Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 03:05 PM
Original message |
One place where I would require a loyalty oath |
|
Edited on Fri Feb-04-05 03:07 PM by Walt Starr
Yeah, me, Walt Starr.
I would require a loyalty oath one time and one time only. Any Democratic candidate who receives funds from the Democratic Party (regardless of level), would have to take the following pledge:
"I, (state your name), do solemnely (swear or affirm) that as a Democratic candidate for (state the office) and financially supported in that endeavor by the Democratic Party; shall remain a member of the Democratic Party so long as I hold the office which I seek. That I take this oath without mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I shall perform the duties of (state the office) to the best of my ability."
Republicans have been able to cost effectively take offices by placing a mole candidate within the Democratic Party, then have them switch party affiliation. This oath allows those actions to be used against those traitors.
Furthermore, it does not preclude the requirement to remain in the party even if a viable primary challenge is fielded and the Democratic Party takes no stance on which candidate would be best.
I know it's not legally binding, but it can be a proven lie and broken promise should we experience more Ben Nighthorse Campbells.
Thoughts?
|
aldian159
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 03:06 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I love it.
Use it to show how little credibility defectors really have.
|
Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. I think I'll shoot the idea to the good Doctor once he becomes Chair. |
|
A good Democrat seeking public office should have no problem taking and signing such an oath.
|
WLKjr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 03:08 PM
Response to Original message |
2. That would be a good thing to start |
|
I think it would tell a persons integrity really quick too.
|
Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. Yep, but apparently not many DUers agree. |
WLKjr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-05-05 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. In a way I can kind of see why, but then I stop and think about it..... |
|
and personally I wouldn't have a problem with it. But Some might see this as a theoretical chain around there neck keeping them from chainging thier minds on an issue. In that respect I can understand some not liking this Walt.
|
Freddie Stubbs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:35 PM
Response to Original message |
5. I must respectfully disagree with your premise |
|
Most is not all of the Democrats who switch parties are not moles placed by the Republican party.
Many of them are life-long Democrats who used to be in the mainstream of the party and now find themselves at the right fringe of the party.
|
Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
Any Democrat who changes parties was always a Republican in Democratic clothing.
There is no more traitorous move to be made than jumping ship to the enemy.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 02nd 2024, 11:12 PM
Response to Original message |