A LOYALTY oath?!

Have they lost their minds?

The Republican Party has broken faith with its base in so many ways these past years that I cannot BEGIN to list them... And now they want US to swear loyalty to THEM?!

I don't bloody well think so!

For one, as Doug says, they have no way (thank God) of enforcing this, so it's just more empty rhetoric. Secondly and more importantly, the Republican Party has shown how faithless it is, as I said. Why would I want to swear loyalty to a party which is supposed to represent its base - and refuses to do so? I wouldn't stay married to a man who screwed me over like this, and you better believe that I'd never consider being loyal to a Party which cannot adhere to its foundational principles.

So, as I have said to the National Republican Party in the past, I now reiterate to the Republican Party of Virginia:

• get a spine
• quit trying to imitate the DemocRATS
• lower taxes
• get government out of my face
• address the issues
• fight illegal immigration
• return to your foundations

... and then I might swear your loyalty oath. Maybe.

Actually, no, I wouldn't even then. I have gotten fed up with politics-as-usual, and have decided to never put Party before principle. No party will receive my whole-hearted support until they uphold the foundational truths of our American culture.

Until we can stop "playing politics," and start rebuilding American freedom, self-determination, self-control, frugality, strength, and limited government, I fear this beloved country will remain on its slide into obscurity. After the Hand of Providence has been displayed so richly and benevolently in our history, it would be a shame for us to quietly disappear under the flood of future history.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Republican Party, whether on the State or National level, please - return to us, and we will return to you. And then, perhaps, we will again be a country worthy of God's favor.

Comments

[Shaun Kenney]

1.

It's not a "loyalty oath."

It's a statement of intent, a sheet of paper -- that at the moment in time where you are voting in the Republican nomination method, it is your intent to support the nominee.

It came to be after the 2003 GOP primaries when Democratic crossover was so heavy, was introduced into the State Party Plan in 2004, and has been a key part in protecting our "right to free association" (meaning that Republicans should be able to choose Republican nominees free of interference, likewise for all other parties and organizations, etc.).

That's all it does, says, or implies. Short of party registration, it's the only way to protect the integrity of the nomination process (and it is a statement of intent you sign -- not an "oath" you swear before an official or anything silly like that).

[Kat]

2.

Well, I still find that a bit confusing, Shaun. Truthfully, I cannot support a "Republican" candidate who doesn't exemplify the original core values of the Republican party.

For instance, on the national level, I absolutely could not support Rudy Guiliani. I'm sure he's a good guy, and an able executive, but he's a one-trick-pony: the only thing he's good for is national defense. In all other issues, his positions are far too similar to the Democratic Party.

Therefore, if the RPV put forth a candidate who was "moderate" and did not represent the historic, conservative core values of the Republican Party, I would be extremely hesitant to support the candidate.

You know, if the Republicans are, in fact, on the decline (which I doubt), I would prefer that we go out in a blaze of glory, holding fast to fiscal and social conservatism, strong military and national defense, and extremely limited government and low taxes as our platform. That, at least, would be far more honorable and satisfying than the slow fade into "more-of-the-same-ism" that seems to be infecting the majority of Republicans these days.

So, Shaun, my brother who I really adore, would you please let the RPV know that their base (well, THIS piece of the base, anyway), wants men and women we can support with enthusiasm, rather than simple resignation? Promote those men and women of strong moral character who will bear true faith and witness to our core values, and I'll be with you through thick and thin!

[Raven]

3.

Bah. LOL so I often begin with my comments these days.

I refuse to stay loyal to any party at this time, and esp. the GOP.

When the day comes for me to vote, I will do so based on principle and nothing else...and the GOP needs to know I am not alone. And the Liberals best not rejoice in all this either as they would never get my vote. Evah.

Of course this leaves me several options: Mickey Mouse who would do a better job than any of the current crop of candidates save Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo; I could swing and vote for Ron Paul but that would crush my principles of America first since he is so willing to sell our soul to the world at any cost; and I could always vote for
Beavis. Who would kick Butthead where it counts but at least he'd go 'HEH' in the process and make me laugh.

[Not RPV]

4.

The real question is who at RPV authorized this. It was not discussed at the last state central meeting nor the executive committee meeting. Is this Hager or Judd off on a crazy tangent again ? If it’s Judd, he needs to be gone.

[Steve]

5.

I love your site!

Would you like a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network?? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 50 of America's top Talk Shows via Free Streaming Audio!!

http://netradionetwork.com