Kucinich files lawsuit after party denies him place on ballot

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: The Associated Press

AUSTIN—Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, along with supporter Willie Nelson, have filed a lawsuit to get Kucinich on the ballot in Texas after they say the Texas Democratic Party rejected his application.

The civil lawsuit was delivered late Wednesday afternoon to U.S. District Court for the Western District of the United States, Kucinich spokesman Andy Juniewicz said late Wednesday evening.

The lawsuit says that Kucinich was informed by the Texas Democratic Party on Wednesday that his application was "defective" because he crossed out a loyalty oath in the application that said he would swear to support whoever the Democratic nominee for president might be.

The lawsuit asks that a temporary restraining order be issued to stop the Texas Democratic Party from certifying to the Texas Secretary of State a list of candidates and to restrict the secretary of state from accepting any list that doesn't include the name of a qualified candidate who refuses the loyalty oath.

Read more: http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_7867042

[Truth2Tell]

1. Oh my. He wouldn't take the oath.

This should be fun. :popcorn:

[LakeSamish706]

2. Go get em Dennis and I wasn't aware that Willy was behind you.. I would...

honestly love to see you win the candidacy for president.....

[Popol Vuh]

103. Willy is a big Pro Legalize Pot Advocate

And Dennis has on a number of occasions said he would move to re-legalize pot.

[Zhade]

3. So loyalty oaths are DESIRED now?

What's next, armbands and goose-stepping?

And people wonder why this country is failing. How dare he have a conscience he must follow! How dare he not preemptively declare support for someone he might find he has fundamental ethical disagreements with!

FUCK your loyalty oaths, you authoritarian fools.

[taylor egv420106]

5. ITS THEIR PARTY

They are requiring that promise in order for him to participate in a PRIVATE FUNCTION.

Kucinich wants to be able to get all the benefits and have none of the requirements. The lawn gnome knows he is a joke on the level of Ralph Nader now and he simply wants publicity.

[stillcool]

10. wow..you are busy...

so being on the ballot is a PRIVATE FUNCTION? Are you from Texas? I thought you were from Iowa..

[taylor egv420106]

109. The fact of the matter

Is the Democratic Party is not a public group, there is no god given right to be on the Democratic ballot. That was backed up by the Supreme Court when they upheld David Duke not being allowed to run as a Republican.

[Pastiche423]

11. What PRIVATE FUNCTION?

[hooraydems06]

26. No answer from taylor egv420106, so far, I see.

[Pastiche423]

51. Maybe it is past its bedtime?

[hooraydems06]

54. Hehehehe...

perhaps. ;-)

[taylor egv420106]

111. Excuse me for sleeping

It was nearly midnight my time. Some of us actually have a job.

[Webster Green]

242. Ah yes, the old freeper delusion that all DUers are unemployed..

Not too surprising that you would believe it!:rofl:

[Name removed]

256. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

270. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[taylor egv420106]

110. Being on the Democratic Ballot

Its their party they can set the requirements. Its not like its a requirement to be on the Dem ballot to run for President.

[johnaries]

215. regardless, it goes against every principle of the Democratic Party.

I won't argue whether it's a "private function" etc., the bottom like is that it goes against everything the Democratic Party stands for. Legal or not, it's wrong.

[MGKrebs]

232. It's against the principles of the Dem party to ask for support of

the party? If someone doesn't even have enough faith in the party process to sign that little statement, they have NO BUSINESS running for the highest office in the land as a representative of that Party.

I probably signed some statement like that when I became a state party member here in Georgia. Yes, in theory, there may be a circumstance where a lunatic is nominated and there is a semi-viable third party candidate that I would prefer, but I have made a commitment to the Party process and I have faith that that won't happen.

One of our active county party members recently appeared in ads supporting a Repub candidate for Insurance Commissioner (against a perfectly capable and viable Dem challenger). That's just wrong. You can support (and vote for) whoever you want, but you don't get to visibly support our opposition AND continue to represent the Party.

[johnaries]

306. Party before Country?

And just because you don't support one candidate means that you automatically support the other candidate. If Guiliani won the Dem Party nomination, there's no way I would support him.

[taylor egv420106]

257. There is a reason

That you wont argue it, because its inarguable. There is no right to be on a certain party's ballot, they set the qualifications. Their ballot, THEIR rules, not their ballot you choose the rules you want to follow ala carte.

[johnaries]

307. Obviously, Kuch's lawyers don't think it's inarguable.

And although I don't know them or you, I think they are probably have a little more expertise in this area.

[dysfunctional press]

360. gee, lawyers that are willing to be paid to argue an inarguable point...

stop the presses!...:eyes:

[tblue37]

352. Well, we are not exactly fond of Joe Lieberman for

not supporting the Dem nominee for the 2006 Senate race in Connecticut and for supporting Republicans Susan Collins in Maine and John McCain for president.

[Pastiche423]

300. You did not answer my question

What PRIVATE FUNCTION?

[hooraydems06]

325. Still no answer. Big surprise...

I wonder what cracks about unemployment he'll launch against just about every DUer (including himself, just by virtue of his posting here at all at any time of the day ever) this time, all the while once again failing to explain the "private function" statement.

[Pastiche423]

336. No answer

but its still spewing crap.

Did you see where it states its not new?

:rofl:

[hooraydems06]

339. Unfortunately...

... I ignore its actual trollish postings, having little use for gestapo type propaganda, but happen across the thread headers that you see when you click "View All" and noticed that bit, yes.

[bean fidhleir]

361. The Dem primary is PUBLICLY FUNDED. It's not private. (nt)

[Orsino]

315. The half of our democracy controlled by the DNC/DLC.

A private function, indeed.

[Webster Green]

25. Lawn gnome?

What a fucking idiotic post!

[taylor egv420106]

112. You post certainly was idiotic.

[Webster Green]

239. Ooh, wicked comeback!

Here's the deal: It's really fucking stupid to attack a candidate based on his physical stature.

What are you, fucking two years old?

[Name removed]

261. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[taylor egv420106]

259. I bow to your expertise in idiotic posts.

You apparently have written many of them.

[BeHereNow]

351. We all have, but I think you may hold some sort of new record

For the most in the shortest time...
Congrats.
BHN

[harmonicon]

27. excuse me?! Whose party?!

Dennis Kucinich has proudly served in public office as a member of the Democratic party since the 1970s. It's as much his party as it is anyone's. And do you really think adding in your name calling after your non-point makes your argument more valid? or does it just make you seem like you have no idea what you're talking about?..... poo poo face.

[pnwmom]

57. If he wants the support of other Democrats in the event he is the nominee,

then he should be willing to support whoever is the winner.

[harmonicon]

65. well, isn't that a deal he should be able to make himself?

is this not a society of one person, one vote? I'm sure if he won, he wouldn't expect people to support him because he'd signed an oath. We should all be free to cast a ballot for whoever we'd like for whatever reason we'd like, or to not cast a ballot at all. This is a matter a principle, and the fact that Kucinich will stand up for something like this makes me like him even more - it also makes me like all of those who did sign even less.

[pnwmom]

68. I think the party should be able to protect itself against the Liebermans and Naders

of the world.

[harmonicon]

70. not if that protection comes from some Bush-like system. That's not protection that I'd want.

[taylor egv420106]

138. God forbid

Someone actually require DK to follow a rule or requirement he finds inconvenient. At this point he has simply become a joke, he has jumped the shark and his supporters are busy waving to the shark to notice.

[harmonicon]

what makes you think he finds it "inconvenient"?

Standing up on principle against this is obviously far more inconvenient. Not wanting to deal with the inconvenience of resistance is how fascists come to power.

[taylor egv420106]

260. Tell you what

Go drive a hundred miles an hour drunk through a schoolyard and then when you are arrested claim the cops are being "fascist" and you are standing up for your principles.

[harmonicon]

276. no thanks, but how about this:

In the last presidential elections those who went to Bush rallies were forced to sign loyalty oaths to be let in. Does this case remind you more of drunk driving laws, or Bush?

[pocoloco]

187. Don't leave out hte Pelosi's!!

[John Gauger]

218. Nader is not a Democrat.

He doesn't owe the party anything. And even Lieberman should be allowed to follow his conscience, warped and vile as it is.

[pnwmom]

355. Nader in the past ran as a Democrat, just as Lieberman did. n/t

[Ken Burch]

373. Uh, no. Nader NEVER sought office as a Democrat.

His '96 presidential campaign was his first try for office.

Nader did work with Democrats, but was never a Democratic candidate.

[Truth2Tell]

282. protect itself against the Liebermans and Naders ??

I hate Lieberman and I wouldn't vote for Nader - but the way a political party should "protect itself" from opposing candidates is to put up better candidates and convince people to vote for them. That's how democracy works. We don't need any special un-democratic tools like loyalty oaths to "protect" ourselves from the opposition. We just need to honestly run the best candidates.

[pnwmom]

356. We don't need to allow people to run as Democrats who don't intend

to support the winning Democratic candidate. People like that don't belong on the Democratic ballot -- they can run as independents.

[Ken Burch]

368. We already knew that Dennis wasn't going to do a Nader

There was simply never any reason to question his loyalty.

It was an insult and Dennis had the right to reject the insult.

[John Gauger]

217. There's a difference between

wanting support based on your positions and demanding support based on an extorted loyalty oath.

[taylor egv420106]

114. Are you foolish

He has never been a member of the Texas Democratic party and the state party has their right to have whatever the hell requirements they want to be on the texas democratic ballot.

I dont know what it is why DK supporters who think that just because they dont feel like following the rules that the rules shouldn't apply.

[harmonicon]

285. because the rules are fundamentally wrong? Is that reason enough?

[Zhade]

29. True. Shit like this is why I left their useless party and went independent.

NT!

[hooraydems06]

42. Watch out Zhade... be careful with declaring that, or you might get...

... banned for saying that. I, too, though I prefer Dems to the GOP, prefer progressives in both the WH and the Congress. Dennis Kucinich is a true progressive, and still stands for something, like freedom of speech and choice and expression, which certain responders to this posting clearly do not.

[taylor egv420106]

139. Oh get over yourself

Just because someone DARES to suggest that the mighty DK and his 1% national following be required to follow the rules that means they don't support free speech?

[hooraydems06]

326. Get over yourself...

... while you're giving advice on who else needs to.

[lonestarnot]

113. Hey! Hey! Hey!

Watch yourself buster!

[lonestarnot]

115. Note to self.

[taylor egv420106]

116. Yeah god forbid

anyone actually have to follow rules.

[Richard Steele]

136. Coming from you, that's funny as hell.

[taylor egv420106]

140. Why?

What rules haven't i followed?

[Richard Steele]

233. OK, I'll play along:

A few excerpts from the DU Discussion Forum Rules,
which YOU agreed to follow when you signed up here:

1. This is a moderated discussion forum with rules.
We have a team of volunteer moderators who delete posts and ban disruptors.
Members are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with our rules,
and make an effort to become a positive member of our community.

3.Civility:
Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

4.Content:
Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate.
Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior.
Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements.

[taylor egv420106]

262. Newsflash

Simply pointing out facts you insist on ignoring isn't being trollish, anti-social or disruptive, no matter how many times you want to hold your breath.

[Richard Steele]

275. No, "pointing out facts" isn't being trollish, anti-social or disruptive; YOUR posts are.

nm

[1monster]

63. No. It is OUR party and if we let folks who demand loyalty oaths take it over,

then our party will be just like the Repubs.

Why then would we need to have more than one party?

[taylor egv420106]

117. Yeah what kind of political party

thinks that just because its THEIR organization they have the right to have rules that are applicable when we dont feel like following them. Why they hell are so many DK supporters whiny children upset that he has to follow the same rules as everyone else?

[King Coal]

198. Enjoy your stay, while you can.

[1monster]

234. Excuse me, but what do you mean "their party"? I'm a member of the

Democratic party. It belongs to the members, not some bunch of hijackers who managed to get the upper hand.

If the Democratic party is not YOUR party, then what are you doing HERE at DEMOCRATIC Underground?

[taylor egv420106]

263. They are elected

And unless you live in Texas its not your party. If you live in Texas if you dont like that requirement you work within the party to change the rules, you dont get to throw a temper tantrum and argue that you don't wanna follow the rules.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

80. Calling Kucinich a 'lawn gnome'

is not going to win you many friends around here. I suggest you brush up on your manners.

[Sherman A1]

118. While I agree with your right to express your opinion

Don't you think the name calling is unnecessary?

[taylor egv420106]

120. OK maybe that was a bit much

But I am just SICK of DK supporters thinking he has some kind of free pass to ignore rules or requirements he just can't be bothered to follow. Four years ago I had to deal with a bunch of crybaby DK supporters at our county convention who walked out because we wouldn't allow them an illegal FOURTH time to break into preference groups because they had decided they would rather go to lunch during the third than actually do what they were supposed to do and as a result were no longer viable.

They spent four years sniveling and whining about how the Democratic party in my HEAVILY Democratic county "disenfranchised" them by applying rules even when they didnt want to follow the rules and it appears this attitude has continued till today.

[kenfrequed]

131. So,,,

Because you have some damned anecdote that must mean EVERY friggin DEMOCRATIC supporter of Kucinich in every single state deserves to have their candidate excluded and their vote ignored?

You wanna know who I am sick of?

[taylor egv420106]

141. have you ever thought

That maybe just if you bothered to actually follow the rules you would actually be allowed to participate like you followed the rules. ALL he is doing is arguing he is exempt from rules he can't be bothered to follow.

[kenfrequed]

150. I only see you going after Kucinich

Thats it. And you do it no matter how absurd or unbalanced or ill enforced the rationalization is. I don't think you care about the rules, merely his exclusion. And your use of language suggests that you really don't care about what other people think anyhow.

[hooraydems06]

327. Yeah, use of language like...

... "private function", a phrase he came up with out of nowhere and has yet to actually explain.

[Peggy Day]

161. You mean like the rules that kept him out of a debate because

he didn't have an "office"? Those rules?

[kenfrequed]

247. Yes

And that was the last string I saw Taylor troll-bomb on. Taylor defended the arbitrary and badly enforced rules of the Des Moines Register. I called Taylor on it then as it looked as though Taylor had only mad their account explicitely for the purpose of doing so. But I guess I was wrong, Taylors intent (well one of the major ones) appears to be going on to justify EVERY exclusion of Kucinich.

What a wild and crazy hobby that is eh?

[EFerrari]

290. This valuing of authoritarianism over democracy is ugly. n/t

[hooraydems06]

343. Indeed...

... more and more I'm beginning to wonder if the American experiment has just failed... past the point of no return. If it hasn't, I honestly believe it won't be the Democratic Party that saves them, even if aided a vital, active grass/netroots movement within the party... the grass/netroots can only rescue the party if enough of the grass/netroots themselves see the forest for the trees... sadly, too many of them simply can't.

[Sherman A1]

148. I am a DK Supporter

as I believe he is the best choice (I suspect by your comment that you don't and that is your choice) and while I cannot speak to the issue you mentioned as I was not there. I do believe that all should follow the rules, just as the rules should be "fair" for everyone. This may or may not be an issue like the Iowa debate in which DK was excluded for not having an established HQ, yet a Republican was allowed to participate that didn't. Don't know, but I suspect the court will figure it out without my help, comment or accusations.

[boricua79]

186. lawn gnome?

That "lawn gnome" has more moral fiber in him than you could ever muster. It's so revealing that the smallest among them is actually a giant in standing up for what the Founders had designed in this country. None of the candidates, Edwards or Obama included, could match Kucinich purely on his platform. Too bad people vote on "looks" and "electability", because this man's policies would have been the best for the country.

[Name removed]

264. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zorra]

199. I wouldn't sign a "loyalty oath" either. But I will support the Democratic

nominee, whoever that may be.

Will you?

[ElboRuum]

214. I see your point.

However, your "lawn gnome" characterization is a bit much.

I think the overarching theme here is that...

1) If the Democratic party is the "big tent" party...
2) And it is true that automaton loyalism has not, in the past, been a requirement of participation in Democratic party politics...
3) And regardless whether other Democratic candidates just went ahead and said "sure, I'll take the oath"...

...Dennis Kucinich (nor anyone else for that matter) should have to swear any loyalty oath to get on the ballot, participate in political functions, and all that other jazz, specifically when he's been participatory as a Democrat in every other level of the campaign up to this point.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

237. And the corollary to that

If we acknowledge that the democratic party is a "big tent" party, someone in that big tent might win the nomination with whom we do not agree, but we should be willing to support the candidate IF we ask the party to support us.

If we can't do that, we can follow our principles and run as an independent or other party member.

[kenfrequed]

248. Ahem

Unlike certain establishment DLC centrist candidates (Like Lieberman) Kucinich has never ran as an independent, nor flouted the nomination process. This was about a loyalty oath.

Your argument basically boils to this: Is the democratic party too conservative for you? THEN LEAVE!! Go run as an independent you whining principled liberal loser.

I really hope this isn't what your suggesting. Because this kind of thinking is what we have been working really really hard to reverse.

[ElboRuum]

272. Not at all.

The corollary to that is that a "big tent" party doesn't shunt it's progressive elements out of the sides based upon whether or not they take "loyalty oaths". If you really want to know what this "loyalty oath" is, it is basically playing Hold'em blind. You agree to support whomever, regardless. Well, what if you strongly disagree with that person on many issues? You can SAY you support their nomination no matter what their position on the issues is, but if this is the case, what the hell does it mean to say "support" then? It's a popcorn fart in the breeze, and you know it. So what is wrong with saying so? What is wrong, specifically, with protesting the idea that a person, as a condition of inclusion in a specific forum, must a statement full of empty words, signifying nothing? It would be easier to just take the oath for the sake of expediency then, since it really does mean precisely nothing. But the question arises, then, why is this necessary? What is the agenda indicated by its inclusion?

The "principles" you suggest are precisely what some people of like mind as yourself say Kucinich is guilty of, "taking his ball and going home". So if Kucinich can't support the nominee, he should just follow his principles and start his own little club, taking his ball with him?

With all due respect, whatever happened to changing the system from within in a show of principled protest? Not to suggest anything specific, but when I hear what you're suggesting, I am reminded quite a bit of those pseudopatriots who say "if you don't like America, then leave." There are a couple of things wrong with that thinking. Both this country and the Democratic party are subject to change by its membership, regardless of what the leadership of these party organizations think. What you suggest states emphatically that they are not subject to change, or if they are, only by certain individuals have the right to dictate terms. Then there's this idea that one must sit down, shut up, and accept what you're fed, which is against the basic principles that people who gravitate toward the Democratic party hold to be paramount. Why should Kucinich, or anyone else for that matter, be railroaded into making these vague promises of support? What do they mean? Nothing? Next to nothing? And why NOT stand on that principle? Isn't there enough empty rhetoric in politics today? What is this "loyalty oath" except empty rhetoric at best?

I'm sorry that the TDP doesn't seem to think much is wrong with requiring this oath. S'okay. If they need reminding, I'm here.

[undeterred]

224. Go feed the fucking elk.

[taylor egv420106]

265. want to translate that

For those of us who aren't high?

[undeterred]

269. Elk Grove Village

You sound like a Republican.

[pnwmom]

18. Why should Kucinich be able to run as a Democrat if he won't support

the winning candidate?

If he's holding himself out as an independent, then he should run as one.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

30. Since when did party members have to swear loyalty oaths?

You a fan of gulags, too?

[pnwmom]

40. There's nothing new about candidates running on a party's primary ballot

agreeing to support the winner.

What's unusual is a candidate who wants to run as a party member but to act as an independent.

[hooraydems06]

43. I don't care whether it's "new" or not...

... I find it frightening as hell.

[pnwmom]

53. Why? If DK doesn't agree, he can run as an independent.

Why should he get to run as a Democrat, with the backing of other Democrats, if he won't agree to back them?

[hooraydems06]

55. It's sad that the "Democratic" Party has become so paranoid...

... cynical, and jaded that it doesn't trust Democratic congressman who's been card carrying and elected members of the party to back the "Democratic" presidential candidate without making him sign a Gestapo-style loyalty oath.

Actually, sad is a very soft word. Scary more like it.

[pnwmom]

61. Maybe we've learned from people like Joe Lieberman and Ralph Nader,

erstwhile Democrats.

[Peggy Day]

162. yea, that kept them in line, right? They signed and that kept them loyal-not nt

[LiberalFighter]

184. I remember on this this board...

that many were arguing to kick Lieberman out of the Democratic Party.

But he didn't run in the Connecticut General Election as a Democrat.

I remember on this board that many were arguing to kick Lieberman out of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

But he provided the Caucus with the necessary leverage to be the Senate Majority Party.


And then there is Nader. He stinks on a whole different level.


I remember that Kucinich ran for President in 2004. Most likely the only changes made in each of the states would be the date of the primaries.

Was the loyalty oath in effect back in 2004?

[hooraydems06]

331. Don't be so proud...

... of the fact that you've "learned" from them. It's something you ought to be very ashamed of.

[IsItJustMe]

181. I find it sad that you just used a broad bruch to paint the Democratic Party. We are talking about

Texas here.

[hooraydems06]

332. No, we're talking about DUers like MGKrebs. But are you saying that you oppose this?

It'll be great if you do, and I'll happily exclude you from the segment of the party that thinks this kind of thing is OK... but even if you do, I doubt the overwhelming majority of Democrats will join in and condemn this decision... I'm pretty sure Dennis Kucinich will be fighting this battle alone, and many, many Democrats outside of Texas are happy with it being that way... including some right here on DU, like MGKrebs. Have you personally told him you disagree? Have you asked him if he lives inside or outside of Texas?

[Occulus]

192. Kucinich isn't the issue, IMO

his behavior isn't the issue either.

To me, it's the very existence of a "loyalty oath" that's the issue.

We don't do that. Republicans do. Or has everyone forgotten the HUGE- and I mean days- into- weeks- long threads about the pubbies requiring oaths of loyalty to see chimpy speak to a crowd?

Don't let Taylor et al distract from the real issue- WE should not be requiring loyalty oaths to any person or any party because WE are the party of independently thinking people (and by that I do not mean 'independents' politically speaking).

Lots and lots of distraction using the man on this thread instead of the issue. I think I'll be keeping my eye on this thread all day to see if things improve.

[coalition_unwilling]

293. You mean like Democrats "backed" George McGovern after he won the

nomination in 1972? When it's a fairly well established fact that major players in the Dem Party establishment (like Hubert Humphrey and George Meany) did a lot within their power to undermine McGovern's candidacy.

[Psyop Samurai]

323. Ouch!... Good shot!

The judges call in your favor!

:toast:

[taylor egv420106]

142. You find

the idea of supporting the nominee of your party "frightening" yet I have no doubt you expect party resources to be spent supporting DK?

[King Coal]

206. Taylor. You don't get it. There is no doubt Dennis would support the Democratic nominee.

He just doesn't feel the need for an oath. Texas is wrong for asking for it. It goes without saying.
Now behave yourself. You're new here. Take time to learn the ropes. BTW, welcome to DU!

[MGKrebs]

258. Wrong. If he were to pull a Zell Miller and publically endorse

another party's candidate, there should be some repercussions.

[hooraydems06]

338. Let there be repercussions...

... but we're not talking about that... we're talking about before anyone has made any statement of intent to support any candidate other than the Democratic nominee, making an assumption like that to back and justify this very frightening move, making someone sign this bullshit "loyalthy oath" -- you're entering into a very paranoid, authoritarian mentality... you're doing your best to cause a self-fulfilling prophecy where many, many people will be scared away from the Democratic Party.

And really comparing someone like Dennis Kucinich to someone like Zell Miller is just in very, very poor taste.

[MGKrebs]

342. OK, so when you start your own party, you can define the criteria by which

you will determine whether repercussions are made necessary. Texas chose an simple oath of support for the top of the ticket.

[hooraydems06]

345. Right now I'm worried about the fact that you support Texas...

... then what "Texas" chose to do, actually.

I'm glad that there is a federal government that people can turn to when states choose fascism and enslavement over freedom, democracy and civil liberties, just as much as I was glad that there was someone outside these states to finally put an end to slavery and segregation and chose freedom, democracy and civil rights.

I'm still putting my hopes in Kucinich winning this fight. If he does, I wonder if you will drop it or continue to justify this absurd situation.

[taylor egv420106]

266. No I am not new here

And yes, there is plenty of doubt. The same way I dont believe GW as he can't outright say he never did drugs, I dont believe a candidate who is incapable of publicly pledging to support the Democratic nominee.

[Richard Steele]

284. So, what name were you using the last time you got tombstoned?

nm

[hooraydems06]

346. Yeah, and while you're at it, explain what "private function" you were referring to earlier...

[Pastiche423]

334. Not new???

You joined 22 days ago!



It's a good thing you are not pinocchio, otherwise, you would not be able to see your monitor from so far away.

[RaleighNCDUer]

212. This is about the primary ballot?

WTF should he sign an oath to support the primary winner in one particular state? Particularly when he, himself, is still on the ballot in other states? There is no need to declare support for any particular candidate until after the convention.

It sounds like some incompetant elections board used languange from the STATE ballot in the FEDERAL portion. He is not a part of the Texas State Democratic Party. He is a member of the OHIO State Democratic Party, and the National Democratic Party.

[Texas_Kat]

62. It's written that way to keep Republicans in Texas from running as Dems

And taking over ballot slots (particularly in minority areas) that REAL Democrats could fill.

Kucinich got caught up in it, but hey, them's the rules.

[susanr516]

193. Important to understand about Texas

Texas is an "open primary" state. You can NOT register a party affiliation at the time you register to vote. The ONLY time a party affiliation is ever recorded is when the voter casts a ballot in a primary or a runoff. A primary runoff is the only time a primary is considered even partially "closed." For example, once I vote in the Democratic primary, I can not cross over the next month and vote in the Republican runoff. However, voters who did not participate in either primary can vote in the runoff for either primary. Independent candidates who wish to get on the ballot must wait until after the primary (and runoff, should there be one) to collect petition signatures from registered voters who did not "register" a party affiliation, which means they did not vote in either party's primaries/runoffs. Are you confused yet? It gets worse.

There are two different "classes" of candidates on a primary ballot. "Public" officials are those who run as partisan candidates against candidates fielded by other parties on the General Election ballot in November. "Party" officials, such as precinct and county chairs, run for office and are elected on the same primary ballots. These "Party" officials are installed 20 days after the runoff election (should one be required.) Basically, it's two separate elections on one ballot.

Here's the kicker. Although the "loyalty" oath is applied to "Party" officials, it DOES NOT APPLY to "Public" officials in any meaningful way. Basically, should a Democratic "Public" get po'd in the primary and publicly announce he/she intends to support a Republican or Independent in the General, that official would be prohibited from serving as a delegate to the county, state, or national Democratic conventions DURING THAT ELECTION CYCLE. Once a new cycle starts, it's in the past.

That is the biggest downside to open primaries in Texas--it allows the other party to cross over and wreak havoc--in particular, with the "Party" candidates. The system sucks, BUT the "loyalty oath" is about the only safeguard the Texas Democratic Party has to remove openly Republican PARTY candidates from positions of responsibility in the Democratic Party.

Since our primary isn't until March 4, we probably will not have a say in either party's selection. Final fun fact is that the primary vote for President is basically meaningless--except for the fact that one must vote in his/her party's primary to participate in the precinct conventions held at the polling place at 7:15 pm on March 4--where the REAL delegate selection takes place, at least on the Democratic side. I live in a county of almost 200,000 registered voters, and perhaps 500 of them (if we're lucky) will decide the percentage breakdown of our delegate support for each candidate.

The good news is that it really doesn't make any difference whose name is on the ballot for President--the real vote comes in the precinct conventions. The bad news is that no one knows it makes no difference and DK gets bashed for marking through a clause on the ballot application that technically would never apply to him because he is not a Texas resident.

I understand that there are 50 states with 50 different sets of election laws, but part of running a national campaign is networking with activists who are familiar with the laws pertaining to each primary.

As I said earlier, I believe the race will be decided before I have the opportunity to vote. As a Democrat and a "Party" official (precinct chair,) I AM held to the loyalty oath--and I will be supporting the Democratic candidate, whoever he/she may be.

Susan
Democratic Party Primary Election Administrator
Nueces County, Texas

[Psyop Samurai]

333. Thanks for that explanation...

...daunting though it is.

:yoiks:

[susanr516]

349. LOL!

It's impossible to explain Texas in 25 words or less.

[taylor egv420106]

119. What a monstrously ignorant post

Oh no, god forbid the petulant children's lord and savior DK be forced to follow rules. Dont they know the rules are for people above four foot five?

[King Coal]

210. Are you sure you're in the right place? Why are you making fun of short people?

We don't do that, here. So, if you see a rolling donut come your way, check back in for more instructions.

[harmonicon]

37. how is he supposed to know who's going to be on the ballot?

he can't, so how can he say he'll support the winner? This loyalty oath thing is complete bullshit, and a truly democratic Democratic party would be about it.

[hooraydems06]

56. Indeed... and that's only the tip of the iceberg in terms of...

... what's wrong with this horrific "loyalty oath"... and both parties wonder why their ranks have so many trickling away, while the ranks of independents and third parties are swelling. Clearly they haven't caught onto the fact that Dennis Kucinich won't be going alone into the ranks of the independents if they insist on carrying on with this unconstitutional nonsense and use Chinese water-torture style tactics to force him out of the party.

[pnwmom]

64. He knows that anyone who runs is willing to support whatever Democrat wins.

A Rethug wouldn't be willing to sign that oath.

[harmonicon]

66. I disagree

The Republicans, Bush especially, are all about oaths. I thought our party was above that. Just on principle, how could he agree to support who the nominee was going to be if he doesn't even know who's going to be on the ballot? It's completely crazy.

[pnwmom]

67. Because he knows that the person is enough of a Democrat to be willing

to support another Democrat.

Texas is full of small towns that are heavily Republican. A Rethug might think he'd have a better chance winning if he ran as a Democrat. Requiring this oath would weed people like that out.

Why should the Democratic party be willing to support DK, by providing him a spot on its primary ballot -- if he isn't willing to align himself with the party's eventual nominee?

[harmonicon]

69. how so?

I think requiring an oath is the same as requiring someone to vote FOR someone like that, if they should run. That's what I mean about not being able to sign (though he simply shouldn't sign on principle anyway) when he doesn't even know who's on the ballot and not a single election has happened yet.

[pnwmom]

73. Why should the party give a spot on its primary ballot to a candidate

who isn't willing to support whatever Democrat wins the primary?

[harmonicon]

74. because of what you said!!

people will run for whatever party is going to get the votes, regardless of their position! If someone like that ran and won, why would DK support them? And promises mean nothing to people like that - shit, Lieberman claimed that one reason people should vote for him in '06 was so we could have a Democratic president in '08. Now he's backing McCain.

[pnwmom]

90. If Lieberman had signed something like that when he ran in the Democratic

primary, then he couldn't have run as an independent without breaking his promise. And lots of CT voters might have taken that broken pledge into account.

[harmonicon]

94. oh please.... voters wouldn't take this into account

this is all about people in positions of power being able to pick on the little guy.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

188. The oath was already in place

No one's picking on DK.

And he doesn't even really have to support the party nominee. He just has to keep his mouth shut and not speak out against him or her.

[harmonicon]

226. "just has to keep his mouth shut" - doesn't that scare you?

I'm I the only one who's more creeped out that all of the other candidates would sign this oath than the fact that they're having to take the thing to court?

[midlife_mo_Jo]

229. Ok, so he can run as an independent

LIKE LIBERMAN DID, AFTER he used the support of the Democratic Party in the primary.

You don't see something inherently wrong with THAT?

This is what that oath is attempting to prevent. Turncoats. Hypocrites. People who want to play by their own rules.

If he runs as a democrat in the primary as part of the democratic party, he'd better not support someone like Ron Paul.

He doesn't have to go out and campaign for the candidate, but he can't use the party and then vocally support the other candidate. He should stick by his principles and run as an independent if he can't do that.

[harmonicon]

230. This has nothing to do with him running in the general election, it has to do with principle.

Do you love Bush? These are Bushco tactics, and if you like where they've taken the country thus far, you're welcome to them.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

236. Do you love Liberman?

You're welcome to him.

[harmonicon]

238. nope, and I've pointed out before, that your arguments are some of the same ones that Lieberman used

.... the get elected in '06. I don't think DK will run as an independent, but if he did, that would be his choice. Some states have laws that if you run in one party's primary, you can't run for a different party in the GE. That's fine by me. You're bringing this independent issue up to muddy the waters - this loyalty oath has nothing to do with that. I think you really could have a future with Fox news, such is your reasoning.

[hooraydems06]

335. Indeed, and this whole thing is scary...

... it's not just one vocal troll that is advocating in favor of what the Texas bigwigs are doing that undermines the concept and spirit of democratic participation in the country... it's individual Democrats that either actively support this horrific travesty against democracy or silently turn a blind eye to what's happening to anyone unless they're in lock-step with the gestapo.

[kenfrequed]

245. Absurd

Right, so somehow this oath is a protection? From what?

As I see it every lame brained DLC candidate can sign this stupid loyalty oath and vote like lieberman and Zell Miller right up until the bitter end. A loyalty oath wouldn't have stopped either of these traitor DINOs. What is more hypocritical? Standing up and saying "I don't agree to loyalty oaths on principle" or signing it, and treating it like a legalistic piece of garbage?

I think you need to get familiar with the terms you use:

Turncoat-traitor---someone who switches sides at a moments notice: See also Norm Coleman (yes he was a Democrat at one time) and Joe Lieberman.

Hypocrit---one who declares one thing as a value and then acts (or in this case votes) in a completely contrary manner.

Now how is Kucinich, an unwavering Democrat with liberal progressive vales since the 70's a traitor or turncoat that we need have him sign a loyalty oath to protect ourselves?

[Peggy Day]

164. Is there a jail term or fine? nt

[Viva_La_Revolution]

82. I wonder if Lieberman ever signed those oaths...

hmmmm?

[atreides1]

175. Why should he be required to take an oath???

Are you willing to take a loyalty oath to support someone you don't agree with in principle? I'm not, I'll vote for the person who I think will do the job, with a preference for a Democratic candidate. But I will not give up my right to decide what candidate to vote for, I will not let some two bit authoritarian bureaucrat from a failed Republic tell me who I will vote for, and I will not sign a loyalty oath

But, I guess there are some who will let others tell them what they can do and when they can do it.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

78. What Zhade said.

:mad:

[mallard]

130. Re: armbands and moose-stepping

Funny you should mention that, but in a very different way, armbands are a civil option for prople who've had enough and shouldn't be considered the sole property of fascist movers.

If the democratic process has failed so miserably to allow for unpopular war founded on a pack lies, we should be aware of the right to all wear green armbands marked, DK - if that's what it takes.

It's the opposite of sheep shedding, if you will. Have American males all been castrated or something? There was supposedly a revolution that got the ball rolling toward government serving the population. They spend money that doesn't exist yet to buy behavior modification.

And yes, most people's boses are of the type who'd demand those armbands be removed.

Dennis is better, but...


mallard in taiwan

[hisownpetard]

219. I think you meant "goose-stepping," not "moose-stepping," but since it's Texas

we're talking about, maybe the "moose" is more appropriate.

Do they have meese in Texas?

[Marrah_G]

294. You make no sense

If he doesn't want to support the Democratic Party's decision then why didn't he run as an independent?

This has zero to do with "authoritarianism".

If you participate in the Democratic Party's primary then you are expected to follow the rules of the party you chose to be a member of.

[msongs]

4. what if the nominee turns out to be Huckabee? well, its possible.... nt

[taylor egv420106]

6. Well maybe its a space alien

Oh wait then DK might have already met him at Shirley McClain's house.

[ima_sinnic]

89. you really have nothing of substance to say, do you?

"lawn gnome"? "space alien"? are you even old enough to vote?

[taylor egv420106]

122. Oh gee

I'm sorry I dont have as realistic a scenario as Mike HUCKABEE being the Dem nominee.

[kenfrequed]

132. Of course,,,

Because in a presidential election season, somehow a public candidate for the Republican party would be clever enough to decieve an overwhelming majority of the delegates in the Democratic caucuses of Texas to support them.

Your argument is nonsense. quit pretending.

[taylor egv420106]

143. Read the original post I responded to

I wasn't the one who brought it up. I was simply responding to the argument to begin with. try reading ALL the posts, dont take the DK rules and read only the posts you feel like and demand the conversation change to fit what little you felt like reading.

[kenfrequed]

157. Sorry

Hard to find your original reply. So many of your posts are clouded with ad hominem attacks and absurd characterizations that when I strip them away all I find is you counter-whining about how much Kucinich deserves this and how any reason to exclude him, however arbitrary is therefore justified.

But I am certain you will find a ruling against him to agree with no matter how ridiculous.

[KoKo]

169. Just joined over 'vacation' and probably lives in a basement

in pj's.

[Phx_Dem]

205. That's kind of funny

coming from someone with 48,000+ posts.

FWIW I don't think insulting democratic candidates serves any constructive purpose either.

[progressoid]

14. Sure. If Huckabee magically turned into a Democrat and got on the ballot on all 50 states and

all the Democrats got lobotomies and voted for him.

[pnwmom]

44. You think it's possible that Huckabee would sign that oath? I don't. n/t

[Wwagsthedog]

7. Needless to say...

...I'll be following this very closely. No need to say more at this time.

[flvegan]

8. Gonna spam the entirety of DU with this, poster?

Just wondering. Makes you kinda suspicious.

[kenfrequed]

128. Taylor only pops up for these things

The last time I saw this poster was when they popped up to attack anyone that posted against the Democratic register for refusing to allow Kucinich to debate.

Apparantly Taylor's only interest on this entire website is to justify the exclusion of Kucinich, however he is excluded. I honestly don't know why Taylor has such a vested interest in preventing a candidate from participating like this. I mean this is the kind of treatment that causes liberal Dem's to run off and join the god damned greens.

[taylor egv420106]

144. Well lord knows

If the only time your limited reading comprehension saw something that means thats the only time it happened.

By your logic since I lived through yesterday that means nobody died anywhere.

[kenfrequed]

153. And yet statistically I seem to be right

If I measure the density of your posts they happen only coincidentally be heaviest on threads about Kucinich, particularly in those where supporters are stating their opinions of his being excluded.

Must just be some kind of accident or something. I'm sure you have a better explanation than a defective logical fallacy of an analogy. Or perhaps you could just call Kucinich a "Lawn Gnome" again. Yeah, that might work.

[taylor egv420106]

267. Well with your lack of understanding of statistics

Heaven help anyone who trusts your forecasts.

[davidinalameda]

9. get over yourself Dennis

if the rest of the candidates can sign the freaking form, you can

if not, run on another party ticket

[harmonicon]

41. whoa!!! that is some fucked up shit right there!!

that's like saying "if all of your friends jumped off a bridge, shouldn't you, Dennis"? Where is your head?

[hooraydems06]

48. I agree...

... remind me which party is not supposed to be like the Republicans with their scary group-think mentality?

It's like there's no room in some people's minds for anything other than "supporting" something or someone and completely being opposed to it.

Sounds very Bushesque... "you're either with us or against us"... no room for being neutral or being supportive on many issues, but critical on one or two. Simply frightening... frightening... I fear for the future of our country.

[harmonicon]

50. as do I

And now because my state party (Michigan) is run by shit heads, and the national party is run by shit heads (thanks Dean.... ugh... still I like that guy - I should stop) I don't even get a primary vote. So much shit I read around here about candidate x, y or z is just so much whistling past the graveyard while our democratic system is rotting out from under us.

[Jim Sagle]

12. Fuck off, Dennis.

[MalloyLiberal]

13. If you can't support the Democrat, fuck you!

[hooraydems06]

49. What exactly does it mean to "support the Democrat", I wonder...

... MalloyLiberal... are you allowed to express any disagreement on even one issue? Two? Just wondering... what exactly is the cut-off point?

Scary... just scary...

[MalloyLiberal]

79. Voting for them over the Republican!

[kenfrequed]

135. Yeah right

And Kucinich, who has been more a Democrat on the ISSUES than all of the first tier democratic candidates, is somehow going to do what? Start caucusing with the repug-niks in congress? I think your thinking of Lieberman, you know, the guy that actually DID refuse to acknowledge the endorsement process and run against the Democrats? But thats ok because he's a good DLC corporate approved Democrat/

Is Kucinich really that much of a threat to anyone? I mean, last I checked he was polling at less than 4%. Is eliminating him from any possible primary sooo important? The most he can really hope to accomplish at this stage of the game is to bring real progressive issues to the table to ensure they are heard. Is that so damned bad?

[MGKrebs]

216. If he's so opposed to the Dem process, shouldn't he run as an independent,

or a Green or something?
He wants to stick by his principles, fine. But the party has principles too. I, being in Georgia and having no way to toss Zell Miller out of the party for endorsing the Repub candidate, know very well where this leads.

DK should have a little faith.

[kenfrequed]

243. uhm what??!

Ok now you are in the realm of Red herrings and vauge generalization. No one said he was opposed to the process. The conflation of artificial or subjective rules does not mean that he is opposed to what the word Democrat ought to mean.

Are you saying that all people of his progressive stripe should just sell out and jump on the Hillary train or go run with the Greens?

The DLC has been pushing the liberals out of the party since the 80's and what did it give us? Two pluarlity "victories" and the republican revolution, oh yeah and bush too. When the grass roots and the progressives are motivated you get Howard Dean and Wellstone? Or would you prefer a party of Steny Hoyers and Rahm Emmanuels?

[MGKrebs]

249. By definition he is opposing the process. The form is part of the process.

It doesn't get any more plain than that. Presumably every other candidate signed the pledge, so even if someone as "liberal" as Dennis Kucinich were to get the nomination, they would have pledged to support him. So who's trying to push whom out?

[kenfrequed]

250. Uhm right

And the use of this loyalty oath is? Is it just a bs bit of paper to trip up the principled in favor of the opportunistic? Does it have any binding power at all? No. Kucinich stood up against the idea of "Loyalty Oaths."

Loyalty oaths that do not protect us from the Hoyers and Emmanuels, nor from the Liebermans nor Millers. They do not provide the voter with one iota of protection against a candidate that runs as a Democrat and then votes as a Republican would. None.


They serve no purpose but to deaden dissent. If you like loyalty oaths then I guess thats fine, but I am straining to think of a loyalty oath, outside of military service, ever having been a good thing, historically speaking.

If you think Loyalty Oath's are, or should be, the process of Democracy in general, and the Democratic party specifically then I don't know what to say to you.

[hooraydems06]

341. Thank you so much, kenfrequed...

... I am finding the elements of that are actually turning this into some kind of "debate" on a site called Democratic Underground.

Underground, to me, means representing those who have not been able to get a voice... during the Bush years, we fought for a voice in a mainstream media that was propagating us with what can be best be described as "soft fascism"... and now it seems we are co-opting so many of those same memes. (When I say "we", I certainly don't mean "me", personally, nor the others who are standing against this incredibly scary and definitely unconstitutiobnal move, but I wonder how much longer it will be even more accurate to say "we" referring to myself as a registered Democrat... I worry for the future of the Democratic Party... I'm still registered as a Democrat, but not only I, but many others, will be pushed out of the party on principle -- not "left", but *PUSHED OUT*, if Kucinich doesn't win this one).

This scares the shit out of me, and the people who actually support this and are unaware how scary they are sounding make me worry if it simply doesn't matter who takes the White House in November... we've long since passed the point of no return and are heading incrementally, yet still full steam, toward fascism.... be it a "kinder, gentler" or "meaner, nastier" version... more and more it seems unavoidable.

[hooraydems06]

330. LOL... do you hear yourself, MalloyLiberal...

... you honestly think that Dennis Kucinich is going to vote for the Republican candidate for president?

No, that's not what you mean... that's not what you mean at all... and maybe you should call up the party bosses in Texas to say that they should drop the loyalty oath in its current form and simply add a clause that they can't be on the ballot unless they swear not to vote for the Republican nominee.

Somehow I doubt you'll do that, because you know that's not what they mean, nor what you mean, and you know that that in of itself is clearly unconstitutional.

There was a lot of talk about Kucinich going "independent"... that's what they mean and that's what you mean MalloyLiberal, so please spare me...

[Peggy Day]

165. what if he would support the Dem, but doesn't support loyalty oaths? nt

[ElboRuum]

223. Don't bring that up...

...that would be an important nuance, and... well... you'll just confuse people with that. :sarcasm:

It's the same reason why I use the :sarcasm: smilie, even when it's completely obvious.

[coalition_unwilling]

299. When the shoe was on the other foot back in 1972 when George

McGovern was the Democratic nominee, many of the big players in the Dem Party establishment tried to sabotage McGovern's candidacy. I suspect that those insisting that DK blindly support whoever the eventual nominee is would have had no problem with the BS figures like Humphrey and George Meany did to McGovern's campaign.

But call me a historical purist for insisting that those willing to sanction DK be willing to sanction HH and George Meany for their sabotage (aka, 'non-support') of the national Democratic nominee.

[Gman]

15. If you want on the ballot, comply with the rules

sounds real simple. I can't see a court in Texas that would give DK relief.

[rhett o rick]

17. You vil comply or else. DK doesn't fit with the Democratic Party machine.

That's why I like him. It's time the party machine was rebuilt.

Loyalty oaths are so last week.

[pnwmom]

22. He's free to run as an independent. n/t

[rhett o rick]

235. Exactly. And that's exactly what we don't want. If the Democratic Party

machine would throw the progressive a bone, say support ending the war (in less than 10 years), or dumping the Patriot Act and MCA, or stopping the spying, etc. then maybe DK wouldn't look so attractive. We need to fix the Democratic Party not chase out the progressives. If DK goes independent then the Democrats will loose a lot of votes in the general. Where have we seen that before? I like Edwards because he is at least talking the talk. The other two top candidates are being very careful not to alienate the corporations and the big money. If I vote my principles I have to go with DK.

[hooraydems06]

28. Thanks, "rhett o rick"...

... some of the reactions from other responders to this posting are scary.

[gtar100]

87. No kidding! Looks like the totalitarian flu is hitting some dems too

I'm really surprised at the vitriol from some of these du posters. For god's sake, a loyalty oath!! and it goes right over their head. Like that's a good thing. Since when is it a good thing to sign away our personal power?

The only plausible explanation I heard was that it was put in place to stop repukes from running as a dem and stealing the seat. OK. But there's got to be a better way to combat that kind of fraud than requiring a loyalty oath. How about signing under penalty of perjury with severe penalties attesting to your party affiliation - and no statute of limitations apply.

[Zhade]

32. More like, loyalty oaths are so 1940s Germany!

NT!

[hooraydems06]

35. Thank you, Zhade!

[midlife_mo_Jo]

19. If he wants on the ballot

he can run for another party or an independent. He has no "right" to run as a democrat if he doesn't want to play by the rules.

Really sucks to be him right now, but I just don't see that this is a constitutional issue.

[taylor egv420106]

145. Unfortunately

Most of the Group think "free thinkers" think DK should be allowed to do as they please. Next if by the snowballs chance in hell he gets the nomination they will be complaining that he has to get more electoral votes than the other guy to win.

[RaleighNCDUer]

244. As if loyalty oaths were not the ultimate group think.

:eyes:

[The Sushi Bandit]

16. FUCK loyalty oaths!

and the Texas Democratic Party machine!

[Fedja]

23. The point is...

that he nobody should be forced to give a blank cheque of support to a candidate before they know who it is. Regardless of party, it's a ludicrous assumption that you'd support a candidate for such executive powers just because a certain party picked him/her.

This isn't about "supporting a democrat or a republican", there's a 3rd option of deciding they're both bad an not worth your time. The very concept of supporting a party candidate before you know who he is is a desintegration of democracy as you know it. It formally confirms that you're NOT electing a president, but a party. Now sure, this may already be the case for the most part in such a rigid 2-party system, but when you put it on paper, it becomes fact and it's much harder to improve.

I may not carry a US passport or vote in your elections, but I do like democracy. :P And if my system in any way -forced- me to vote for a party instead of my president, I'd simply not attend as a matter of principle.

[Zhade]

36. Yes, but you support democracy.

A lot of people here only support Democrats. Not democracy.

[hooraydems06]

52. Exactly.

Just frightening. It's ironic but it seems the roles have been reversed... at one point, it may have been true that anyone could call themselves "democrats" (lower case d), but not everyone could call themselves Democrats (upper case)... in other words, the pool of people who called themselves lower case - d was larger than the upper case - d.

Now the opposite is true... it seems that the pool of people who actually have the right to call themselves "democrats" has been eclipsed by those that can call themselves completely partisan Democrats... and although the crossover hasn't become mutually exclusive just yet, the amount of people that can claim membership in both groups is practically infintesimal.

This is the worst effect of scary, Bush-style fascism. It has spread far beyond the Republicans, beyond the Democrats, and into everyday America... everywhere.

[Fedja]

59. It's imposed by both parties

It's their ticket to survival, making the whole system into a good ole Hollywood style "white versus black", "good versus evil", "us versus them". In such a system, you don't mind if the good guy goes through corpses and lies in defeating the other one. For he is yours, if a Democrat doesn't win, a Republican will and the world as such will end.

Where is your choice? Why the debates? Why do you have names on the ballot? Why do you care if the candidate is a religious looney or a murderer if you don't have the freedom to vote for -HIM- anyway? Why do you care about ANY of the election race issues, if you're electing a party?

[harmonicon]

46. Thank you for saying that

(this may not mean much to a foreigner) I'm starting to think that DK isn't just a member of "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party", but also one of the few members of "the democratic wing of the Democratic party".

[Viva_La_Revolution]

86. Welcome to DU!

:applause:

[coalition_unwilling]

301. The machine that gave us LBJ and the eventual turncoat John Connolly , , ,

who needs it?

[pnwmom]

20. Kucinich is free to run as an independent if he doesn't want to align himself

with the Democrats.

[bonito]

31. Both party's have been hijacked

By AIPAC to do their fighting in the middle east and the candidates in any one of the parties that are carrying out AIPAC's agenda are traitors and do not deserve loyalty oaths.

[pnwmom]

91. People who think that shouldn't run as Democrats, but as independents. n/t

[Anarcho-Socialist]

324. That is ridiculous

[hooraydems06]

45. If you keep taking that position...

... you will drive away more people than you possibly know to become Independents... many, many people will join Kucinich in leaving the party... just be careful what you wish for.

A cautionary note.

[pnwmom]

92. Many of those people weren't Democrats to begin with.

There are many people who obviously come to DU in order to encourage progressives to leave the party for "greener" pastures.

[Fedja]

95. From the rules

Democratic Underground is a completely independent organization. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party in any way, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

That said, democracy is the goal. The Democratic Party is currently best equipped to take everyone closer to the goal, but this doesn't mean that it cannot improve. If noone ever left, if noone ever disagreed, would it work to improve?

[pnwmom]

317. Good point, Fedja. Disagreement is healthy. And welcome to DU! n/t

[taylor egv420106]

146. Yeah the only option

is no rules for anyone. Every halfwit idea should be allowed, no matter how foolish, illegal or ignorant because otherwise we would be fascists.

[High Plains]

271. You should be careful with that talk. You might get what you're wishing for.

Then Democrats could whine for another eight years...

[Baby Snooks]

24. Only in Texas...

This could only happen in Texas and the Texas Democratic Party should have taken the hint during the 2006 gubernatorial race. If the Democratic candidate does not appeal to Democrats, they will vote for someone who does. This is a repeat of 2006. The "good old boys" in Austin decide who they want and everyone else is expected to support them even in the primaries.

It doesn't work that way. Rather than open up a can of worms I will leave it at that and simply hope that Kucinich prevails.

[hooraydems06]

33. Indeed, and it's frightening...

... how some on this thread are reacting to this clearly unconstitutional "loyalty oath". On another note, I don't care who it is, Republicans, Democrats, or what not... people from Texas are just scary... no one is left untouched by the element of fascism that has crept up and taken over the state.

[TroubleMan]

34. A loyalty oath.....are they crazy?

What kind of stupid shit is that?

[hooraydems06]

38. Yeah, and sadly...

... some of the people that responded to this posting themselves see no problem with this. Fascism has clearly taken over both parties... I see no great hope to ever get out of this, regardless of which party takes the WH in November.

[Justyce]

107. Texas does it to try to prevent republicans from running as dems.

At least that's my understanding of it.

[Baby Snooks]

190. Well you understood wrong

The Texas Democratic Party preferred one candidate over another in the gubernatorial primary in 2006 and pulled out all the stops including some formerly well-respected women "leaders" of the party to endorse "their" candidate primarily by slandering the other candidate and then several of those same women "leaders" ran off to a fundraiser for Kinky Friedman which I guess summed up their endorsement of the Texas Democratic Party's candidate better than anything else could.

Then the party ignored the fact that "their" candidate took a sizeable campaign contribution from an oilman whose only other contribution seemd to be setting up an endowment fund at Pepperdine University. Which isn't exactly a bastion of Democratic values. But what the hell, you know? Republican money is just as good as Democratic money, right? Maybe he was "converting." Maybe everyone at Pepperdine was "converting." Maybe Kenneth Starr will "convert." Would the Democrats even WANT Kenneth Starr? A friend lived not far from Pepperdine and I used to tell her that the EPA at some point was going to condemn the neighborhood over the toxic waste up the hill. That sums up Pepperdine. Toxic waste. And sums up those who support it. And their money. Even when they give it to Democrats which should raise a very big red flag when they do. But didn't for some reason in this case.

The Texas Democratic Party is not concerned with anything other than finding the right good old boy to try to protect their own good old boy network which probably explains why Democrats always lose in Texas. Because of the candidates the Texas Democratic Party rams down people's throats. Reality is they don't even like primaries. They would prefer to just announce their candidates and have every Democrat sign the same loyalty oath they expected Dennis Kucinich to sign.

Lots of Democrats in Texas vote for someone other than the Democrat and the Texas Democratic Party is why.

[redqueen]

209. Thank you!

Watching what's gone on here the last few years is more than enough to turn this lifelong Dem independent.

[AndyTiedye]

39. While I would Like to See All Losing Primary Contenders Support the Eventual Nominee

…keeping a candidate with sufficient signatures off the ballot for failing to sign an oath to that effect is way out of line.

[hooraydems06]

60. Indeed...

... thank gawd there seem to be at least a handful of people on DU who still manage to see that...

[midlife_mo_Jo]

191. He can run as an independent

No one is keeping him off the ballot.

[High Plains]

273. Is that what you want? A leftist independent candidacy?

Do you promise not to whine about the results later?

[Freddie Stubbs]

277. I want our Democratic candidates to promise that they will not support a leftist independent

candidacy or spearhead one themselves.

[High Plains]

274. Self-delete: DUPE

[swag]

47. I wonder what really happened.

UFO guy should just go ahead and run with doesn't-believe-in-evolution Libertarian guy.

[syberlion]

58. The reason for the loyalty oath is because

There were so many party-switchers and still are in the state of Texas. There is an attitude of "what ever it takes" to stay in office. If it looks like there's going to be a rush to vote democratic, well guess what, even though I was elected as a Repug, I am now a dem. That's just politics as usual around here in Texas.

As for the rejection, business as usual, again. This is just another example of how the real democrats are being pushed out by the rich corporate interests. Yes, I said "real democrats." Just look at how the MSM is treating those pushing the populist agenda. They are still pushing for the "two-man race" and adding a paltry footnote regarding any other candidates.

Personally, I am calling Austin Democratic Headquarters and tell them they are helping to elect another republican into office. They did it with their weak support of their gubernatorial candidate and by not allowing Kucinich on the primary ballot, they are effectively telling the progressive wing of the party to just stay home, we don't want you to even show up or participate.

The attitude of the political process has gotten way too undemocratic and has drifted into a fascist place only seen in Germany and Italy back before WWII. To require "oaths of loyalty" is draconian and completely un-American. Are we going to require kissing the State Democratic Chair's ring to get on the ballot next? Where does this un-American behavior end?

This is just another example how the process is bogus and We The People are no longer factors in the decision process. Why should I be surprised when this is the same state that gave us Prince Bush and his father?

Either the collapse of the whole thing needs to be hastened, or We The People need to stand up and reclaim the process. Unfortunately, it looks like the whole thing will have to come crumbling down before We The People get a chance to save this country.

One last note... Does the "loyalty oath" they take from the party, is it stronger then the oath of office they take when they are sworn in? So, is it now more important to protect and defend the party, constitution be damned? THAT is the question needing answered in the courts and I for one am glad DK is forcing the issue.

[Ken Burch]

372. It's the CONSERVATIVE Dems who party-switch in Texas, not the progressive populists.

The oath should only be required of those on the right wing of the party, since they're the only ones who show disloyalty.

[RadioactiveCarrot]

71. I haven't got to read this entire thread,

However, I got to read enough of the "screw Dennis" replies.
I guess what bothers me, is when Republicans march in lock step and take 'party oaths', they are held up as mindless goose-stepping sheep.
When one of our own doesn't want to do it, (and arguably, the most progressive candidate available) he is derided and dismissed for not following in the pattern of behavior prevalent in the Republican party.

Making sense to me, it does not.

[harmonicon]

75. be afraid, be very afraid.

[taylor egv420106]

147. See the beginning of your post speaks volumes

You want to selectively read responses and then decide what the conversation must be because of your selective reading.

Most people are saying THEY ARE ALLOWED TO SET THEIR OWN RULES. SImply not liking the rules doesn't mean that the rules become non existent.

[RadioactiveCarrot]

200. The beginning of my post *does* speak volumes.

I skimmed because I'm on cold meds and was about to go to sleep. Volumes indeed.
I don't think anyone is arguing that they *can't* set their own rules, just how absurd the idea is.
Party oaths? Are you serious?
Taking an oath to vote for anyone blindly is just a stupid idea. Anyone.
The fact that he won't do it ups him a couple notches in my book.
But hey, what does he know? Lawn gnome right? :shrug:

[Richard Steele]

201. Hi, RadioactiveCarrot!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Try to remember that DU is a big place, and that
the "vocal minority" on this thread doesn't speak
for all of us. Or even MOST of us.

[RadioactiveCarrot]

202. Oh hey :D

I know, I've been reading since 2003. I just haven't had the time or the inclination to post much til recently.
But thanks for the welcome! :toast:

[Ken Burch]

72. This from the state Democratic Party that looked the other way

When all the big wigs in the party excepot LBJ himself sold out Adlai Stevenson in '52 AND '56 and did the same to George McGovern in '72. Texas, the home of Democrats for Nixon/Reagan(later known as the Democratic Leadership Council). Texas, the state that helped FORCE the national party to lose in 1968 by making it nominate a hardline war candidate on a hardline war plank despite the overwheming primary vote for peace and justice.

Texas, where only progressive Democrats are expected to be loyal.

[Freddie Stubbs]

194. How many of the Democrats who were running the party 30 years ago are even still alive,

let alone running the party? It's kind of like saying that Republicans are for racial equality because Lincoln freed the slaves.

[Ken Burch]

366. Clearly, its only those in the right wing of Texas Democrats who insisted on this.

Everybody else already knew Dennis wasn't going to be disloyal.

[coalition_unwilling]

303. Yes, it's ironic. Those insisting that DK comply with Texas Dem Party

rules conveniently forget the hatchet job Texas Dem Party did on McGovern in 1972. (I am too young to remember the Stevenson campaigns but find it entirely credible that they would also have stabbed Stevenson in the back.)

[KingOfLostSouls]

76. Wow, a lot of people attacking the Democratic Party

I guess we know which people will be working to hand the election to the republicans after the nominee is not DK.

we saw how well that worked in 2000, looks like certain people are out for the sequel...

[Fedja]

84. And the Partei(sic) decisions are divine and beyond attack.

...or are they? Disagreement is what democracy is made of. Spotting problems and standing up for what you believe in is what makes you free.

The party is trying to take away DK's vote. They're trying to take away his most intimate political freedom, the freedom to support a certain platform, be it his own or someone else's. If he wishes to participate, he must support who -they- support, and SIGN A STATEMENT to that effect, should his pesky personal opinions get in the way once he sees who that is. Does that not make you want to vomit? Do you not see the implications?

"If he wants to be on their ballot, he'll follow their rules" is what I saw over and over. That's 1 inch off from "If you want to work in the Vaterland, you'll support our despot, one party, one thought, you'll give the army your firstborn, and you'll remember not to ever talk about slavery." Orrrr, you can elect to not work and die cold and hungry. See? You're actually free. Or are you?

Democracy knows no rules. Anyone can run for office. Everyone can vote for the candidate they like most. He that the people choose will lead them for the term. The parties are supposed to make it easier for people to participate in the political process, not harder. Taking away their freedom to vote for whichever candidate they like most sure doesn't do democracy or the process any favors.

[Gman]

108. This thread has done more for outing the non-Democrats here at DU

than anything I've seen in a while. There's more than a few freepers in this bunch that are agitating at the same time, taking full advantage of this.

[frylock]

241. lots of "party loyalists" being outed as well

[Marrah_G]

296. You can add me to that list.

[Gman]

313. That's a good thing

after all, this is DEMOCRATIC Underground and was founded as a forum for Democrats.

[frylock]

316. and it's times like these that i'm thankful to be an indy

[Marrah_G]

295. Very true

[Zorra]

362. That is hilarious coming from someone that defended Joe Lieberman. n/t

[JDPriestly]

77. Kucinich is right on this.

[stimbox]

81. How McCarthyist of the Democratic Party.

Is this the new Red Scare?

[gtar100]

93. Where are the black people in that picture?

I tell ya, white people can be scary. Especially when they segregate themselves into packs like this. Even more so when not a single man has a beard or any of the women are showing cleavage. Makes me worry about what their motives are and what sort of irrational fears they are stewing in. Guess that part hasn't really left certain parts of America.

Hey, I think that's my mom there in the fourth row on the left.

[stimbox]

96. the pic was from 1950 so that might explain it.

MUCH DREADED LOYALTY OATH, 1950.
These folks are swearing that they have never conspired to overthrow the United States Government by force. This is the auditorium of the Mission Hill Grammar School.

http://www.brattononline.com/index.php?m=200406

[taylor egv420106]

149. Yeah how dare they

God forbid anyone actually follow the rules. Every moronic, half wit idea should be allowed regardless of how idiotic, dangerous or illegal. Just because the idea is bad doesn't mean we shouldn't follow it to its fullest, right?

Wouldn't want to be fascist or anything.

[brentspeak]

337. "The" Democratic party????

One state Democratic party now = "the" Democratic party?

:crazy: :crazy:

[snot]

83. ok, I'm Txan, and they dissed my 1st choice. As a practical matter,

I can't see how any purported progressive would vote for any Repub. over the Dems. currently in the race. HOWEVER, we don't know what might happen between now and the election. For that and many other reasons, any requirement to put any oath above one's own conscience would be execrable to me personally. If DK finds it so as well, it confirms my original preference for him.

What's right will never prevail so long as no one stands up for it.

[denem]

102. RON PAUL EOM

[frog92969]

85. Thank you Dennis!

Just more proof that my vote for you is not wasted.

[stimbox]

88. What's next? A blacklist?

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[harmonicon]

97. next? You didn't get it already?

[stimbox]

98. First are the oaths and then comes the blacklist. n/t

[harmonicon]

99. Gravel's already on it

Even on opinion polls posted by DUers, Gravel has been left off. He was the first to be booted from debates. Kucinich has already been kicked from some. I was making a light-hearted comment, but it really is a serious matter. *sigh*

[Yukari Yakumo]

100. F' DK.

After LIEbermann and Nader, you'd think we all would have learned by now. I see many of us need to read The Rules again, paying special attention to Rule 2.

Dennis is being a pompous ass again and doesn't want to abide by even the simplest of rules again. Is there anything else that needs to be added?

[Fedja]

101. Quite a bit is.

Rules are not valid merely because they're rules? You don't see the moral issue with signing off one's civil right and duty of choosing his candidate?

[hayu_lol]

105. At the time Dennis applied to be on the ballot,

did he make a complaint about the oath? Did he complain, verbally or in writing to the inclusion of the 'oath' to support the Democratic winner, no matter who won? If he did not, then this is part of his idea of democracy.

Dennis is the only candidate we have who is against all rules and requirements that are set out in advance. His attitude has kept him from various debates and gatherings since he would not abide and comply with reasonaably simple rules.

Dennis feels he is above doing what his fellow candidates have complied with.

In this particular case, there obviously had been problems with party switchers in the past(TEXAS--I guess so), people who were not Dems but who ran as Dems for whatever reasons but who, once in office, operated with the Repug party.

Seems pretty straight-forward. Dennis refused to comply, did not make a complaint at the time he completed the paperwork, and again found himself shut out. Now he files suit and makes a public scene about being discriminated against.

Dennis is clearly not a Dem, clearly not a progressive, and certainly does not need a place on the Democratic ballot.

So, what is Dennis?

[taylor egv420106]

123. Nobody is signing off a civil right

Its simply a pledge its not like you give up your right to vote for whoever the fuck you want. It simply says if you are going to run as a DEM you are pledging to support the Dem nominee. If you aren't willing to pledge that, why should ANY Dem be willing to spend even a nanosecond working for you?

[harmonicon]

286. you just contradicted yourself there.

[elaineb]

127. How hilariously ironic that you're pointing out "Rule 2" under the post title "F' DK"

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

Also hilarious (if it weren't so sad) is that not only do a lot of Kucinich-hating DU'ers like yourself apparently support loyalty oaths for Democratic politicians, but, by referring to "Rule 2", you're suggesting that it's "illegal" on DU to even support Democratic candidates who, on principle, refuse to take such a loyalty oath. Read "Rule 2" again, and strive for better comprehension this time.

And to those who disingenuously suggest on this thread that Kucinich should run as an independent, well, that's a little like saying "America: Love it or leave it", isn't it. Dennis Kucinich is one of the few current Democratic politicians who hews most closely to traditional Democratic ideas and issues, and those of you who disparage him are obviously a bit embarrassed by someone who stands on true, progressive (Democratic) principles and not party principles. Poor y'all.

[Larry Ogg]

167. Lemmings have rules too…

When the leading lemming jumps off a cliff, the rule says, all the other lemmings are supposed to follow no matter what, this is an unfortunate aspect of instinct found in lesser all social species.

Humans also have a rule, and much like the lemmings, we are genetically conditioned to respect leaders instinctively. But unlike the lemmings, the human brain has grown and developed over millions of years, and some of us (as in not all of us) became intelligent enough to not listen to that primordial instinct no matter what, and actually find it proper to question leaders when they are wrong, and how erroneous these quote unquote leaders have become, is evident to some of us, when rules demand everyone to act like lemmings. So I really don’t think intelligent democrats construe DU rules as being shields for those unscrupulous politicians who call themselves democrats but act republicans…

I know this must be hard to fathom so just think of it like this, sometimes rules have to be bent in order to defend good sense and the views of intelligent people who have an objective view of decency, even when someone who claims to be on their side says otherwise...

[coalition_unwilling]

304. Stop insulting lemmings by equating them with humans. As

species go, the lemming far exceeds homo sapiens, imho.

[Larry Ogg]

357. Yes, I see your point, my apologies to all lemmings…

I did however attempt to ‘not add insult to injury’ by striking through the word lesser, this was with the hope that some lemmings would, at least, be able to find a common sense of parity with their homo sapien counter parts. But still my guess is that some lemmings, like humans, will always find fault with common sense, its kind of like that blind leading the blind group think thing (fuck common sense), if you catch my drift…

[Larry Ogg]

104. This is beginning to make much more sense…

No wonder they wont impeach the unelected Nazi fascist occupying the White House, could it be that the supposedly democratic leadership has taken an oath to support what ever candidate has been appointed as president, no matter what? Is this the prevailing mentality..? It sure seems so...

This is nothing more than an oath of honor among fascist thieves…

[taylor egv420106]

124. That was a foolish comment

Translated from DK supporter to English:

"waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, no fair making me follow rules, rules are for adults and its not fair. WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"

[elaineb]

133. Curiously lacking in your post was your own opinion of said rule

I know it's very self-satisfying to quote the "rules" against a Democratic candidate whom you apparently loathe (judging by the number and content of your posts regarding him), but you're allowed to have your very own, personal opinion on such a loyalty oath. What is your own opinion on the need for such an oath? In your mind, is any "rule" imposed by any Democratic Party organization anywhere, at any level, always correct, merely by virtue of the fact that it was imposed by the "Party"? Just curious about your real thinking on this topic. TIA for your response.

[elaineb]

156. Oh, by the way...

Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer (my avatar picture) didn't follow Democratic Party rules either, when she attended the 1964 Democratic National Convention as a member of the "extra-legal" Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. Anything to say against her opposition to the then-existing Democratic Party "rules"?

Go ahead: Quote the "rules" against a Democratic heroine like Fannie Lou Hamer. I'd love to hear that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Lou_Hamer

[Larry Ogg]

221. Too you, ‘add hoc’ and undemocratic rules might seem fine for the misled naïve but

Ostensibly, as was said upthread, they claim to protect the Democratic Party from Republican infiltration, but anyone with a lick of common sense can see its to late for that, the real truth is that they, along with their troll minions, don’t want a Progressive / Liberal Democrat in the White House. God forbid good sense return to this country and restore Democracy.

Let me translate that from English into Troll. Scum sucking ignorant gutter pigs would be knocked off of their high horses, and then all they would have left to do is gravel in their pathetic demented and deviant character, hopefully from the end of a short leash…

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

106. Loyalty oath - I'm all for it

I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the Democratic party.
(Is that our flag?
Or is someone running around with
a bra tied to a stick?
Again.)

And should Our Party nominate a lawn gnome,
I will support said object
over any thug nominated by the Republicans.
Or any Independent.
Unless Gore runs as an indy.
(kidding about Gore).

And I will shout Our Party's motto:
"Who brought the beer?"

:toast:

[formercia]

121. Loyalty Oath?

Shades of Nazi Germany

[lonestarnot]

125. Fucking Texas!

You picked on the wrong dude!

[MGKrebs]

126. So whatever delegates he wins aren't really obligated to vote for him, right?

I mean, if he's not willing to sign the oath, why should his delegates?

[taylor egv420106]

151. No no no

Don't you get it yet? Rules only apply when they are convenient for DK. Every other nominee should be obligated to support him if he wins, all his delegates should be obligated to support him, but he has no responsibilities or requirements beyond what he feels like doing.

[Fedja]

155. Exactly!

Nobody is obliged to vote for someone. Nobody is obliged to vote at all. That's why the voting is (should be) annonymous.

A vote reflects the FREE decision of the individual at the time of his vote. There's a campaign, where the candidates convince voters to support their agenda. If he eventually ends up looking like a twit, by all means, people should drop him immediately and vote for whoever they prefer more.

Support or votes should NEVER be imposed by anything. Next thing you'll see is IBM sending around a company policy loyalty oath demanding support for <candidate x>, Shell Oil demanding all employees to support <candidate y> etc. How would that be any different?

[Ravachol]

177. Well, perhaps because they know him...

And, as such, willingly choose him. While he doesn't know who the nominee will be. Blind loyalty oaths aren't democratic, period. It's part of what's wrong with our current "democracies". Putting the party before everything else, etc. We've seen where the path leads to...

[MGKrebs]

195. He willingly chose to run as a Democrat.

So the argument is that the delegates willingly chose to be delegates, so after they make that choice, they have chosen to be dedicated delegates?
So DK has chosen to run as a Dem in Texas. He doesn't have to. But if he does, all he has left to do is "promise" to support the nominee. I doubt they are asking him to make campaign appearances or anything, they just don't want Dem party candidates pulling a Zell Miller and endorsing the opposition party.

[idiocracyhell]

129. Kucinich puts principles before politics.

This is an absurd oath to have to support the Democratic nominee regardless of who it might be. If the Democratic nominee was Hitler, then I suppose Kucinich should just shut up and tow the party line. I admire Dennis Kucinich for his integrity, and his willingness to stand up for what he believes. He's the only candidate that hasn't sold his soul to corporate America, and the only candidate that will truly shake up the status quo. He has my vote regardless of his party affiliation because of his moral courage.

[Richard Steele]

163. Hi, idiocracyhell.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Tarc]

173. Congrats

It only took you 3 posts to break Godwin's Law.

[MGKrebs]

179. That's what Zell Miller and Lieberman think they are doing.

I'm just sayin', that argument cuts both ways.

[rjones2818]

134. I seem to remember about a month or so ago...

that the Repugs were planning on having voters sign a loyalty oath if the voted in the Virginia primary. The railing about it forced them to stop. Most of the complaints were that loyalty oaths were anti-american, etc. For the naysaysers, why is it bad for voters to be forced to sign a loyalty oath to the party and not bad for a presidential candidate to be forced to do so?

[puebloknot]

137. I feel like I'm in that Twilight Zone segment when the guy...

...suddenly wakes up in Nazi Germany.

I find it frightening and absurd that there are people on this "Democratic" board who support the idea of loyalty oaths.

Those who forget the past (or never had a clue about it in the first place) are bound to repeat it (and take the rest of us down with their sinking ship as they go)!

Blind party loyalty is the hallmark of being a "Good German." And there are certain "swiftboat" tactics being used against Dennis Kucinich in this thread which are simply disgusting. You may not want to support his candidacy, but he is intelligent and compassionate and truly progressive. His acknowledging that he's seen a UFO is far less crazy, in my view, than claiming to believe in the virgin birth of a certain religious icon that a lot of people are in thrall to.

Following "The Rules" is not necessarily the mark of a person with maturity and a capacity for independent thought. Sometimes it is a characteristic of a mob mentality.

Dennis Kucinich is doing the right thing in challenging this patently undemocratic tactic of the Texas Democratic Party!

[taylor egv420106]

152. Why the hell

Should money I donated be used on someone who doesn't feel any particular obligation to follow party rules he finds inconvenient and isn't even willing to promise to support the party nominee that he is contending to be?

[Fedja]

158. Why the hell

You donate to the party because you agree with its principles. They, in turn, employ and support people of similar principles. But on election day, you have the freedom of choice. Every voter does (or should).

Now I understand that this was done to prevent party affiliation-hopping, but it was done in a retarded way. Nobody should sign away his vote. Ever.

[ElboRuum]

220. Well...

Presuming that the question isn't moot (it is, but only because you never had that particular authority in the first place to determine how donated monies are used if you don't donate them directly to the candidate), I guess it all depends on what you value.

[puebloknot]

291. Maybe it has to do with ethics, morality, patriotism, intelligence...

...and determination not to let party loyalty trump what is right and good for the country.

Why should any of us support a candidate who claims to be a Democrat, but is essentially in bed with Republicans.

"Loyalty oath"! Has a nice fascist ring to it. Why should you, as a loyal American, be willing to bankroll that concept? We've seen how well that works during the McCarthy era.

[AlertLurker]

154. I realize that Texas is, politically, a little odd, BUT:

How many of the other states have similar oaths? It isn't difficult to imagine further trouble somewhere down the line for Mr. Kucinich if similar oaths exist in other primary states...

I wonder if the Texas Democratic Party will back down? I can't see it, but it's a sure bet that Dennis Kucinich will not, either. Good for you, Dennis.

Given the sheer number of Republicans running as Democrats in the primaries ALREADY, I can't fault his logic OR his loyalty to his Democratic principles.

[JNelson6563]

159. Ok, that's three things I know of now

No office in Iowa led to being excluded from a forum there. He tried to withdraw from the MI ballot but sent in the paperwork without it being notarized. Failed to get notarized form in on time. Now this Texas thing.

I guess there should be two sets of rules, one for Dennis and one for everyone else.

Julie

[Fedja]

160. Close :)

There should be one set of rules. A democratic one. The rule he contests is unfair towards everyone.

Or maybe the little black lady should have sat at the back of the bus, like they told her? So rude to brake a rule.

[JNelson6563]

166. Ok, whatever

Being asked to support your party's nominee is just like the horror of segregation.

Oy.

Julie

[Fedja]

171. It's a quiet alienation

of rights. He wasn't asked, he was forced. In order to retain his active voting right (candidacy), he would have to forfeit his passive one (voting). By supporting the would-be candidate one expects he'd have to vote for him, else it's all a big lie anyway and he can contest it from a moral point of view as well.

Yes. If my party asked of me a SIGNED PLEDGE that I will support whoever they come up with in a year's time, I'd be deeply offended. I would be disgusted at them trying to twist my arm into it rather than providing a candidate of sufficient greatness that I would love to support regardless. Now, I would be alienated and angry. DK, however, finds more than his pride hurt, his candidacy is being limited by this. Same as skin color used to limit people from being a candidate. So in that respect, yes it's disturbingly similar.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm too much of a realist to be a DK supporter. I know what "electable" stands for in the US of today. Still, this pledge is an atrocious violation of democratic (not capitalized) principles and should be rejected as such.

[JNelson6563]

196. The pledge to the early states didn't bother him

He was ok with the pledge to the early states, apparently, because when Michigan moved the date of the primary Kucinich tried to get off the ballot though he subsequently failed, breaking his pledge to alienate MI Dems.

Sorry but Dennis was willing to take a pledge vowing throw MI Dems under the bus (or any others who dare to challenge the status quo) to please IA & NH when it was of perceived benefit to himself. It's too late to be claiming the high road now that he refuses a pledge that will obviously benefit another.

I've lost a lot of respect for Kucinich this cycle.

Julie

[Freddie Stubbs]

168. It's only unfair to people like Kucinich and Lieberman who refuse to support the Democratic nominee

[Zorra]

213. He's challenging a violation of the Constitution, not refusing to support the nominee.

And that fascist traitor Joe Lieberman is not worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as a good democrat like Dennis Kucinich.

[Freddie Stubbs]

358. Kucinich has been voting with the Republicans on key bills a lot lately:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll906.xml

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll624.xml

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll265.xml

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll186.xml

[Zorra]

363. They were lame appeasement bills that Bu*h was going to veto anyway.

First of all, Dennis is often more perceptive than many Democrats when judging legislation, which can most clearly be shown by his leading the opposition to the Iraq War Resolution (and the Iraq War itself:

Dennis Kucinich, November, 2002

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.
snip---
We know that each day the Administration receives a daily threat assessment. But Iraq is not an imminent threat to this nation. Forty million Americans suffering from inadequate health care is an imminent threat. The high cost of prescription drugs is an imminent threat. The ravages of unemployment is an imminent threat. The slowdown of the economy is an imminent threat, and so, too, the devastating effects of corporate fraud.
snip---
America cannot and should not be the world's policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Bloodstained_Path.html

Here Dennis explains why he voted against the bills in the links you posted:

(BTW, two of those links you posted were the same bill)

Washington, Sep 25, 2007 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), issued the following statement after voting against the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) conference report today:

“I cannot support legislation which extends health coverage to some children while openly denying it to other children,” Kucinich said. “This legislation is woefully inadequate: and I will not support it.

“Legal immigrant children deserve the same quality health care as other children receive. It is Congress’ responsibility to address the main difficulties that prevent legal immigrant children from gaining access to health care. Today, we did exactly the opposite.

“HR 676 guarantees full health care coverage for all children. When considering a universal health care proposal, HR 676, the Medicare for All bill, is the only health care plan that addresses three important issues: quality, accessibility, and cost. HR 676 stands alone in an increasingly crowded field of efforts to provide health care coverage to all,” Kucinich said.

Kucinich voted for the original House-passed version of the bill because it contained language to grant health coverage for legal immigrant children. However, in today’s bill, this language was omitted.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=75275

From the office of Congressman Dennis Kucinich:

WASHINGTON, DC - Following passage of the supplemental conference report this evening, Congressman Dennis Kucinich released the following statement:

This "Supplemental" is a plan to extort Iraq's oil wealth under the guise of a plan to end the war. Funds for the security of the Iraqi government are contingent upon Iraq giving up control of oil. This legislation is a repugnant, high pressure tactic to force Iraq to pass a "hydrocarbon act" which will effectively privatize the oil wealth of Iraq. The key deception is that the hydrocarbon act, which sounds like an environmental law, lets Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds "share" whatever is left after US oil companies take unconscionable profits. This bill is not a plan for peace. It is blood for oil. It is a guarantee of more war and the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/21780

[Freddie Stubbs]

364. His being 'perceptive' led him to vote against the SCHIP bill

Of course after Bush vetoed the bill, Kucinich caved to pressure and votd to override the veto. How perceptive.

[Zorra]

370. “You may fool all the people some of the time,

you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”

To quote Abe Lincoln.

And it's impossible to fool a lot of folks on this board when an OP has disingenuous, propagandistic intentions.

Shall we dance?

[Freddie Stubbs]

374. I suppose it is easier to attack my motives rather then disprove my arguements, but

not as convincing.

[alarimer]

170. That's it. I will no longer be a member of the Texas Democratic Party

I will write in Kucinich on the ballot if they don't allow him on it. And then I will become an independent. Fuck the TDP. I refuse to sign a loyalty oath too.

[NorthCarolina]

172. I'm Sure DK Would Have Agreed to the oath

if the other contenders were actually true "Democrats", but in reality they're not, they're just Republican Lite Corporate cronies. I can certainly understand WHY he would not want to agree to support any of the others, and the entire idea of a "loyalty oath" seems quite UN-Democratic to me. Once again, it's "we the people" that lose, this time courtesy of your TX (un)Democratic Party.

Further proof that my support of Dennis Kucinich as the only principled TRUE Democrat in the running has not been wasted.

Go Dennis!

[Fedja]

176. Technically

he may be absolutely in love with all but one of them. If he objects to a single one, the oath would be unacceptable, since that one just might be the one they pick.

[NorthCarolina]

183. True but in looking at the other prospects

and their positions and voting records I would venture to guess all of them to be objectionable as their interests lie more with the corporate powers to be than with the people of this nation. I applaud Dennis for having the courage to stand for his convictions amongst a gaggle of sellouts and corporate cronies dressed in festive populist attire for the purposes of the election season.

Kucinich has my vote.

[sellitman]

174. Sounds like Kucinich is ready to support Ron Paul again.

Or won't lock himself out of the idea.

Not the smartest move.

[Freddie Stubbs]

255. Or Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney...

[Tarc]

178. Such blather

Kucinich is like the grumpy kid who wants to take the ball home with him if he doesn't win.

[john_jons]

208. This is ridiculous.

For example; Dennis does not support continuing the "war" in Iraq. So now he is expected to sign an oath saying if he wants to be continue to try to be elected as president and stop the killing, he has to promise to support continuing the killing if he isn't elected? What kind of principled person could agree to that?

Wouldn't that be like saying "I really think all the thousands of deaths bush has brought on the world is completely wrong, but if I don't win the nomination, I will agree that we should continue to kill people needlessly for as long as whoever is elected decides to."

I've been a Democrat all my life but if the party nominates anyone who wants this war continued for any length of time, I will not be voting Democrat.

My loyalty is to my personal principles first, my party's second. I am a Democrat as long as the party represents the principles I agree with.

All this anti-Kucinich name calling is so sickening. Yes he's short. No he doesn't look like a movie star. How fucking stupid. You people who need to stoop to this level to try to make points embarass me.

[Tarc]

222. Nice strawman you've constructed there.

Srsly, good job. :applause:

We're here to get a Democratic candidate elected to office. If Dennis is not going to be a part of the solution in getting that to happen, then he is a part of the problem.

[RaleighNCDUer]

246. How is that a strawman?

Srsly, how the fuck is that a strawman? Do you even know what a strawman arguement is?

We're here to get a Democratic candidate elected to office. And we do that by kicking Democratic candidates off the ballot?

If Dennis is not going to be a part of the solution in getting that to happen, then he is a part of the problem. Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah. If you're not with us, your're against us.

[Tarc]

253. Yes, I do. Do you?

Ignoring actual topic (why Kucinich is off the ballot) and focusing on side tangents (Iraq war and "name-calling) is a strawman. Educate yourself more, humiliate yourself less, kiddo.

Those that choose to go 3rd party or otherwise withhold their support at the expense of the Democratic nominee have no place here. If Kucinich isn't man enough to accept the very basic principle of supporting the party's nominee if the nominee is not he, then he should not be on the ballot.

[RaleighNCDUer]

287. No, no, no.

The REASON he would not sign a loyalty oath IS the arguement. That is not a strawman. That is why he is suing - to argue that he had a very good reason for NOT signing a loyalty oath. The loyalty oath which the Texas Democratic Party used as an excuse to keep him off the ballot.

Why would he not sign a loyalty oath? He hasn't said, but I suspect that a principled stand against the Iraq war might be a part of it - suggesting that is NOT a strawman, it is a hypothesis.

The topic (why Kucinich is off the ballot) is not being addressed by most of the Kucinich haters here - it is not because he "didn't follow the rules", but because he had the balls to say the rules are WRONG.

"Those that choose to go 3rd party or otherwise withhold their support at the expense of the Democratic nominee have no place here." THAT is the strawman. Nowhere did DK say he would pull a Lieberman and jump the party or support the party's opponants. What he did was refuse to sign a loyalty oath, JUST AS ANY GOOD AMERICAN OUGHT.

[Tarc]

308. Actually, "loyalty oath" itself is the strawman

Conjuring up scare terms straight out of the 50's and applying them to this is the biggest misdirection argument of them all. He didn't follow the rules, therefore he's off the ballot. If he doesn't like the rules, that's kinda out of his control, and crying "HELP GELP THEY'RE TRYING TO REPRESS ME!" just makes him look the fool.

Its simple, really; if you're a member of the party, then you do what you can to help that party win. If you're not willing, then the tried and true internet acronym "GTFO" comes to mind.

[ElboRuum]

312. Actually, what is foolish here...

...and not to belabor this point too much further... are these contentions:

1) Kucinich doesn't like to play by the rules.

Firstly, this is a perception, not necessarily a reality. From my point of view, Kucinich is taking a principled stand here, and there just isn't a damn thing wrong with that.

2) The "loyalty oath" is the strawman.

A strawman is a false restatement of another's position or part of another's position in such a way such that it is easily attacked, with the intent of giving the impression of a rhetorical victory. The loyalty oath cannot be the strawman because it is the "rule" you state that he broke, and was thusly kicked off the ballot. Now correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the crux of your argument this contention? So if this is a strawman... you erected it for... yourself?

3) Paraphrased: "Do things our way or GTFO"

This is called a "false choice". A false choice is one which frames a particular issue without either providing all reasonable choices or recognizing the possibility that those choices are not mutually exclusive. GTFO is a plaintive entreaty which carries no forcible weight. So the ultimatum is ridiculous on its face. Kucinich has recognized this, as have so many others. Hence, he's challenging it. He may lose the challenge, but he is right to challenge.

[High Plains]

279. People who say if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem...

...are part of the problem.

[coalition_unwilling]

318. This reminds me of the hilarious (in a black comedy sense) scene

in Catch-22, where officers started having to sign loyalty oaths in order to sign loyalty oaths.

[john_jons]

289. Oh man, you are messed up.

So it seems to me, you don't give a shit what the candidate stands for, only if it's a "Democrat" or a "Republican". I look at all the lovey-dovey pictures of Bill Clinton and GHW-Bush and think WTF is this? How can their perspectives allow them to be seen together? How much difference could there be between these two if they can hug and kiss like that?

To me, friend, you're just like the media. Making fun of what DK looks like. Of his height. That's pathetic. DK's ideas are all I can see when I look at him. Government for the people. Not for the insurance companies and the other corporate monsters that run this world. I think you're afraid DK may upset the apple cart that we have let the corporate-ized Dems and Repukes build together.

I DO give a damn what the candidate stands for. Yeah I'm a Democrat. I have been all my life. I've been involved with the party at the state level for nearly 20 years. But you know what? The mess this country is in is far bigger then a Democratic or Republican issue. It isn't good enough to put in my share of the work it takes to produce a viable candidate out of a Skull and Bones'er, old school, status-quo, lock step, corporate breast feeder. I don't want someone in the WH who is going to try to modify our current situation. To my way of thinking, "Modify" means dress it up, but pretty much keep it the way it is. I want someone in there who is going to REVERSE the mess this country has been made into by bushco. I want the fucking tendrils ripped out and destroyed. I want the United States to become a model for the rest of the world, not a monster in it.

I guess I'm pretty radical, but from what I have seen so far Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all just shades of different from the Republicans. They don't want to rock the boat too much. Well I don't want a shade of a difference, I want a Night and Day level of change. I want health care for my elderly mother. I want the United States to be a prime mover in making PEACE. I want to be proud of the country I fought for during my military service. If I can't get that, you know what I want? American Revolution II, that's what! Yeah, I want the REAL reason for the Second Amendment to be utilized. Our government is so bloody corrupt and it goes so freakin' deep, no "modifications" are going to fix it. We need to come as close to starting over as we can, and we need to start doing that in 2008 because I'm afraid this may be our last chance.

[fascisthunter]

302. Somebody Needs a Dictionary (nt)

[elleng]

180. WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

probably.

AP doesn't get the facts.

[fascisthunter]

182. How UnDemocratic of the Dem Party

looks like the conservocraps got their hands in this one too. Hey conservative Dems... your few years of reign is about to end. Time to go back to the GOP where you all belong.

[rockybelt]

185. Give em hell Dennis

They can shove that loyalty oath up their collective asses. I am loyal to this country NOT LOYAL TO A PARTY!

[IsItJustMe]

189. I have mixed feelings about such a oath. It does seem authoritarian in some ways (chimp like),

while at the same time I can see a need for it (Lieberman).

[Politicub]

197. Get ready for it...

Kucinich will join with Ralph Nader to run as the third party candidates to siphon votes away from a democratic candidate who actually has a chance to end this 8-year republican nightmare -- and simply for attention.

[frylock]

320. get ready to eat crow..

because that's not going to fucking happen.

[whistle]

203. When was such a Democratic party loyalty oath implemented in Texas

...and do other state parties require such an oath? I'm sure the republican fascist party has such an oath, but I never suspected that democrats would stoop to that level of demagogy :wtf:

[NorthCarolina]

204. Statement From DK

that helps to explain his actions

"I'm not here as an apologist for the Democratic party, I'm running (from) inside the Democratic party to challenge the party. I
haven't been someone who on the campaign trail has railed about Republicans because the fact of the matter is, I see the flaws within my party and want to make it effective in the two-party system, and it hasn't been."

[ElboRuum]

280. Yep, sure does...

Now, my question is... why do so many see something wrong with this?

Comparing what Lieberman did to this is fallacious anyway. Lieberman wouldn't accept the Lamont nomination, so he ran as an independent against his own party. If Kucinich decides to run as an independent if/when he loses the nomination, then we can start the comparisons. But I don't think for a minute that this is his intent at all.

[Zorra]

207. The Joe Lieberman Fan Club tag team is out bashing Dennis again.

*sigh*

[Freddie Stubbs]

228. Kucinich is the one acting like Lieberman, not promising to support the Democratic nominee

[Zorra]

231. He's challenging a violation of the Constitution. Not swearing an oath

support the Democratic nominee does not, in any way, imply that he does not fully intend to support the Democratic nominee.

[Tarc]

254. There is no violation of the Constitution

If you don't like the rules of a particular political party, then you don't have to be a member of that party. No one is forcing Dennis to be here, and he can go run as an independent.

[ElboRuum]

278. Or...

You could tell the party that they're the ones in the wrong for requiring it.

Seems more... Democratic... to me.

[Tarc]

305. Well, since they're not

I won't.

[ElboRuum]

310. And why aren't they wrong?

Or put another way, what justifies a loyalty oath?

On edit: To elaborate further, let me just say that I've been perusing this thread with some interest, and I have yet to hear the overriding, sensible reason for requiring a loyalty oath, other than "they make the rules." What isn't of any interest to me is whether or not Kucinich is right or wrong in his defiance. That question has been answered to my satisfaction. If he feels it unnecessary and more than just a little disingenuous, he is right to defy it. So I'll disagree that they're not the ones in the wrong here. Without that justification for the oath, it is arbitrary, and without a cogent defense, the requirement should be stricken.

To me, the burden of proof here is solely on the shoulders of the TDP to provide an explanation of this requirement. And while they'll probably predictably refuse to provide this (along the lines of "we make the rules"), for me to say Kucinich is in the wrong for taking issue with it would require this explanation. Thus far, no one on the TDP side of the argument has made that case very well.

[Zorra]

314. Because rules are made by authorities and are to be obeyed without question.

Every good conservative knows that.

(Good post, ER)

[ElboRuum]

359. I think we've just called 'BINGO'...

Too bad I don't have any prizes to offer. ;)

[frylock]

321. love it or leave it, right?

[onenote]

319. did he feel less strongly about the Constitution in 2004 or did texas not require a pledge

to support the party candidate back then? I ask because Dennis was on the ballot in the Texas primary in 2004. And if the pledge was required back then and he signed it, it makes me wonder if his stance is principled or just a way of covering his ass in case he decides to support a third party candidate.

[Zorra]

347. Don't know. But I'd be really pissed off if someone tried to make

me sign a loyalty oath. It's totally insulting.

Maybe Dennis signed it the last time and that simmered in his craw for 4 years, so he decided not to sign it again.

[Marrah_G]

297. You have that a bit backwards

Dk is the one sounding like JL. (on this one topic only)

[Zorra]

344. Once again: Dennis is not in any way saying that he is not going to

support the Democratic nominee. He is simply refusing to swear an oath. Some folks seem to either have trouble understanding the wording OP, or possibly they are reading what they want to believe is true.

I refused to pledge allegiance to the flag when I was in high school, because I did not want to swear an oath to a piece of cloth.

Also, there are some folks posting here that were Lieberman defenders, and who attack Dennis at every opportunity, often nonsensically, for any reason whatsoever.

[john_jons]

211. This is ridiculous.

For example; Dennis does not support continuing the "war" in Iraq. So now he is expected to sign an oath saying if he wants to continue to try to be elected as president and stop the killing, he has to promise to support continuing the killing if he isn't elected? What kind of principled person could agree to that?

Wouldn't that be like saying "I really think all the thousands of deaths bush has brought on the world is completely wrong, but if I don't win the nomination, I will agree that we should continue to kill people needlessly for as long as whoever is elected decides to."

I've been a Democrat all my life but if the party nominates anyone who wants this war continued for any length of time, I will not be voting Democrat.

My loyalty is to my personal principles first, my party's second. I am a Democrat as long as the party represents the principles I agree with.

All this anti-Kucinich name calling is so sickening. Yes he's short. No he doesn't look like a movie star. How fucking stupid. You people who need to stoop to this level to try to make points embarrass me.

[Double T]

225. The Democratic Party is acting like the rethug party..............

loyalty oaths and denying a candidate a place on a ballot are very hitleresque. Glad to be a Liberal and not a member of a hypocritical political party.

[Freddie Stubbs]

252. The Republican party requires its candidates to promise to support the Democratic nominee?

:shrug:

[taylor egv420106]

268. Damn

That would make this election a whole lot easier.

[brentspeak]

340. If I read the article correctly, this is the doing of only the TEXAS Democratic party

Not sure what article you read, though.

[Gen. Jack D. Ripper]

227. My loyalty would always be to the US Constitution first

If I were in Congressman Kucinich's place, I would have done the same thing. What if a candidate were given the Democratic nomination, and I felt that candidate unable, or unwilling, to uphold the principals of the Constitution? Should I be expected to support that candidate simply because they were the Democratic nomination? I would not.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

240. "Gimme EAT!"

When fellow administrative officers expressed astonishment at Colornel Cathcart's choice of Major Major, Captain Black muttered that there was something funny going on; when they speculated on the political value of Major Major's resemblance to Henry Fonda, Captain Black asserted that Major Major really was Henry Fonda; and when they remarked that Major Major was somewhat odd, Captain Black announced that he was a Communist.

"They're taking over everything," he declared rebelliously. "Well, you fellows can stand around and let them if you want to, but I'm not going to. I'm going to do something about it. From now on I'm going to make every son of a bitch who comes to my intelligence tent sign a loyalty oath. And I'm not going to let that bastard Major Major sign one even if he wants to."

Almost overnight the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade was in full flower, and Captain Black was enraptured to discover himself spearheading it. He had really hit on something. All the enlisted men and officers on combat duty had to sign a loyalty oath to get their map cases from the intelligence tent, a second loyalty oath to receive their flak suits and parachutes from the parachute tent, a third loyalty oath for Lieutenant Balkington, the motor vehicle officer, to be allowed to ride from the squadron to the airfield in one of the trucks. Every time they turned around there was another loyalty oath to be signed. They signed a loyalty oath to get their pay from the finance officer, to obtain their PX supplies, to have their hair cut by the Italian barbers. To Captain Black, every officer who supported his Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade was a competitor, and he planned and plotted twenty-four hours a day to keep one step ahead. He would stand second to none in his devotion to country. When other officers had followed his urging and introduced loyalty oaths of their own, he went them one better by making every son of a bitch who came to his intelligence tent sign two loyalty oaths, then three, then four; then he introduced the pledge of allegiance, and after that "The Star-Spangled Banner," one chorus, two choruses, three choruses, four choruses. Each time Captain Black forged ahead of his competitors, he swung upon them scornfully for their failure to follow his example. Each time they followed his example, he retreated with concern and racked his brain for some new stratagem that would enable him to turn upon them scornfully again.

Without realizing how it had come about, the combat men in the squadron discovered themselves dominated by the administrators appointed to serve them. They were bullied, insulted, harassed and shoved about all day long by one after the other. When they voiced objection, Captain Black replied that people who were loyal would not mind signing all the loyalty oaths they had to. To anyone who questioned the effectiveness of the loyalty oaths, he replied that people who really did owe allegiance to their country would be proud to pledge it as often as he forced them to. And to anyone who questioned the morality, he replied that "The Star-Spangled Banner" was the greatest piece of music ever composed. The more loyalty oaths a person signed, the more loyal he was; to Captain Black it was as simple as that, and he had Corporal Kolodny sign hundreds with his name each day so that he could always prove he was more loyal than anyone else.

"The important thing is to keep them pledging," he explained to his cohorts. "It doesn't matter whether they mean it or not. That's why they make little kids pledge allegiance even before they know what 'pledge' and 'allegiance' means."

-EXCERPT FROM Catch-22 - by Joseph Heller

http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/008958.html

[RoseMead]

251. Give EVERYBODY eat!

Beautiful! I just reread it recently, one of my very favorite books.

Times like this I miss the great Molly Ivins. I would love to know what her take on this would have been. Sigh. Molly, you are sorely missed.

As for loyalty oaths, they are always undemocratic. Always. No matter the reason, no matter the party, no matter what. Kuchinich is right to challenge the rule.

[frylock]

322. molly has been painted as a traitor by some on this board..

I'm sure I don't have to tell you which candidate they support.

[RoseMead]

365. Well, "some on this board"

are fools. I do know what you're talking about. And sometimes I think being called a traitor is a badge of honor. Repubs have been calling people like me traitors for years. When "traitor" really means someone who speaks their mind when they feel it's necessary even though they know it might piss off others, I think that's a name to be worn with pride.

[Kingofalldems]

281. Howcome you didn't spam DU when Lieberman endorsed McCain?

I mean he is your boy and everything.

[Freddie Stubbs]

283. Lieberman isn't running for the Democratic nomination

And he is not my "boy and everything."

I support Democrats.

[EFerrari]

292. Do you also support coercion?

DK has always supported Democrats. What he seems not to be supporting in this instance is extortion.

Do you support extortion?

[Freddie Stubbs]

298. Kucinich attempted to run for Ohio Governor as an independent in 1986,

but dropped out of the race.

[EFerrari]

309. You're right. He's a 21 year old time bomb waiting to go off.

[Freddie Stubbs]

353. More like a dud

Just like his 'money bomb' fundraiser.

[Ken Burch]

369. So we're punishing people over ancient history now?

Get over yourself. You have no reason to be this obsessed with denouncing Dennis. He isn't the problem, nor is any other progressive Dem. The DLC is and has always been the problem, ever since they started as Democrats for Nixon.

[JVS]

288. Gee, if I didn't know better I'd see this oath requirement as indicative of a lack of confidence

[BigDDem]

311. How about a $10 million "money bomb"

to pay for the lawsuit? :rofl:

[Anarcho-Socialist]

328. It's been a while since I've seen the fallacy Reductio ad Hitlerum

deployed in such pathetic abundance like it has above.

OMG LOYALTY OATH R TEH NAZISSS, DLC FASCIZTSSS!!!11111111

Alright you disagree with the loyalty oath, but invoking Third Reich analogies is pathetic, fallacious, desperate, inappropriate and intellectually feeble.

[Desertrose]

329. Good for Dennis! Loyalty oath?

What the hell kind of "democracy" is this?

Next he'll have to salute & goose step too?

[guruoo]

348. Oh, to be a fly on the wall of the DU offices (virtual, and otherwise) n/t

[Dark]

350. You want to have access to the Dem's warchest? Then it makes sense you'd have to sign a loyalty oath

Keep in mind, that using any publicity gained by the run for dem election could otherwise be used against the party.

Would you invest 10 dollars in a company you knew would go bankrupt and then cut into the sales you were making?

[silverojo]

354. Kucinich needs to STFU

All he's doing is causing trouble, because he doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning a single state. :mad:

[Infinite Hope]

367. Loyalty oath is party rules and I don't think there's anything a court can do about that. n/t

[ccharles000]

371. good for him