it has usually been a minor movement.  He made that calculus, he should live by that calculus, and lose by that calculus.  Nobody ever asked him to make that judgement for him... he decided to get funds for his niche movement in that way.  Excuse for it what you will.. but that's what happened... he built his movement leveraged through hate and the crank circles... and hate and cranks tend the most devoted and thus $$$.  Further, as a long time libertarian, he knows what those guys were and are about... as those were the types that filtered into those circles.  To think Ron Paul was ignorant of this just begs belief.

------

A choice between a guy who won't fight against Obama and knee caps conservatives because he can't admit fault (all in the name of appearing "rational") and a guy who will allow Republicans to have that that long dead tar and feather of racism applied all over the place.  Most of the "racist republicans" are dead and buried... Ron Paul will breathe fire into that perception... and don't think it won't be put into ads against him.  You remind people of the terrible things of the last 3 years but it'll be nothing compared to the devastating attack that will be laid on Dr. Paul.  Romney will go down similarly by trying to be "Mr. Nice Guy"... hint to the world, people only claim they want a nice guy... Mr. Nice Guy is cousins with Mr. Milquetoast (isn't that right, Mr. Daniels).

Posted by: Former Mass Resident at December 29, 2011 07:58 AM (BeB0s)

85 When somebody said there was no such thing as RINO purity in the last thread, I think we have here a pretty blatant example. 

I take comfort in the fact that I think this idea isn't going to last until the end of the day before those involved 'reconsider'.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 29, 2011 07:58 AM (TpXEI)

86 Posted by: Mordechai Geldmannstein at December 29, 2011 12:57 PM (Bjf6P)

Okay, can the AoSHQ Office Style Guide be Amended so that the man's name is always spelled "Luap Nor" just so we don't get quite so many pot-heads masquerading as conservatives?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 07:58 AM (8y9MW)

87 #32

Limiting the R primary voters to individuals who have been registered Republicans in VA for four years definitely would weed out any kooky Dems trying to spoil the primary.   Its a simple solution, too.

The problem is, it would also tend to weed out a lot of otherwise legitimate Republican primary voters.   Consider any Republican primary voter under the age of 22, or anyone who moved into VA from another state in the previous 4 years.

But yeah, doing that would *still* be better than a stupid "caucus" system like they have in Iowa, where the eventually winners may bear no relationship to the candidates actually favored by pluralities of actual Republican voters in the State.

Posted by: looking closely at December 29, 2011 07:58 AM (6Q9g2)

88 AllenG, I think you're right, it's a law in VA, but the VA GOP has never been happy about it, hence actions like this.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 07:58 AM (73tyQ)

89 The current crop of weak tea calls for a backroom deal. West/Rubio might suit me.

Posted by: maddogg at December 29, 2011 07:58 AM (OlN4e)

90

Sounds like AllenG has relatives who will be going down for the count after Ron Paul audits the Federal Reserve.

 

Posted by: Mordechai Geldmannstein at December 29, 2011 07:59 AM (Bjf6P)

91 Loyalty oath? Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot? I think Ace had it right. We are the party of stupid.

Posted by: John Galt at December 29, 2011 07:59 AM (qbm3p)

92 Republicans, doing their best to get Obama re-elected.

Posted by: Bosk at December 29, 2011 07:59 AM (n2K+4)

93 anyone wonder if Romney would even be a factor in this race had Mitch "doesn't wear the pants" Daniels not married a whore and been allowed to run for President?

Posted by: Bannor at December 29, 2011 07:59 AM (6AXh/)

94 25% of the population are really, really dumb. 99% of these folks want to be in politics, news, or reality shows.

Posted by: True fact! at December 29, 2011 08:00 AM (yn6XZ)

95

89 DRAFT SOMEBODY, or folks, we are fukt.

Posted by: Bluesman at December 29, 2011 12:57 PM (9wOfB)

They are trying that in Iowa.  Radio spots are being aired.

Posted by: jwest at December 29, 2011 08:00 AM (8moZm)

96 VA GOP has never been happy about it, hence actions like this.

I understand their reasoning (or semblance thereof), it's just that they're stupid.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 08:00 AM (8y9MW)

97 @97 Exhibit 1 why no rational person would ever support Ron Paul.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 08:00 AM (Xm1aB)

98

Executive Director of the Republican Party of Virginia, David Rexrod:  drexrode@rpv.org

 

Have at it.

 

 

Posted by: ShantihJay at December 29, 2011 08:00 AM (sCVwl)

99 plan C: pray for a brokered convention?

Posted by: Bannor at December 29, 2011 08:01 AM (6AXh/)

100 Looks like VA Primary Day is now totally open on my shedjule.

Posted by: RushBabe at December 29, 2011 08:01 AM (tQHzJ)

101 The VA GOP is running one helluva top-notch operation. Just when I thought they couldn't top themselves with their standards -- and enforcement of said standards -- for getting on the state party's presidential primary ballot, they do something like this. This is the type of idea I would expect from the Left -- an unenforceable rule that would be supported by a despot demanding purity from their constituents.

Posted by: Slappy at December 29, 2011 08:01 AM (LTbLf)

102 Or, call them! 804-780-0111 They'll be hearing from me in a few.

Posted by: MDH3 at December 29, 2011 08:01 AM (GKyUC)

103 plan C:

Pray for Team Meteor.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 08:02 AM (8y9MW)

104 Limiting the R primary voters to individuals who have been registered Republicans in VA for four years definitely would weed out any kooky Dems trying to spoil the primary.   Its a simple solution, too.

The problem is, it would also tend to weed out a lot of otherwise legitimate Republican primary voters.   Consider any Republican primary voter under the age of 22, or anyone who moved into VA from another state in the previous 4 years.

You know what we used to have in this country?

(a) You had to register to vote well in advance of the election.
(b) That was when you chose a party.

And if you moved, you had to vote in the old place until the new place would allow you to vote there or you didn't vote at all.  Basic residency requirements are not an excessive burden.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 08:02 AM (73tyQ)

105 VGOP is doing everything it can to undermine support for whomever eventually becomes the nominee. Apolitical people can't stand stupid shit like this and will either vote in protest or not at all.

I find it highly offensive that the state party has chosen to decide whom primary voters may select in the primary by changing the rules as they see fit for this year. I really hope there's significant quantities of write-ins for Perry & Gringrich as a hearty fuck you to "the deciders".

Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston training for the ONT mudwrestling match at December 29, 2011 08:02 AM (ijjAe)

106 Not if Ron Paul is on the ballot

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 29, 2011 08:02 AM (i6RpT)

107 Republicans tend to be bad at the politicking part of things, but this election takes the cake.  Our best chance ever to elect a solid conservative President, probably take both houses of Congress, and get a solid mandate from the people not only in support of conservative principles but also against everything liberals stand for - and we are doing our best to flush it all down the crapper.  A primary with only Romney and Ron Paul???  WTF!!!!!

I'm starting to wonder whether it would be better to let one of these morons win and continue "business as usual" slipping the country leftward a little a time, or just let Soetoro win reelection and hope the country can survive four more years so that maybe next time the people will be even more fed up (assuming that it still matters by then).

Posted by: Norcross at December 29, 2011 08:02 AM (RM0br)

108 Just do it, Knuckleheads.

Posted by: Howard, Fine, and Howard, VA GOP Co-Chairs at December 29, 2011 08:02 AM (MMC8r)

109 As much as I like to get my rage on, the more I think about this, the less I care.  The pledge itself is so weightless as to evaporate.  It's akin to noting, prominently, that you must be a US citizen to vote.  A pro-forma declaration of Republican affiliation is probably not a bad idea in a Republican Primary.

Posted by: toby928© at December 29, 2011 08:02 AM (GTbGH)

110 Gabriel Have you read the Sixth Circuit Court's opinion in- Nader v. Blackwell? I promise you-it isn't boring.

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 08:02 AM (r2PLg)

111 I must have missed that clause in the Constitution.

Posted by: LadyLiberty1885 at December 29, 2011 08:03 AM (4FAf8)

112 I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess a "Federal judge" forced this to be an open primary in the first place, like in SC.

Oh, that's what happened in SC? 
That explains it.

I can see maybe having some jurisdiction over actual elections, but since when does the Federal gov't get to decide how private organizations like the Republican party conduct their primaries?

If the SC, VA, or TX Republicans want to pick their respective nominee by throwing darts, or using a ouija board, what the hell is it to Uncle Sam?



Posted by: looking closely at December 29, 2011 08:03 AM (PwGfd)

113 I would sign it.  As much as I hate the idea of voting for Ron Paul, remember his opponent in the White House.  Another 4 years of the SCOAMF would kill me.

Posted by: Jimbo at December 29, 2011 08:04 AM (O3R/2)

114 We here in Florida have a closed primary. we're just to stupid to operate our ballots correctly...

Posted by: Bannor at December 29, 2011 08:04 AM (6AXh/)

115 Time for Texas to secede and annex Mexico and be done with it.

We can then export our poor and illiterate to Kalifornia.  The Dims will buy our illegals for votes.

Posted by: TexBob at December 29, 2011 08:04 AM (51Nv7)

116

My county's (VA) Repub Party Membership form also says that the applicant WILL support all chosen nominees. 

I have a friend who put an asterisk by that statement and wrote a little blurb on the back saying he would not do so if he were not of good conscience about said nominee.  They didn't say a word and cashed his check.

Posted by: RushBabe at December 29, 2011 08:05 AM (tQHzJ)

117 Another gift from the Republicans! We love these guys. We don't even have to work very hard to make them look stupid. They do it to themselves!

Posted by: The Obama Media at December 29, 2011 08:05 AM (oPkw3)

118 @120 I agree. I was not aware that the federal judiciary had mandated open primaries. I am trying to figure out on what basis such a court could rest jurisdiction.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 08:05 AM (Xm1aB)

119 If I were to want to trigger a supervolcano caldera, what would be the best procedure and least expensive method?

Oh, no reason at all...


Posted by: DarkLord©/Yellowstone Caldera 2012
If you're going to do disaster, do it right!
at December 29, 2011 08:05 AM (GBXon)

120

Gabe said: "...there is no circumstance under which I will support Ron Paul for president."

All the disagreements I've ever had with you are now rendered irrelevant!

Posted by: some1 at December 29, 2011 08:05 AM (cSlKk)

121 It's akin to noting, prominently, that you must be a US citizen to vote.

No, it's not.  And as Gabe mentions, some of us take our word seriously.  Asking me, right now, to promise that I'll support the eventual nominee is not okay.  For starters, if my nightmares come true and Luap Nor is our candidate, I already know I can't support him.  If Romney is our candidate, it'll be hard to support him, and he has plenty of time to alienate me yet further.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 08:05 AM (8y9MW)

122 92 - How is this purity? These idiots in Virginia are leaking dumb all over the place. Show me how this is some application of their ideology when they're clearly just making it up as they go along?

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 08:05 AM (Gc/Qi)

123 Like the liberal "independents" won't vote because their morals won't let them lie when they give that oath.  Sure.

Posted by: NC Ref at December 29, 2011 08:06 AM (/izg2)

124 Hey, how about the GOP swear a loyalty to their principles instead?

Posted by: CDR M at December 29, 2011 08:06 AM (Ybl9g)

125 Mwahahaha [rubbing hands]
everything is going according to plan.

Posted by: Chem Trails at December 29, 2011 08:06 AM (Qxdfp)

126 "I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president."

It's silly, but does this really justify the inflammatory phrase "Loyalty Oath"?

Posted by: Heorot at December 29, 2011 08:07 AM (1bluv)

127 We here in Florida have a closed primary. we're just to stupid to operate our ballots correctly...

After 2000, most of us would be inclined to agree.

Posted by: DarkLord©/Yellowstone Caldera 2012--If you're going to do disaster, do it right! at December 29, 2011 08:07 AM (GBXon)

128 Come on guys, don't we all insist that everybody vote for the eventual nominee?  What's wrong with requiring you do it up-front before we give you a ballot?  It seems like a pretty conservative idea to me (and believe me, I know conservative ideas).

And look, this is just Virginia's selection method.  I would never support something like this on the Federal level.

Posted by: Mitt Romney at December 29, 2011 08:07 AM (TpXEI)

129 Remember when I told you I'd vote for the nominee?

I lied.

Posted by: The Q in Commando at December 29, 2011 08:07 AM (NdE8F)

130 I can see maybe having some jurisdiction over actual elections, but since when does the Federal gov't get to decide how private organizations like the Republican party conduct their primaries?

When they're actually run by the State Government, and the Constitution guarantees that each State shall have a Republican form of Government.

If the Parties held their own primaries, using only their own money, only donated/party-funded locations and materials, etc., that would be different.  They don't, however.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 08:08 AM (8y9MW)

131 Apropos of nothing, Comcast lies and has some of the dumbest service reps on the planet. Epic, multi-day screw-up on Comcast's part where they have turned off my service. And to get it restored they keep demanding to call my phone # to verify I am me.

Of course, I had the whole triple package with Comcast providing telephone service. Which they had turned off, which was the problem in the first place.

Twice now a repair tech has called my old Comcast # on his way over, been unable to reach me, and canceled the repair visit. I have given 3 different Comcast reps my cell # in a vain attempt to get the repair guy to call my cell # and not the Comcast # which Comcast turned off in the middle of the fucking holidays.

And their customer rep seems to read at about the 4th grade level. One had to read every bit of text on her computer out loud to herself. She was incapable of reading silently to herself.

I know this because she kept putting me on hold. Except she didn't know how to work the magic talking box. So she'd ask to put me on hold, then put the handset down, and then I'd hear her painfully read the script she was following out loud to herself. "Is this commercial service? No .....", "Is the service problem television, internet, or phone service related? uhhhhh".

At one point she confidently announced a service tech would arrive by time X. Which was 7 minutes in the past.

Fuck Comcast.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at December 29, 2011 08:08 AM (QcFbt)

132 The Stupid Party indeed.

It's dumb on so many levels.

The base distrusts everything having to do with the GOP because they lie and do the opposite of what they run on...so the VA GOP wants the base to take a loyalty oath. Awesome.

The VA GOP created a primary candidate qualification system that somehow eliminated two legitimate contenders from the ballot... so now they set up a voter qualification system that will eliminate a sizable percentage of voters. Sweet deal.

The primary system is FUBAR'd and the cornsucking yahoos in IA are making a bad situation worse, yet again.... and the VA GOP is doing everything they can to make sure that only diehard Party followers vote. Oh, and your choices are Mr. Electable and Mr. Psycho.

Fucking genius.

Posted by: runninrebel at December 29, 2011 08:08 AM (N/1Dm)

133 @135 I agree. For those of us who take our word seriously, I see very little here for concern. I certainly do not intend to vote democrap or independent.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 08:08 AM (Xm1aB)

134 I can see maybe having some jurisdiction over actual elections, but since when does the Federal gov't get to decide how private organizations like the Republican party conduct their primaries?

I think it has to do with how the primaries are funded.  I.e., if state funded, then you must permit independents the "right" to vote in the primary, etc.

It's of a piece with some of the absolutely moronic views of rights that have permeated our law schools.  The incoherence can be breathtaking at times and the legal theories just bizarre.

But the real kicker isn't that the federal government does this shit,...it's an UNELECTED Federal judge.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 08:08 AM (73tyQ)

135 Absolutely nuts.

Stunts like this only reinforce that the parties should be on their own as far as primaries go. We, the citizens, should get involved only in the actual election for the office.

Government should not continue or create any infrastructure supporting the existing two parties. They're just the two worst examples of too big to fail.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at December 29, 2011 08:09 AM (VdvP/)

136 How is this purity? These idiots in Virginia are leaking dumb all over the place. Show me how this is some application of their ideology when they're clearly just making it up as they go along?

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 01:05 PM (Gc/Qi)

Because their ideology is party loyalty.  Demand that the "R" gets the vote, no matter what.  That is the ideology of RINOs.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 29, 2011 08:09 AM (TpXEI)

137 They don't call the GOP the Stupid Party of Stupid for nothing.

P.S. 

You say potato, I say hearty root vegetable.

OT, but you reminded me of something I learned on Christmas from my brother-in-law.  Apparently there is a new group of radical tree-huggers who go beyond even a vegan diet.  They are called fruitarians and their concern for the planet is such that they will eat no fruit or vegetable before its time; that is, before it falls from the tree by its own accord.  I fear that they will wait a long time before the carrots and potatoes fall from the trees.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 08:10 AM (Hx5uv)

138 @135
A pledge is a solemn promise to (do) someting.  An oath is also a promise made in the sight of something/one the oath maker considers sacred. 

Seems pretty similar to me. 

Posted by: Y-not at December 29, 2011 08:10 AM (5H6zj)

139 Guys, see the (second) update.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2011 08:10 AM (I2U+E)

140 Bastards! Rexrode's voicemail is full, as is the general mailbox. I'll just fucking bet.

Posted by: MDH3 at December 29, 2011 08:11 AM (GKyUC)

141 Virginians:  Determined to Make Iowan Look Good By Comparison!

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 08:11 AM (Hx5uv)

142 Asking me, right now, to promise that I'll support the eventual nominee is not okay.

Not desirable maybe, but the Republican Party is a club, if you want to vote in their club, they can ask that you promise to support the nominee of the club.  And note that it's deliberately full of outs:  a pledge not an oath, it's about current intentions about a future situation, and it doesn't even make you promise to vote for the nominee, but rather asks that you "support" the nominee, strength of support or form not defined.

I've taken Loyalty Oaths, and this is no oath.  It's nothing.

Posted by: toby928© at December 29, 2011 08:11 AM (GTbGH)

143 They are called fruitarians and their concern for the planet is such that they will eat no fruit or vegetable before its time; that is, before it falls from the tree by its own accord.

Ah, so they're volunteering to starve first.  Well that's nice of them.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 08:11 AM (8y9MW)

144 The primary is open essentially-to whomever was asking that upthread. Virginians do not register to vote by party. That means any registered voter can cast a ballot in a presidential primary. If the Democrats and Republicans hold primaries on the same day, a voter must choose one or the other.

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 08:11 AM (r2PLg)

145 Not only is the "loyalty oath" illegal, but it'd be unenforceable anywise.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 29, 2011 08:12 AM (+inic)

146 Why is the VA GOP taking a page from the Democrats' approach to pretty much anything and everything and making the whole process for people to vote in the primary so overly complicated? If they're worried about open primaries due to non-Republicans picking the party's candidate, then set a freakin' deadline for when a voter needs to be a registered Republican to vote in the primary. I'm not a big fan of open primaries but either have them with only normal restrictions (i.e., registered voter in the state) or don't have them instead of this micro-managing stupidity.

Posted by: Slappy at December 29, 2011 08:12 AM (LTbLf)

147 Well,....somebody has to control the election outcome. Who better than the establishment? Letting voters do it could lead to all kinds of messy.

Posted by: long toss at December 29, 2011 08:12 AM (FPjaa)

148 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 29, 2011 01:10 PM (I2U+E)

I don't see how that's worse, Gabe.  I think it's fantastic that the GOP was thwarted in doing something abhorrent by its own incompetence.  I don't really care how they 'look', because they deserve it.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 29, 2011 08:13 AM (TpXEI)

149 GOP NO BAKA.

Thatisall.

Posted by: DarkLord©/Yellowstone Caldera 2012--If you're going to do disaster, do it right! at December 29, 2011 08:14 AM (GBXon)

150 As long as one sincerely "intends" to support the R nominee, how does this implicate moral concerns if, at the time one casts his or her vote, he or she does actually "intend" to support the R nominee? Obviously, intentions can change over time in reactions to circumstances, but as long as I intend to support the R candidate when I cast my vote, I just don't see the moral concern.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 08:14 AM (Xm1aB)

151 I've taken Loyalty Oaths, and this is no oath.  It's nothing.

Posted by: toby928© at December 29, 2011 01:11 PM (GTbGH)

If it's so trivial as to be ineffective, then why have it?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 29, 2011 08:14 AM (TpXEI)

152 Not desirable maybe, but the Republican Party is a club, if you want to vote in their club, they can ask that you promise to support the nominee of the club

Fine.  Then the Virginian Republican Party can fund the primary.  They can pay for the ballots, the polling locations, the poll watchers and staff.  They can pay to rent the polling machines, and to have the results tabulated.  They can pay, then, to have those results certified and provided to the National Republican Party.

Until they do those things, they're accepting State Money to hold their primary election, and they don't get to do this.

Also, as Gabe mentions, it looks like it's illegal based on current law.  So not only have they angered a great many people, they angered people without actually putting their plan into effect.

Stupid Party indeed.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 08:15 AM (8y9MW)

153 Gabriel That isn't the only unconstitutional thing that is going on- Read Nader v. Blackwell The Supreme Court decision in Buckley even Rehnquist's dissent... Or The Seventh Circuit Court's opinion in Krislov v. Rednour

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 08:15 AM (r2PLg)

154 If it's so trivial as to be ineffective, then why have it?

Beats me.  Stupidity I guess.

Posted by: toby928© at December 29, 2011 08:15 AM (GTbGH)

155 State election law requires that primary election requirements, like, e.g., a loyalty oath, be approved by the State Board of Elections at least 90 days before the primary. The State Board of Elections approved this change only yesterday. Virginia's election is on Super Tuesday, March 6, which is only 68 days away.

On the one hand, great, I can plan to vote that day. On the other hand: goshdamn these state parties are filled with complete idiots.

---

This is the same group of brainbots that sent out an undated memo about the signature process and then, when challenged, to prove that they did so in a timely fashion offered a defense saying it was sent in October.  Not October 1st.  Not October 17th or whatever.  The month of October. 

Posted by: Y-not at December 29, 2011 08:15 AM (5H6zj)

156 I don't see how that's worse, Gabe.

Simple--they're disqualifying most of the field because of a call they made on their own rules, when they don't even know what the laws of their own state require!  And I'm supposed to buy now that there was no funny business on certification for that primary?

Time to let it burn, folks.  Nature must run its course.

Posted by: DarkLord©/Yellowstone Caldera 2012--If you're going to do disaster, do it right! at December 29, 2011 08:16 AM (GBXon)

157 A pledge is a solemn promise to (do) someting.  An oath is also a promise made in the sight of something/one the oath maker considers sacred. 

Seems pretty similar to me.

Not at all. Why would you want to vote in the primary but have no intention to support the nominee? It says you "intend" to vote for the nominee, not that you'll vote for them no matter what.

Posted by: Heorot at December 29, 2011 08:16 AM (1bluv)

158 It's silly, but does this really justify the inflammatory phrase "Loyalty Oath"?

Posted by: Heorot at December 29, 2011 01:07 PM (1bluv)

Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't , but you can be d*mn sure that that is the phrase the media will use to describe it.

And the idiots who thought up the process were too stupid to see how that phrase will be used to tar the eventual nominee with everything from Jim Crow to Trutherism.

Posted by: Nighthawk at December 29, 2011 08:16 AM (OtQXp)

159 The only reason Blackwell got immunity in Nader v Blackwell is because they thought Buckley in 2004 had not been established or known for that long. It is now 2011 the VAGOP should not enjoy the same luxury of immunity that Blackwell back in 2004 did.

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 08:17 AM (r2PLg)

160 @169 Exactly.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 08:17 AM (Xm1aB)

161 By the way, this VA thing is not making the case that other states should have the first primary.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 08:17 AM (73tyQ)

162 12 Registration follies + loyalty oaths = WTF are you guys smoking in VA?  It sure ain't tobacco anymore, that's for sure...

It sure ain't good Emerald Triangle weed either.

Posted by: SFGoth at December 29, 2011 08:18 AM (dZ756)

163 And, the VA GOP clause- "or elegible to vote in VA" does not get them off the hook for being in violation of Buckley because being eligible to vote is dependent upon- in state residency.

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 08:18 AM (r2PLg)

164 I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part! And we're just the guys to do it!

Posted by: GOP Animal House at December 29, 2011 08:18 AM (Hx5uv)

165 I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part! And we're just the guys to do it! Posted by: GOP Animal House at December 29, 2011 01:18 PM (Hx5uv) Priceless

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 29, 2011 08:18 AM (i6RpT)

166 Obviously, intentions can change over time in reactions to circumstances, but as long as I intend to support the R candidate when I cast my vote, I just don't see the moral concern.

That's legalistic, pray-loudly-on-the-street-corner, Sadducee bull-crap.  If I can, right now, know that "intentions can change," then I shouldn't "pledge" anything based on my intentions.

They are asking me to give my word to "support" the eventual nominee.  I could not, in good conscience, make that promise: I see too many reasons that I would choose not to do so.

And that still doesn't get into the just pure stupid of this move.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 08:18 AM (8y9MW)

167 I will sign the pledge as I will vote for The eventual candidate. I just sent an email to the RPV address shown in an earlier post (thank you for the address)' asking if the junior staffers came up with this idea at a kegger.

Posted by: Museisluse at December 29, 2011 08:19 AM (4Lj43)

168 Also read Clay's concurrent opinion in Nader v Blackwell. Perry is due rapid relief due to the overbreadth doctrine.

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 08:20 AM (r2PLg)

169 I took an oath to uphold the constitution four times IIRC and one vow to my wife for sickness and health, etc. I think I am done with oaths in my lifetime.

Posted by: Bill R. at December 29, 2011 08:20 AM (ekWve)

170 Aren't some Christian groups not allowed to take oaths?  So they would not be allowed to vote?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 29, 2011 08:20 AM (TpXEI)

171 Vill you zupport Doktor Paul in ze generrral election?  Do you haff relatiffs living in Richmond?

Posted by: nickless at December 29, 2011 08:21 AM (MMC8r)

172 I'll note that last time around Ron Paul took a whopping 4.5% of the vote in VA, and McCain took 50.1% to Huckabee's 40.67%.

I kind of see the bind here.  If VA is forced to have open primaries via Federal overreach, then the VA Republicans have no way to prevent "spoilers" from entering.

The only question is whether a loyalty oath is better than nothing.

Also, what if NEITHER of the candidates on the VA ballot end up being the eventual Republican nominee for President?  That the loyalty oath will be even stupider.

Posted by: looking closely at December 29, 2011 08:21 AM (6Q9g2)

173 Why would you want to vote in the primary but have no intention to support the nominee?

Because I don't know who the nominee will be.  You may not LIKE that some people would rather vote for Obama than, say, Luap Nor, but you can't honestly deny they exist.

I have no intention of supporting Luap Nor at all, period, full stop.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 08:21 AM (8y9MW)

174 We have open primaries in Alabama and it doesn't ever seem to be a problem here.  The main effect is that you don't get to vote in any run-off of the opposing parties nominees.  You ask for the party ballot you want at the signin, and they remember which one you chose if a run-off is required.

Posted by: toby928© at December 29, 2011 08:21 AM (GTbGH)

175 I take to oath I took to my wife and to the constitution seriously also.  I would not take a loyalty oath to a fucking politition.

Posted by: Trainer as Minuteman until Juggy is gone at December 29, 2011 08:21 AM (DGxyd)

176 Not at all. Why would you want to vote in the primary but have no intention to support the nominee? It says you "intend" to vote for the nominee, not that you'll vote for them no matter what.

Posted by: Heorot at December 29, 2011 01:16 PM (1bluv)

So, how exactly does one enforce this oath, pledge, intention, or whatever you want to call it? As I wrote earlier, this is the type of unenforceable crap one would expect to be supported by liberals. Worst of all, it has to ostracize the independents that the GOP candidate will need to win the presidential election, especially in a swing state like Virginia.

Posted by: Slappy at December 29, 2011 08:21 AM (LTbLf)

177 Virginia resident here. No fucking way am I taking that pledge. How is this even legal?

Posted by: MDH3 at December 29, 2011 12:39 PM (GKyUC)

I wasn't going to bother voting in the primary as long as Captain Tinfoil Hat and Mutt remain the only 2 on the ballot here, but if the brain dead assholes in control of the Virginia GOP leave this in, I might just show up just to make a scene. Just when you think the GOP can't get any dumber, they prove you wrong yet again.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at December 29, 2011 08:22 AM (hcJkV)

178 I'm the last person to believe in conspiracy theories, but have you ever seen Newt Gingrich and Wade Phillips together?

Posted by: Pon Raul at December 29, 2011 08:22 AM (Th9XR)

179 @178 You're not reading the plain English. Nothing "legalistic" about it, just plain meaning of words. And I am not addressing the "stupidity" of this move, just the suggestion that someone choosing to sign the pledge or oath or whatever it is is somehow not a "man of his word." That's just seems to be an overreaction to the actual language as written.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 08:22 AM (Xm1aB)

180

Signs for polling places and the pledge form will advise voters that “Section 24.2-545 of the Code of Virginia allows the political party holding a primary to determine requirements for voting in the primary, including ‘the signing of a pledge by the voter of his intention to support the party’s candidate when offering to vote in the primary.’ ”

The pledge will require the voter to sign and to print his name beneath a line that says: “I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president.”

--

A pledge is a promise.  As is an oath. 

Pledge is the operative verb.  Pledging your intent to support is actually poor phraseology - intend adds nothing to the meaning of that sentence. 

If the Republican Party platform that is decided upon next year is one I cannot support or if the Republican nominee is one I cannot support, I will not vote for the GOP nominee. 

Posted by: Y-not at December 29, 2011 08:22 AM (5H6zj)

181 Why U no vote for RON PAUL? Ron Paul would fix the economy by: A. Attaching the currency to GOLD B. Replacing the STOCK Market with GOLD Market C. Saving trillions on Making FEMA abort their concentration camp projects D. Make Jew Bankers stop stealing our GOLD E. Stop foreign aid to all countries that don't like us, like Canada and Switzerland F. Removing our foreign occupation bases and making our soldiers do something useful, such as digging graves for execured Jew Bankers

Posted by: Lifelong Conservative Republican with accomplishments at December 29, 2011 08:22 AM (LFS8U)

182 Registration follies + loyalty oaths = WTF are you guys smoking in VA?  It sure ain't tobacco anymore, that's for sure...

Posted by: DarkLord©says Ia! C'thulu ftaghn! at December 29, 2011 12:41 PM (GBXon)

Don't blame me. I just moved here.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at December 29, 2011 08:23 AM (hcJkV)

183 Clown car, floppy shoes, red noses, etc...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 29, 2011 08:23 AM (dZPQ2)

184
Registration follies + loyalty oaths = WTF are you guys smoking in VA?
Posted by: SFGoth




Apparently someone came across over George Washington's old hemp field.....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 29, 2011 08:23 AM (3wBRE)

185 Obviously the point of this nonsense is that they're afraid that Ron Paul will beat Romney in a head-to-head matchup (since there's the distinct possibility that a lot of Perry/Gingrich/Santorum/Bachmann supporters will vote Paul just to spite Romney), so this is their way of "weeding out" potential Paulistinians by eliminating those who won't agree to support Romney if he were to win the nomination.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 29, 2011 08:23 AM (+inic)

186 I still say that you don't have the "right" to vote in a primary election.

Period.

If the Republican party wants to restrict voting to people who can roll their tongue, so be it.

Look at caucuses...you have to be able to show up in a specific location at a specific time and devote a couple of hours to the evening.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 08:24 AM (73tyQ)

187 197 Obviously the point of this nonsense is that they're afraid that Ron Paul will beat Romney in a head-to-head matchup (since there's the distinct possibility that a lot of Perry/Gingrich/Santorum/Bachmann supporters will vote Paul just to spite Romney), so this is their way of "weeding out" potential Paulistinians by eliminating those who won't agree to support Romney if he were to win the nomination.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 29, 2011 01:23 PM (+inic)

And what was the reason they tried to do it in 2008?

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 08:24 AM (73tyQ)

188 And the idiots who thought up the process were too stupid to see how that phrase will be used to tar the eventual nominee with everything from Jim Crow to Trutherism.

I never said it was a smart move.

Posted by: Heorot at December 29, 2011 08:25 AM (1bluv)

189 "I would not take a loyalty oath to a fucking politition." I'd keep that opinion to myself. Herr Obama's Gestapo has ears everywhere

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 29, 2011 08:26 AM (dZPQ2)

190 I still say that you don't have the "right" to vote in a primary election.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 01:24 PM (73tyQ)

Primaries are funded by the taxpayer.  So yeah, we do have the right to vote in them.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 29, 2011 08:26 AM (TpXEI)

191

  That the loyalty oath will be even stupider.

Do.  Not.  Challenge.  Them.

C'mon people, get behind my throw jarts at the candidates idea.  You know it's better than this. 

Posted by: alexthechick at December 29, 2011 08:26 AM (VtjlW)

192 189 I'm the last person to believe in conspiracy theories, but have you ever seen Newt Gingrich and Wade Phillips together?

Posted by: Pon Raul at December 29, 2011 01:22 PM (Th9XR)

http://tinyurl.com/cjg87l5

Posted by: Slappy at December 29, 2011 08:26 AM (LTbLf)

193

@ 198 If the Republican party wants to restrict voting to people who can roll their tongue, so be it.

Why don't they just restrict it to people who are actually registered Republicans?

Oh right, then the establishment candidates like McCain and Romney wouldn't have a chance.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 29, 2011 08:27 AM (+inic)

194 146 - Except when it doesn't demand party loyalty. These people, like Arlen Specter and... I can't remember his name, the guy who changed to (I) because the Republicans (i.e. Bush/Cheney) were mean to him. Their loyalty is to themselves. Their purity is in their desire to keep getting elected. I think that is not exactly what Ace meant by ideology.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 08:27 AM (Gc/Qi)

195 Chaffee

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 08:27 AM (r2PLg)

196
And what was the reason they tried to do it in 2008?
Posted by: AmishDude


Psst....

In November 2007 the GOP State Central Committee voted to rescind their demand for a loyalty pledge in VirginiaÂ’s Feb. 12, 2008 Republican presidential primary, won by John McCain.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 29, 2011 08:27 AM (3wBRE)

197 197 Obviously the point of this nonsense is that they're afraid that Ron Paul will beat Romney in a head-to-head matchup (since there's the distinct possibility that a lot of Perry/Gingrich/Santorum/Bachmann supporters will vote Paul just to spite Romney), so this is their way of "weeding out" potential Paulistinians by eliminating those who won't agree to support Romney if he were to win the nomination. Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 29, 2011 01:23 PM (+inic) Nah. They're just stupid.

Posted by: Juicer at December 29, 2011 08:28 AM (LFS8U)

198 shouldn't they run actual republicans in the GOP than, if they want some loyalty oath. what of Paul?

Posted by: willow at December 29, 2011 08:28 AM (h+qn8)

199

*Opps*

politician

We really need an 'edit' button on comments

Posted by: Trainer as Minuteman until Juggy is gone at December 29, 2011 08:28 AM (DGxyd)

200 Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 01:27 PM (Gc/Qi)

Think about Arlen Specter for a second.  There's a contingent that, as long as he had an "R" after his name, thought he deserved unending support.

It's not a large-ranging ideology, but it is there - Team Elephant must win.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 29, 2011 08:29 AM (TpXEI)

201 Jim Jeffords

Posted by: Bannor at December 29, 2011 08:29 AM (6AXh/)

202 "what of Paul?" He has no real party. He's a party of one, living in a universe of one.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 29, 2011 08:30 AM (dZPQ2)

203 Virginian here, sent a nice note saying that as long as Ron Paul participating I would not sign.

Posted by: Jean at December 29, 2011 08:30 AM (tvOF2)

204

I'd keep that opinion to myself. Herr Obama's Gestapo has ears everywhere

K to that, but if it gets to that point, I'm ready.

 

Posted by: Trainer as Minuteman until Juggy is gone at December 29, 2011 08:30 AM (DGxyd)

205 Speaking of that ass douche Chaffee (sp?), someone needs to shove Rhode Island's "Holiday Tree" sideways up his ass.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 08:31 AM (Xm1aB)

206 Damnit that's right-Jeffords. Didn't Chaffee's son go "I"...can't remember get Jeffords and Chaffee mixed up all the time. oy.

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 08:31 AM (r2PLg)

207 Say... do they also want us to promise not to come in their mouth? Because I'll make that promise as long as it keeps working. And given it's the GOP, I'm guessing it'll keep working for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: jwpaine at December 29, 2011 08:31 AM (FUozQ)

208 Pledge is the operative verb.  Pledging your intent to support is actually poor phraseology - intend adds nothing to the meaning of that sentence.

I never knew I could just reword sentences to mean whatever's most convenient to me. This will come in handy.

Posted by: Heorot at December 29, 2011 08:32 AM (1bluv)

209 Speaking of that ass douche Chaffee (sp?), someone needs to shove Rhode Island's "Holiday Tree" sideways up his ass. ***** LOL! with all the glass ornaments on.

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 08:32 AM (r2PLg)

210 @220 Dude, you've been missing out!

Posted by: Bill Clinton at December 29, 2011 08:33 AM (Xm1aB)

211 I understand their reasoning (or semblance thereof), it's just that they're stupid.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 01:00 PM (8y9MW)

Which makes the reasoning part really, really hard.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at December 29, 2011 08:34 AM (hcJkV)

212

We are SOOOO not on the same page.  So Gabriel doesn't want to swear to support the eventual nominee because Gabriel wouldn't vote for Ron Paul.....the only other candidate is Romney. 

I would not sign that pledge in Virginia because the ballot has Mitt Romney on it.  I will not vote for Romneycare in the General Election....that is my loyalty pledge.   Any other republican gets my vote, if it's Mitt, then I will spend the rest of my life doing what I can to help destroy any of the GOP establishment and their enablers who so much as endorsed Mitt Romneycare before the primaries were over.

"....But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

When your government officials force you to purchase something, anything, it's despotism.  When they force you to spend 16% of your earnings purchasing something you don't want to, then it becomes your duty to throw off such government.

 

 

Posted by: doug at December 29, 2011 08:34 AM (gUGI6)

213 Yes, pledge your loyalty to me ... the "One You've Been Ignoring And Not Waiting For Because You Prefer An Actual Conservative But Need To Support Because You Despise Obama So Much". If you don't believe me, ask the leadership of the VA GOP, which has done a splendid job helping me get rid of my competition and "earn" the GOP nomination.

HEIL MITTLER!!!

Posted by: Mitt Romney at December 29, 2011 08:36 AM (LTbLf)

214 "intend" renders it worthless. I intended to go to the store today, but other shit happened and I didn't.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 29, 2011 08:36 AM (dZPQ2)

215 Dummkopfs !

Posted by: Perry Is A Straight Shooter at December 29, 2011 08:37 AM (EL+OC)

216 @205, we don't register party affiliation here in the Old Dumbinion.

Posted by: MDH3 at December 29, 2011 08:38 AM (GKyUC)

217 I will not vote for Romneycare in the General Election....that is my loyalty pledge.

I would think that would be a disloyalty pledge.

Posted by: toby928© at December 29, 2011 08:38 AM (GTbGH)

218 @226 Correct. The only way this "pledge" implicates moral concerns is if a voter falsely claims his or her present intentions, which gets us back to the "stupid" argument.

Posted by: Bill Clinton at December 29, 2011 08:38 AM (Xm1aB)

219

@ 224 When your government officials force you to purchase something, anything, it's despotism.  When they force you to spend 16% of your earnings purchasing something you don't want to, then it becomes your duty to throw off such government.

Now now, Doug, that's the kind of crazy talk that scares moderates and alienates independent voters.

Posted by: Nameless GOP establishment schmoe at December 29, 2011 08:38 AM (+inic)

220

Primaries are funded by the taxpayer.  So yeah, we do have the right to vote in them.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 29, 2011 01:26 PM (TpXEI)

Absolutely not.  That's monumentally stupid. It's the kind of thinking that goes on in law schools.

Parties have the right to use the primary to select their own candidates. They can't be excluded.  If they wish, the Libertarian party can have their own party members vote using a ballot in that election.

But if you are an independent, you don't have the right to select any party's candidate.

Also, the very existence of an unelected judge paid by the taxpayers renders all such arguments moot.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 08:39 AM (73tyQ)

221 I never said it was a smart move.

Posted by: Heorot at December 29, 2011 01:25 PM (1bluv)

I never said that you did, and truth be known I really don't think that trying to restrict the Republican primary to Republicans is a bad idea.  My problem is that in the process of attempting to do that the party leadership is giving the opposition a club with which to beat the eventual nominee- and they don't even seem to realize that fact much less care about it.

Posted by: Nighthawk at December 29, 2011 08:41 AM (OtQXp)

222 213 - Yes, thanks. Regarding this decision, compare and contrast to the Missouri situation. Lawyers, please correct if I have it wrong, but the Missouri GOP said "no" to the state Primary system, and are now going to hold their own caucus, at which the party will select delegates. I believe the state Sec. of State (one of the Carnahan clan) is trying to contest this for some reason. Presumably, the Missouri GOP can require some form of party loyalty/affiliation when allowing people into their caucus selection meetings, right? I think that's where Virginia went wrong.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 08:41 AM (Gc/Qi)

223

Absolutely not.  That's monumentally stupid. It's the kind of thinking that goes on in law schools.

Private organizations should be able to use public money and institutions without strings attached?  That's the thinking that goes on on Wall Street.

Parties have the right to use the primary to select their own candidates.

They don't have the 'right' to taxpayer money or facilities for their primaries, then the 'right' to say we can't use them unless we all pledge to suck Mitt's cock.  They want to have silly loyalty oaths and insist on stupidity, they can pay for the damn thing on their own.

Also, the very existence of an unelected judge paid by the taxpayers renders all such arguments moot.

No it doesn't.  That's just silly.  We have to deal with unelected judges before we can address any other concern?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 29, 2011 08:46 AM (TpXEI)

224 225 sums it up

Posted by: brak at December 29, 2011 08:48 AM (p5Ncj)

225 Here's the thing-it's simply bad politics. Usually you want to present the peasants with the illusion that they have a say in the process. You do that as an escape valve mechanism to keep the peasants from revolting. And you really don't have to do it that often.

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 08:50 AM (r2PLg)

226 How To Be A Dictator, But Not Look Like a Dictator. Chapter 3,Politics for Dummies.

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 08:52 AM (r2PLg)

227

Va already messed up the signature process. I think that was Perry and Gingrich. Either of them should go after the Va. Party. I, for one, would love to see this happen. State GOP is too stupid for their own good. Thrown them all out before they taint the other 56 States.

Posted by: The dude at December 29, 2011 08:53 AM (kEbD/)

228

I would sign the oath, but I wouldn't mean it.

There's no true loyalty.

Posted by: Phinn at December 29, 2011 09:06 AM (KNtHw)

229 Private organizations should be able to use public money and institutions without strings attached? 

A long road from that to having the "right" to vote in a primary election.

Of course there are strings, for one thing places and dates.

That's the thinking that goes on on Wall Street.

Oh, that's nice.  So are you an occupier, lawyer or a Paulestinian on the lookout for joo gold?

> Parties have the right to use the primary to select their own candidates.

They don't have the 'right' to taxpayer money or facilities for their primaries,

I should have been more clear because you obviously aren't that bright.  If the state were to have a state-funded primary election, then any party would have the right to participate in it, given the basic time-place restrictions and reasonable restrictions about registering one's party and having a ballot submitted in a timely fashion.

Also, the very existence of an unelected judge paid by the taxpayers renders all such arguments moot.

No it doesn't.  That's just silly.  We have to deal with unelected judges before we can address any other concern?

Why not?  You can't make good arguments about the "right to vote in a primary election" while having the whole thing decided by an unelected Federal judge.

It's cognitive dissonance.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 09:06 AM (73tyQ)

230 What would keep a Liberal from lying? That's the Left's stock in trade, after all. This is a stupid stunt.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 29, 2011 09:06 AM (niZvt)

231

Ron Paul would fix the economy by:
A. Attaching the currency to GOLD

Yup. Cause shrinking a 14.2 trillion dollar economy to whatever the hell we have in gold reserves (200 billion? 20 billion? Whatever is in Scrooge McDuck's vault) is a good idea

(And yes, I realize the post I am copying from was reeking in sarcasam. I have been gone for a week and my AOSHQ Snark game is a little off. I consider this post Spring Training).

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 29, 2011 09:09 AM (OWjjx)

232 Yup. Cause shrinking a 14.2 trillion dollar economy to whatever the hell we have in gold reserves (200 billion? 20 billion? Whatever is in Scrooge McDuck's vault) is a good idea

I actually looked it up the other day.  Between the gold hoard held by the Fed and the US Mint, our holdings are such that $3.3k/oz will cover the US dollars in circulation.

Unless the interwebs are lying to me.

Posted by: toby928© at December 29, 2011 09:18 AM (GTbGH)

233 Ron Paul is a screwy nutbar, but he's the only nutbar who'd actually repeal Obamacare. None of the other, more socially acceptable nutbars will do that, especially not Mittens. I find it pretty hilarious that Ron Paul, who'd actually cut the federal government's spending, repeal Obamacare and flip abortion back to the states where it belongs, is being attacked by the right wing using left wing talking points, even though he is actually (except for the warmongering and israel-philia) on board with the majority of what republicans claim to want-- less government spending and less government intrusion in people's lives and the marketplace.

Posted by: argh at December 29, 2011 09:22 AM (xZwKw)

234 Probably illegal, definitely totally idiotic. God Damn Stupid Party is going to hand the election to the effing Wreckers *AGAIN*.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at December 29, 2011 09:23 AM (bxiXv)

235 Oh, that's nice.  So are you an occupier, lawyer or a Paulestinian on the lookout for joo gold?

What the fuck are you talking about.  You know the Wall Street which begged for bailouts then started getting pissy when people asked them to account for funds?  You know, like GM did?

Obviously you want to have some kind of argument with a strawman in your own head and you've got an erection over this loyalty oath, so I'll say this - it's a fucking pointless oath because it won't stop Democrats and independents from voting, and it's insulting to conservatives to insist they should 'swear' they would vote for Ron Paul if he won the nomination, or else forfeit their right to vote. 

If the state were to have a state-funded primary election, then any party would have the right to participate in it, given the basic time-place restrictions and reasonable restrictions about registering one's party and having a ballot submitted in a timely fashion.


They sure would, with the restrictions set upon them as conditions for the state-funded primary election.  And it is not wrong to put such restrictions in place.  If the state says they can't deny anybody a ballot, well, touch shit party.  Maybe you should try to get that law changed.

Why not?  You can't make good arguments about the "right to vote in a primary election" while having the whole thing decided by an unelected Federal judge.

Because the fact that a Federal judge behaves like an asshole is no excuse for everybody else to.  I happen to believe judges should be elected and that judges are too activist, but currently the system is they are chosen by people we elect.  Them's the rules.  That doesn't mean I want more stupidity.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 29, 2011 09:25 AM (TpXEI)

236 @245 "Except for the 'warmongering' and israel-philia" Mouthful right there.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 09:25 AM (Xm1aB)

237 To be clear - this is the equivalent of trying to make sure someone you *ASSUME* is a liar is telling the truth by asking them if they're lying. It does not pass the single-celled-organism-test.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at December 29, 2011 09:25 AM (bxiXv)

238 BAHAHAHAHA! wheeze Ahhh- HAHAHAH!

Posted by: the Democratic Party at December 29, 2011 09:30 AM (QQAJP)

239 why didn't I think of that?

Posted by: Joe Lieberman at December 29, 2011 09:30 AM (VxqUc)

240 we don't really like being relevant

Posted by: The VA GOP at December 29, 2011 09:32 AM (VxqUc)

241 Good God. VA GOP is a monstrous wad of dimwit miscalculations and bad ideas. I will GET you. And I will spoil you so hard you have to throw your whole refrigerator away.

Posted by: SarahW at December 29, 2011 09:33 AM (LYwCh)

242 I'm really angry now, does it show?

Posted by: SarahW at December 29, 2011 09:33 AM (LYwCh)

243 Fuck Comcast.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at December 29, 2011 01:08 PM (QcFbt)


Just got Dish Network installed.  The service guy rocked, and may even become an EMT for our football team next fall.  I've never had Comcast but I am really really happy to not be giving money to TimeWarnerfknCable anymore.

Posted by: NC Ref at December 29, 2011 09:34 AM (/izg2)

244

Yup. Cause shrinking a 14.2 trillion dollar economy to whatever the hell we have in gold reserves (200 billion? 20 billion? Whatever is in Scrooge McDuck's vault) is a good idea

I do not support Paul's gold buggery and am not a gold bug - I'd rather end the government monopoly and just privatize minting. As for whether any currency pegs itself to gold, that would be the private company and it's consumers choice.

But I don't see why it matters for dick the way you imply it does. The GDP is the GDP and that is the wealth we made this year, however you please to measure it. Would moving the decimal point one place left on all our denominations cause us to all wake up 90% poorer?

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 29, 2011 09:36 AM (pu3AL)

245 245 Ron Paul is a screwy nutbar, but he's the only nutbar who'd actually repeal Obamacare. None of the other, more socially acceptable nutbars will do that, especially not Mittens.

Bachmann said she would, too. Although, given that she's been spending her entire campaign slobbing over Mitt's corndog, I can understand if you don't count her.

Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at December 29, 2011 09:39 AM (QQAJP)

246 Lot's of Ronulans and others seem to be upset by the loyalty oath.  But, as a Conservative, who has not voted for a Dem in over 30 years, I am both sick and tired of Libertarians, Independents, and yes Democrats coming over to our primaries and rat-fucking us.  That is a technical term.  Look it up in "All the President's Men".  Those motherfucking Independents want to "help" us choose our candidate.  No fucking thanks.

Posted by: Jimbo at December 29, 2011 09:44 AM (O3R/2)

247 What the fuck are you talking about.  You know the Wall Street which begged for bailouts then started getting pissy when people asked them to account for funds?  You know, like GM did?

So why did they get money?  If you give a bailout, don't expect to be able to impose restrictions. Besides, the funding of a primary election is not anywhere close to the bailout of a private company.  Not even close.

 and you've got an erection over this loyalty oath,

Nope.  I oppose open primaries and I despise people claiming rights where they don't exist.

You're the one arguing with strawmen.

They sure would, with the restrictions set upon them as conditions for the state-funded primary election.  And it is not wrong to put such restrictions in place.  If the state says they can't deny anybody a ballot, well, touch shit party.  Maybe you should try to get that law changed.

Agreed.  That seems to be the case with Virginia law.  I simply say that there is no "right" to vote in a primary election.  Whether VA has a law that guarantees it is not relevant to the question of rights as understood in political philosophy.

Because the fact that a Federal judge behaves like an asshole

No. It is because he is unelected. Where does he get off lecturing on Democracy?

Unelected.  I could also make the equal protection argument because non-lawyers are discriminated against with respect to judgeships, but I'll stop.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 09:44 AM (73tyQ)

248 132 Like the liberal "independents" won't vote because their morals won't let them lie when they give that oath.  Sure.- NC Ref at 01:06 PM (/izg2)   I don't think the intent is to stop liberal independents. I think it's to keep conservative Republicans from casting protest votes for Gollum.

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at December 29, 2011 09:46 AM (bRdb3)

249 Question for the moron/ette brain trust: Is "Declaration of Independents" by Gillespie and Welch worth reading? My loyalty to the Stupid Party has just about evaporated and I want to learn more about "small l" libertarianism.

Posted by: Disgusted at December 29, 2011 09:48 AM (XQxLj)

250 The only loyalty oath I've ever taken -- having never served in the military and as a native born American -- is the Pledge of Allegiance.  And that's pretty much where it stays.  I'm not going to pledge my "loyalty" to a political party or its candidate. 

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 29, 2011 09:58 AM (4df7R)

251 So why did they get money?  If you give a bailout, don't expect to be able to impose restrictions.

Why the fuck not?  People give other people money conditionally all the time.

Besides, the funding of a primary election is not anywhere close to the bailout of a private company.  Not even close.

There's a basic concept you are completely missing - if I pay for something, I get to make decisions about it.  It's the danger of public funds.  It's why we don't want them involved in Health Care.  Because if the taxpayer pays for your health, guess who your ass belongs to?

Now the GOP and Democrats don't care about this and are willing to accept the restrictions so long as they don't need to foot the bill.  That's their decision.

I simply say that there is no "right" to vote in a primary election.

And that's subjective.  I subscribe to the philosophy that taxpayers can make regulations where their spending is concerned.  If you don't want them mucking with you, don't take money from them.

No. It is because he is unelected. Where does he get off lecturing on Democracy?

About the same place somebody unelected decides you need to swear you'll vote for Ron Paul (if he wins) or you aren't getting a ballot.  If I were a Virginia taxpayer and a Republican, I'd be pretty pissed that I was denied a ballot in a process I was paying for because people I never heard of don't like my answer to their dumb oath.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 29, 2011 09:59 AM (TpXEI)

252 243

Ron Paul would fix the economy by:
A. Attaching the currency to GOLD

Yup. Cause shrinking a 14.2 trillion dollar economy to whatever the hell we have in gold reserves (200 billion? 20 billion? Whatever is in Scrooge McDuck's vault) is a good idea

(And yes, I realize the post I am copying from was reeking in sarcasam. I have been gone for a week and my AOSHQ Snark game is a little off. I consider this post Spring Training).

----

I don't know how much gold there is in reserves, and sure ain't no economist like Borack, but it seems to me that there is just over 600 billion in us currency out there in the world, and I recall reading that in 2k6 it was tripled UP from 200 billion, mirroring what the Weimar Republic did shortly before hyperinflation set in so....

 

Posted by: Jimmah at December 29, 2011 10:09 AM (TMeYE)

253

To "un-stupid" the situation, they should put all the Republicans who were in the debates, on the ballot.

God forbid, you let people vote for who they want.

Screw the rules, do what's right.

Posted by: seamrog at December 29, 2011 10:12 AM (+uvKZ)

254 There doing this on purpose aren't they?...they've been in on it all along, haven't they? They're just playing us for chumps aren't they???

Posted by: That guy curled up in a fetal ball whimpering at December 29, 2011 10:14 AM (+2p/J)

255

Don't have a dog in the race, and would vote for Paul without hesitation over Shithead. But he's correct on pinning money to gold.

A little excerpt from someone who knows more than me about that stuff:

--

The Approaching Inflation
 For those who are concerned about the severe inflation (possibly hyperinflation) to come as the trillions of newly created dollars continue to drive down the value of the dollar, it is highly instructive to read the best account of what actually happened during Germany's hyperinflation of the early 1920s.
 
Until now, this was difficult and very expensive to do.  Amazon, for example, has only one single copy of When Money Dies:  The Nightmare of the Weimar Collapse by Scottish writer and Conservative politician Adam Dugdale Fergusson.  The price is $2,500!
 
Now, however, that bastion of Austrian economics, the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, has the entire text - all 107 pages - of When Money Dies for free.
 
Unlike conventional books on economic subjects, this one paints a portrait of life in the Weimar Republic as the German mark became worth less and less, eventually resulting in the legendary "wheelbarrow" full of marks needed to buy a loaf of bread. 

It describes, often in their own words, how the lives of ordinary people were changed as this appalling inflation developed.  One example is a waiter who told Ernest Hemingway (who was in Germany in 1923):
 
"We haven't had any fun since 1914. If you made any money it gets no good, and there is only to spend it.  Last year I had enough money saved up to buy a Gasthaus (small hotel with restaurant and bar) at Hernberg.  Now that money wouldn't buy four bottles of Champagne."
 
Paying Off Public Debt by Depreciating the Currency
 Inflation is a way that governments can pay off their debts (albeit with depreciated currency) without outright default or overt tax increases.  In Weimar Germany, the initiating factor underlying the government's unleashing of the printing presses was the required payment to the Allies of immense war reparations. 

In the present-day U.S., government debt has grown to impossible-to-pay levels.  Yet the spending is rapidly accelerating.  The immensely costly new programs being created on an almost daily basis by the Obama Administration and the Democrats (mostly) in Congress come at a huge price, most of which (along with the continuing burden of Medicare and Social Security, etc.) can only be paid for by continually increasing the money supply into hyperinflationary territory. 

What It Is Like to Live Through Hyperinflation
 When Money Dies  reads almost like a thriller; you can't stop turning the pages as money loses its value, people's savings are destroyed, people buy tangible goods (almost anything) rather than hold marks when they do have them, social interaction changes, and it sucks you into the action so that you, too, experience what it is like living in a hyperinflation. 


Hyperinflation is NOT Uncharted Territory
 There is much that is eerily familiar about the current course of the U.S. economy - particularly the immense, endless expansion of the money supply accompanied by the falling value of the dollar and the decreasing willingness (both foreign and domestic) to hold U.S. debt instruments (IOUs) -  and the development of hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic and in Austria, Hungary, and Poland.

Of course, we all know one end result of the ensuing economic chaos in Germany: Hitler.
 
What Lies Ahead for the U.S.?
 Last summer(200 , the U.S. monetary base was $800 billion.  Last fall, the Federal Reserve more than doubled the U.S. monetary base to $2.1 trillion.  Last month (March 2009), the Fed announced that they are more than redoubling the U.S. monetary base by adding an additional $2.55 trillion dollars. 

(Cf. Bloomberg: "After already more than doubling its balance sheet to $2.1 trillion, the Fed has pledged to buy $1.25 trillion of mortgage-debt and $300 billion of Treasuries, and finance a $1 trillion consumer-loan program.")
 
Because we have a fractional reserve banking system, the U.S. money supply is about 10 times the monetary base.  It usually takes about 18 months for newly created money to work its way through the banking system to Main Street where consumer prices are bid up.
 
Historically, it has taken about 20 years to quadruple the U.S. monetary base, which has resulted in slow inflation.  Back in 1968, for example, you could buy a new economy car for $1,695. 

Increasing the money supply 5.8 times (from $800 billion to $4.65 trillion) in six months does have a precedent -- Weimar Germany.  Reading When Money Dies might help you to save your wealth and even your life. Note well, that retirees collecting pensions and Social Security suffered the most.
 

Posted by: Jimmah at December 29, 2011 10:20 AM (TMeYE)

256 Jimbo, well, it would be one thing if it were likely to work. Even if implemented it would only encourage people who lie about affiliation to keep lying, and those who won't take oaths lightly to stay home. Depressing participation of people who take oaths seriously seems almost the point of it. What if Paul were to prevail? I would not swear to support that candidate if I were the sort to vote for Romney, would you? ( In my case not even if I spoil-voted for Paul. )

Posted by: SarahW at December 29, 2011 10:23 AM (LYwCh)

257 Why is everyone so worked up about Virginia? It's in the middle of a bunch of other primaries in march. It's got plenty of delegates, but it's hardly a California, Florida or Texas. When these news reports came out about the ballot issues there, I thought it was in Jan or early Feb, but it's right in the middle of the pack.

Posted by: argh at December 29, 2011 10:25 AM (xZwKw)

258 They should do a little Bible reading. Like MT 5:33-37. I swear, this is insane!

Posted by: Matthew 5:33-37 at December 29, 2011 10:30 AM (nBE5A)

259 Yup, them boys in VA are stuck on stupid

Posted by: LTG Honore at December 29, 2011 10:30 AM (FYBz6)

260

Posted by: argh at December 29, 2011 03:25 PM (xZwKw)

Right you are, argh.  It normally doesn't mean a bucket of warm spit (as opposed to cold or hot spit).  What rankles is the idiocy of a state GOP machine.  Again.

Posted by: RushBabe at December 29, 2011 10:34 AM (tQHzJ)

261 I guess Thomas Jefferson must have used up all the brains in that state.

Posted by: Ohio Dan at December 29, 2011 10:40 AM (JKNDp)

262

Haaaay Vajinny Goop, Stupid is as stupid does.

Posted by: F Gump at December 29, 2011 10:42 AM (FYBz6)

263 I'm worked up cause I live here so that's my excuse. But there's more to it really and I think it's because of two things - the ham-hand on the scales for Romney, and the utter farging stupidity of the party machine.

Posted by: SarahW at December 29, 2011 10:43 AM (LYwCh)

264  we need a post bashing the VA gop because perry's too stupid to get on the roll.
let's do that then.

Posted by: Mina at December 29, 2011 11:00 AM (2Ba2p)

265

What the gold standard would do is restrict your ability to grow an economy beyond your available gold supply....

No it would not.

I am not a gold bug and I do not think gold would fix any of our problems, but as for what problems it would cause, explain how that would happen.

How would the gold standard restrict our ability to grow the economy?

That is assinine.

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 29, 2011 11:20 AM (pu3AL)

266 I ask again, do you people think if we moved all the decimals over one place left on all our currency at once, everyone would wake up 90% poorer?

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 29, 2011 11:22 AM (pu3AL)

267 I'm late to the post...you have got to be sh*ttin me?! A loyalty oath?! Do I have to pinky promise, too?

Posted by: Ellen at December 29, 2011 11:25 AM (B1FXc)

268 276  we need a post bashing the VA gop because perry's too stupid to get on the roll.
let's do that then.

Posted by: Mina at December 29, 2011 04:00 PM (2Ba2p)

Sure, after all, one definitive sign of intelligence is the ability to get your name on the Virginia primary ballot, right? Apparently, Perry's "too stupid" .. as is Gingrich ... as is Bachmann ... as is Santorum ... as is Huntsman. Yet, you only mentioned Perry and had to toss out the favorite insult used by most liberals even when they have little academic or intellectual qualifications to do so -- the lack of intelligence of a prominent conservative.

In addition to questioning the reasonableness of the process that exists in Virginia, one could question how good Perry's campaign team is. But to question Perry's intelligence over a procedural matter at the campaign level, which is primarily the duty of the campaign manager and those on the ground in the state, is unbelievably idiotic.

Posted by: Slappy at December 29, 2011 01:12 PM (LTbLf)

269 Wow this is soo helpful I have been trying to figure this out on my own for a long time now. Hopefully making this change will help encourage discussion on my blog.

Posted by: Mindfulness for Beginners ePub at December 29, 2011 03:40 PM (lpwuJ)

270 You made a few good points there. I did a search on the matter and found a good number of people will agree with your blog.

Posted by: Spirit Wars iBooks at December 29, 2011 04:10 PM (YMJ+1)

271
IÂ’ve been looking everywhere for this! Thank goodness I found it on Bing.Thx

Posted by: A Brief History of Thought ePub at December 29, 2011 04:20 PM (5VWTg)

272 Excellent blog, thanks for the share. I'll be a regular viewer.

Posted by: 18 Minutes AudioBook at December 29, 2011 04:35 PM (he4Ek)

273 That is useful information and its quite easy to come a croper if you are not vigilant.

Posted by: Kelley Armstrong Hidden ePub at December 30, 2011 03:40 AM (lr6sw)

274 Awesome. My home state has surpassed the Keystone Cops for mass stupidity. Or rather the state GOP.

Posted by: physics geek at December 30, 2011 03:44 AM (llWHs)

275 What ever happened to committing to voting for the President of the United States; not President of the Republican Party. What kind of #$#% is that? What idiots. And I'm a Republican!

Posted by: Frank Denver at December 30, 2011 06:26 AM (4AJtf)

276 If you want to vote in my party's primary, you can goddamn well play by my party's rules. Otherwise, stay home. We won't miss you.

Yeah, that's right. Go ahead, if you don't like Republicans, just vote for Obama. We'll survive just fine, thanks.

Posted by: J. Moses Browning at December 30, 2011 07:43 AM (c33MC)

277 Here's what the statute says:

The requirements applicable to a party's primary shall be determined at least 90 days prior to the primary date and certified to, and approved by, the State Board.

So then, if the Virginia GOP "determined" them at least 90 days prior to the primary date (March 6, 2012) - WHICH WE DID - we're golden. It doesn't say when the State Board of Elections needs to certify them by. How about sometime before Inauguration Day, Ronpaulista legalize-dopehead loozers?

Posted by: J. Moses Browning at December 30, 2011 07:49 AM (c33MC)

278 Post 278: The reason a gold standard would restrict the economy is because we can't have more money than we can redeem for gold. The bad news is that there would be less money to go around, therefore tighter credit and less lending. It would be a brake on the economy. The good news is that there would be less inflation and a savings account would mean something. So there's pros and cons.

Posted by: brian pendell at December 30, 2011 09:54 AM (eOLH9)

279 Now that I'm back home I can respond to the actual topic as well..

I live in Virginia and have voted Republican in every election. Not this time.  As far as I'm concerned, they are attempting to put a thumb on the scales for Romney and demanding that I take an oath to vote for him. Not. a. chance. 

So unless things change, I'll stay at home primary day and vote for the best Republican candidate in the general election, even if I have to write him in .


Posted by: brian pendell at December 30, 2011 10:51 AM (Ut0oZ)

280 An odd thing is how most of the earliest patriots of the 18th century were from Massachusetts and Virginia, and look at those states now, especially Massachusetts. So disloyal and socialistic.

Posted by: Pedro at December 30, 2011 12:06 PM (hCTR6)

281

www.genset-china.com

happy  everyday

Posted by: kadin at December 30, 2011 06:26 PM (X29+i)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
231kb generated in CPU 0.14, elapsed 0.1621 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0476 seconds, 468 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.