General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"count me among those who find all of this rather creepy"
Me, too.
Posted with permission.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/26/12417902-the-gops-affinity-for-loyalty-oaths?lite
The GOP's affinity for loyalty oaths
By Steve Benen
-
Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:50 AM EDT
It's easy to forget, but loyalty oaths were not uncommon in Republican circles during the Bush/Cheney era.
In August 2004, however, then-Vice President Cheney spoke at an event in Albuquerque, but locals were only allowed to get a ticket to attend if they first signed a loyalty oath swearing they "endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States {sic}."
A couple of months later, at a Bush event in Florida, a Republican asked those in attendance to stand, raise their right hands, and recite a Pledge of Allegiance ... to George W. Bush. As part of the oath, attendees were told to say: "Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States."
I'm trying to imagine what Republicans would say in 2012 if Democrats pushed voters to stand, raise their right hands, and pledge their allegiance to President Obama.
In any case, Bush and Cheney are no longer in office, but Republicans' affinity for loyalty oaths hasn't gone away. In recent months, we've seen GOP loyalty oaths pop up in Virginia and Kansas, for example, and in April, members of the Republican National Committee were invited to a private meeting with Mitt Romney -- before he'd secured the nomination -- but in order to attend, they had to, you guessed it, pledge their loyalty to Romney in writing.
But perhaps the most striking example came over the weekend in Massachusetts, where the state Republican Party didn't know what to do with all the Ron Paul acolytes who had taken over the state's delegation to the national convention. Party leaders quickly discovered the value of loyalty oaths.
But earlier this month, Kenney was one of 17 delegates and alternates disqualified by a Republican committee deciding who gets to represent Massachusetts Republicans at the national convention in Tampa. Kenney and others had failed to deliver in time an affidavit swearing, under the penalty of perjury, that they would support Mitt Romney's nomination for president.
And wouldn't you know it, some were uncomfortable with this.
Keep in mind, as the Boston Globe noted, these affidavits are "never mentioned in the Republican Party's rules for selecting delegates and has never been required of delegates in the past." But the state party had a problem this year with these Paulites, so they figured demanding written loyalty oaths would disqualify some of the undesirable delegates.
They were right to assume this -- several delegates balked, and Paul's backers were soon winnowed from the Massachusetts delegation.
I suppose reasonable people can disagree about the philosophy of loyalty oaths, but count me among those who find all of this rather creepy -- not just among Massachusetts Republicans, but in general.
Whether intended this way or not, the practice reeks of McCarthyism, and seems intended to create mindless loyalists who accept commands, rather than thoughtful voters engaged in a healthy democracy.
Spazito
(50,484 posts)I thought it was creepy and fascist when it was done during the Bush regime days and I still think so.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Florida Public School. Do you swear allegience to the Constitution of the US ,and to the Constitution of Florida. Nevermind I have no idea with is in the Florida Constitution, why do I have to swear allegience to any State?
I was told that many employees refused the State allegience, and that was ok.
Edit: In hindsight, with Florida writing discrimination (banning gay marriage) in their constitution, I would never swear allegience to that.
RagAss
(13,832 posts)We've arrived at treason.
malthaussen
(17,217 posts)... so to me, this just looks like more of the same. What do you expect? Fascists gonna be fascists.
-- Mal
dmr
(28,349 posts)Idol - God. And, you pledge your allegiance to only the United States of America.
To do anything else is sacrilegious.
God, Country, mom & apple pie nothing more, nothing else.
cbrer
(1,831 posts)Is it considered superior to give preapproval to a friggn' politician?
How can that even be counted as a moral issue?
When did blank checks for thought processes become any kind of norm?
Did Nazi Germany start this process?
barbtries
(28,811 posts)but this IS republicans we're talking about - how much is their oath worth? SCOTUS anyone? gw? cheney? on and on and on.
JHB
(37,162 posts)They have a show to put on, and they don't want any public wrestling for the spotlight.
And being the Party of Control, their first choice for how to enforce that is loyalty oaths.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer.
One people, one empire, one leader.
The creepy factor is just imprinted. We had a thread last night with the Raelians flying a plane over New Jersey with a flag trying to rehabilitate the Swastika, back to its more positive roots.
But once you hear that oath quoted a few times with such conviction, you never forget the sound of those voices.
Oh, it's just a coincidence, a pattern. I don't know if we should care or not. Since we appear to be going the repeat the cycle of the 1930's whether we want to go there or not.
It was reported with concern that there were oath taking ceremonies to swear allegiance GWB as he entered the White House and right after he had that banana republic or Stalinesque travesty of an inauguration, planes overhead, like a dictator showing off his toys.
And we can't forget the kevlar vest, the eggs and the times the procession was stopped along the way by angry voters and the talking head complaining about the lack of civility. He conveniently didn't mention the incivility of the mob outside Gore's official mansion during the evenings before the SCOTUS gave the country to the descendant of Prescott Bush of the business coup detailed in the Congressional Record. Yes, the coup of 2000 complete with brown shirts in FL, just in Brooks Brothers suits this time.
What a lovely image. No wonder we want to forget it as we don't want to be prisoners of Fate. But the GOP insist on 'going there' with their greasier version of O'Reilly playing Goebbels, Glenn Beck. They can't stop referencing Hitler, Stalin, Nazis and Communists because they know the power of the meme. They have called Obama's attempts to set up a national youth core of paid volunteers to do community work such as Clinton did 'the Hitler youth squad' as 'Obama youth squads' who were going to come and drag people out of their beds to the FEMA camps. We don't seem to have tired of these stereotypes.
Yes, the Paulites have a complaint as they had made up their minds who they were voting for before they showed up. They never intended to go into the convention and consider anyone else. They are purist fanatics just like the Tea Party.
There was a similar shutting down with the Democrats in 2004 and 2008 with some arm twisting. But the only oaths were among the electoral college voters and no one is suggesting that now. If the GOP have rigged that, it also doesn't make much difference. The big money with Romney selected him.
But the reports out of the Bush White House about them swearing an oath of allegiance to him personally triggered a lot of memories of older folks. His followers did follow his or Cheney's orders and trashed the Constitution, straight in our faces.
The Paulites have no one but themselves to blame for having hitched themselves to a man who refuses to leave the GOP and start a third party. This is who they are in bed with, no matter what they say. They did not oppose the coup of 2000, still support the majority of the GOP goals, and their cat fight means nothing.
BlueIris
(29,135 posts)Yes, I signed it. I 'promised' to work to elect Hillary Clinton in 2008.
I felt stupid, and also that it was an inappropriate request, but I wanted to see Bill speak.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Forced Loyalty Oath Locks Kucinich out of Texas Primary
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12256
"I, ______________ of __________________, __________ County/Parish, _____________, being a candidate for the Office of President of the United States, swear that I will support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. I further swear that I will fully support the Democratic nominee for President whoever that shall be."
The concern expressed by Kucinich was simple. If the eventual Democratic nominee supports the Iraq War, signing this oath would require Kucinich to support that nominee and therefore the war. To make matters worse, supporting the war would negate his duty as a Member of Congress to protect and uphold the Constitution. Like a few others, Kucinich knows that this is an unconstitutional war since it was never declared by Congress (See Article I, Section 8, "To declare war" . What other choice did he have but to reject the loyalty oath? What justification did the other candidates have to accept the oath?
dogknob
(2,431 posts)These people are fighting a war. Period.
Solly Mack
(90,787 posts)Loyalty oaths to politicians are creepy. Period.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)John Dean wrote about it well...
clang1
(884 posts)everyone knows this. Country comes in second if even that most the time. And if there were NOT true, there would be no oath. But there is...
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)...who swore a prior oath to Grover Norquist and Focus on the Family.
donquijoterocket
(488 posts)Because it's much like the old thing about a man who has one watch always knows the time; the man who has two is never quite sure. The poster above noting their loyalty to party first over country misses their loyalty to cold,hard cash which fits in there somewhere I'm not quite sure where but definitely before country.
hue
(4,949 posts)I couldn't make a comment cause I had to rush to work--then I got a warning!
Cheech there's a lot of very strange/bizarre stuff going around from the Repukes!
The horrible vid of President Obama was shared to all on my Face Book home from a Repuke co-worker of mine!!
CanonRay
(14,119 posts)It's just another loyalty oath, to me.
patrice
(47,992 posts)support Romney mean they won't?
malthaussen
(17,217 posts)Oaths are meaningless. Indeed, they are logically fallacious, since a determinate statement cannot be made about an indeterminate subject (the future). They are, as has been pointed out upthread, empty rituals of control.
-- Mal
annabanana
(52,791 posts)Swear Away.. then do what you want.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In 1964, many of the Southern delegates to the Democratic National Convention had been elected in primaries from which blacks were excluded. The delegates represented the established white supremacist Democratic Party leadership. There was a widespread belief (subsequently borne out) that these delegates, angered by the Civil Rights Act signed into law by Lyndon Johnson, would desert the Democratic Party in November. (The Republican nominee, Barry Goldwater, had voted against the Act.)
The issue of a loyalty oath was tied in with the dispute over two competing delegations from Mississippi -- the Party regulars (the product of the discriminatory process) and the mostly black Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party slate. One of the arguments of the MFDP was that the so-called Democrats in the other slate would not actually support Democrats in November. The result was a compromise that gave the MFDP only a couple of seats, but that was still enough to anger the racist side:
To those Southerners who wouldn't sign a loyalty oath in 1964, I say good riddance.