Bob Marshall Blasts GOP Loyalty Oath

We shouldn't have to pledge loyalty to the party, the party should pledge loyalty to us.  The only oaths I'v made in my life are to God and my wife, and I honestly don't plan on expanding that much more.  This is a disgrace . . . we didn't need a loyalty oath in 2009 or 2010 when we took back all of our losses form the 2000s.  Bob Marshall is dead right about this.  Below the jump is Marshall's email blast:

Del. Bob Marshall is urging Virginia’s GOP leaders to ask the State Board of Elections to rescind its ruling that voters, before taking part in the March 6 Republican presidential primary, must pledge in writing that they intend to support the party’s White House nominee in the Nov. 6 general election.

“Ironically, requiring a loyalty oath will bar even former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich from voting in the primary because he already has said unequivocally that he will not vote for Ron Paul for president if he’s the Republican nominee,” Marshall (R., 13th District) noted Thursday (Dec. 29).

“Virginia’s Republican leadership wants to mandate a loyalty oath when Virginia’s Republican officials are in court fighting the Obamacare mandate?  This sends the wrong message.”

Gingrich, a McLean resident, is running for the GOP presidential nomination.  His name, however, will not appear on the primary ballot because he lacked enough petition signatures to qualify.  Only two Republican presidential candidates – Rep. Paul (R., Texas) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney – have been certified for the primary ballot by GOP State Chairman Pat Mullins. 

 By a 3-0 vote Wednesday at the request of state GOP leaders, the Board of Elections agreed to invoke a state statute permitting political parties to require loyalty oaths in the nominating process.

 The Elections Board approved forms on which voters, before being eligible to cast ballots in the primary, must sign and print their names below a line that reads: “I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president.”

The board also approved a sign to be posted at all polling places advising 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.”

“I understand Republican leaders not wanting Democrats to make our decision for us,” Marshall said, “but a loyalty oath is not the way to address that circumstance.”

Gingrich’s statement that he will not support Paul was made in a CNN interview Tuesday.  [Seehttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/27/gingrich-wouldnt-vote-for-ron-paul/]

“Loyalty oaths are detested by many good Republicans who solidly back our party’s principles and who have never voted for a Democrat in their lives,” Marshall said.  “And there are other concerns.

“In November, Virginia House Speaker Bill Howell and Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli, both Republicans, supported an Independent for Henrico County Commonwealth’s Attorney over the Republican nominee.  Does this make them suspect Republicans?

“How many conservative Democrats voted for Ronald Reagan in ‘Republican’ primaries in 1980?  Would they have voted in a Republican primary that required a loyalty oath when Reagan was probably the only Republican they would vote for?   I doubt it.

“Requiring Virginia election workers to enforce a Republican loyalty oath in a primary paid for by the general taxpayer is a markedly questionable use of tax money.

“Republicans I know want to defeat President Obama and his liberal Democrat supporters in Congress.  I believe the great majority will vote for the Republican nominee over Obama.  I question whether beating Barack Obama, which I am working hard to do, is furthered by requiring a loyalty oath in this presidential primary.”

Comments

[Peregry]

Ironically, this oath wouldn't even do what it sets out to.

The Democrats who seek to undermine the Republican primary will do so regardless of the oath. Those on the left who I know who would uphold an oath are ones who would not subvert our primary, while those that seek to subvert our primary care not for oaths and honor.

[NoVA Scout]

I've more than once taken an oath to preserve, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. I'm very comfortable with that oath and have lived it. This tinhorn kind of oath reflects the mentality of a political party that gets state monopoly benefits but fears the voters. I doubt that they'll carry through with it.

It reflects a common impression at RPV and among some of the louder elements of the current party faithful that Democrats swarm into our primaries to vote for weak candidates. I don't have enough information to conclusively refute that idea, but I instinctively doubt that it happens on any statistically significant scale. I think it reflects a warped view of the political process that is akin to the aforementioned fear of the electorate.

[Sara]

NoVA Scout, the information that you need about non-GOP voters swarming the primary can be found online and on social media, where Ron Paul supporters are poking fun of the Oath, and plan to sign it, thinking it and the GOP, completely stupid.

[Chris]

It makes me laugh because we all embraces Operation Chaos four years ago. Kind of hypocritical, no?

[Dan]

There is no evidence that Rush Windbag's "Operation Chaos" was anything more than hot air. I'm sure a few of Rush's dildoheads participated, but doubtful enough to have any noticeable impact.

Even if you accept Rush's delusion that it was some sort of significant movement, it hardly had a negative effect on the outcome from a Democratic perspective. Most observers tend to agree that the long primary battle with Clinton made Obama a stronger general election candidate.

The paranoid delusion that some Virginia Republicans seem to have that Democrats are going to hijack their nominating process has no basis in reality either. At least no one has ever presented any statistical evidence to support the notion. Although I'm sure the lack of evidence to support it won't prevent many of the wackier types from accepting it as an article of faith.

For myself, I voted in a Virginia Republican primary only once. And then it was because the candidate was my first choice for the office and I would have voted for him in the general election had he won the nomination. Of course, the other guy got the Republican nomination so I voted for the Democrat in November.

No loyalty oath nonsense was involved in that election. If there had been I'm sure it wouldn't have deterred someone trying to do mischief. But as I say, those types are very small in number. In both parties.

[no thx]

as long as there is no party registration, this is the best the GOP can do. we need party registration. until then, enjoy your oath.