Newt's attempt at Midway?

[NickyJ]

Actually, it's a good idea. It discourages people from one party from nominating the other party's weakest candidate.

 

[carmen510]

Actually, it's a good idea. It discourages people from one party from nominating the other party's weakest candidate.

I thought that voters in the primary were screened for that sort of nonsense when registering (previous party affiliation, etc.)

 

[LucyDuke]

I think Virginia has an open primary? It's not like a bs "loyalty oath" is binding in any way at all.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Actually, it's a good idea. It discourages people from one party from nominating the other party's weakest candidate.

Note that it says "the republican party candidate," not "the candidate you're voting for." I suspect they're more worried about party unity then some democratic fifth column,

 

[choxorn]

Rick Perry's ad was waaay better.
This is terrible.

Which ad, the "America needs to be saved" ad or the "Teh Gayz" ad?

The Hessians knew an attack was coming. They'd been on full alert for a week, sleeping in their uniforms and packs. Indeed, last minute intelligence pinpointed the time as Christmas morning.

Not entirely true. A British Loyalist tried to warn the Colonel in charge of the Hessians about the attack, but he was too drunk to understand it. The Loyalist then wrote the message on a piece of paper and gave it to him- problem was, he couldn't read English, and forgot about it. Then the attack came.

 

[NickyJ]

I thought that voters in the primary were screened for that sort of nonsense when registering (previous party affiliation, etc.)

Virginia has open primaries, though I wish it did not.

It's not like a bs "loyalty oath" is binding in any way at all.

It discourages it, though.

Note that it says "the republican party candidate," not "the candidate you're voting for." I suspect they're more worried about party unity then some democratic fifth column,

Well yeah, it better be to the Republican party if you're voting in their primaries. It shouldn't say "the candidate you're voting for" because what if that candidate you're voting for doesn't get the nomination? Then you'd be in quite a pickle.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well yeah, it better be to the Republican party if you're voting in their primaries. It shouldn't say "the candidate you're voting for"

So, for example, if you were to vote in the primaries against Newt, and Newt happened to win, you would stand by your pledge to vote for him in the primaries?
I think this is a patent ploy to knock Ron Paul out of the running.

because what if that candidate you're voting for doesn't get the nomination? Then you'd be in quite a pickle.

Write in.

 

[LucyDuke]

It discourages it, though.

These people

Actually, it's a good idea. It discourages people from one party from nominating the other party's weakest candidate.

aren't going to be discouraged.

 

[NickyJ]

So, for example, if you were to vote in the primaries against Newt, and Newt happened to win, you would stand by your pledge to vote for him in the primaries?

No. No. No. And more time for good measure: No. It means you won't be voting for the opponents candidate, even if it is poorly worded.

I think this is a patent ploy to knock Ron Paul out of the running.

I highly doubt it. Nobody needs anything like this to knock over Ron Paul. He may look like a mountain to some, but the upper 90% of that mountain is hollow.

Write in.

But then you're basically dooming the election.

These people

aren't going to be discouraged.

It's worth a try. What harm can it do?

 

[ParkCungHee]

No. No. No. And more time for good measure: No. It means you won't be voting for the opponents candidate, even if it is poorly worded.

No, it means you'll be voting for the Republican Candidate. The fact that you might not like some of the candidates in the running doesn't make it untrue.
The fact that you don't like some of the candidates, is why they want to sign it.

I highly doubt it. Nobody needs anything like this to knock over Ron Paul.

He's already guaranteed the second spot in the primary. Considering this is a case of him versus Romney, there's an actual chance that he could win the Virginia primary, considering that he's going to get all the "Not Romney" votes by default.

 

[Zelig]

It's worth a try. What harm can it do?

It makes your system look stupid.

 

[JollyRoger]

So let's say I'm a libertarian that prefers Ron Paul. I don't expect Ron Paul to win the GOP nomination, so I intend to vote for Gary Johnson in the general. The GOP of Virginny is asking me to lie or not vote.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I also wonder if the Republican party is prepared to make exceptions for Christian sects that don't allow for oaths.

 

[Cutlass]

I also wonder if the Republican party is prepared to make exceptions for Christian sects that don't allow for oaths.

They probably think that anyone that's a real Christian won't have a problem with anything the Republican party wants to do.

 

[say1988]

No. No. No. And more time for good measure: No. It means you won't be voting for the opponents candidate, even if it is poorly worded.

If I support Ron Paul, I may be fundamentally opposed to some of Mitt's positions or oppose him based on his personal history. If Mitt wins the primary this pledge means I have to: 1) vote for a candidate I am fundamentally opposed to; 2) not vote; or 3) lie.

Or that things can change in 10 months. There will be lots of people that change their mind as to who to support before election day.

The pledge is probably to try and get the "Not Romney" crowd to vote for Romney in a general election or vice versa.

Anybody who is going to vote in the opponent's primary to try and rig the election is not going to care about some non-binding and/or unenforcable pledge (there is no way this can ever be enforcable as you cannot compel an individual to reveal who they voted for), so this is just pointless as a way to stop Democrats from voting in the primary.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Anybody who is going to vote in the opponent's primary to try and rig the election is not going to care about some non-binding and/or unenforcable pledge (there is no way this can ever be enforcable as you cannot compel an individual to reveal who they voted for), so this is just pointless as a way to stop Democrats from voting in the primary.

Agree. That kind of person has no ethics anyway. That kind of person also has no brains--there are conservatives who voted for Obama thinking he couldn't win in November. How's that working for them?

Plus the pledge includes people who are honestly voting for their first choice. Nothing wrong with going PUMA if you don't like the way the nomination turns out.

 

[NickyJ]

I will admit that it isn't all that great an idea. (I think it should be a closed primary.) That said, I doubt it's going to be extremely painful for for people to make the oath, so it really doesn't matter.

In other news, Gingrich tried to out-weep John Boehner.

 

[choxorn]

A tactic that might have been mildly effective if it wasn't already clear to everyone that Newt has no soul.

 

[GoodGame]

If all I knew of Herman Cain was his ads, I would have voted for him.

Here ya go:

Link to video.


Are you ready for someone to put the "untied" back in the Usa?

Personally, these ads never impress me because they basically saying nothing other than the candidate thinks that they "got the power". Granted, a lot of people lack courage to lead others, it's not really hard to read a teleprompter telling a video camera that you got courage.

I also wonder if the Republican party is prepared to make exceptions for Christian sects that don't allow for oaths.

Probably not, but if it's consolation, military members are at least allowed not to swear oath "under God" if they don't want to take their oath that way. They swear the oath, but can elect to strike out "so help me god".

They can rationalize their oath as 'secular', and therefore not in violation of religious edict against making oaths.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Probably not, but if it's consolation, military members are at least allowed not to swear oath "under God" if they don't want to take their oath that way. They swear the oath, but can elect to strike out "so help me god".

They can rationalize their oath as 'secular', and therefore not in violation of religious edict against making oaths.

That's not much of an issue, as most of the sects that prohibit taking oaths also prohibit serving in the military.

EDIT: Also, I find it strange that we'd only go that far, considering you don't need to take an oath to be president.