Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness — No Longer Applicable?

—

by

Dick Hall-Sizemore
in ,

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

In Virginia, registered voters are not identified by political party affiliation. Political parties do not like this provision because it allows non-party members to participate in their primaries.

Parties try to discourage this incursion by non-members into their primaries by requiring various sorts of pledges, either to support the eventual nominee of the party or that participants consider themselves members of the party holding the primary. For the upcoming unassembled caucus, or “firehouse primary,” being held to choose the Democratic nominee for the upcoming special election in the Fourth Congressional District seat, Democrats are requiring people wishing to participate to sign a statement declaring themselves to be a Democrat.  Republicans have had similar requirements in the past. See here, here, and here.

According to The Washington Post, conservative radio host John Fredericks, who was chairman of Trump’s Virginia campaigns, has made a radio ad urging Republicans to participate in the Fourth Congressional District Democratic firehouse primary to be held on Tuesday and to vote for Joe Morrissey. As for the statement declaring the participant to be a Democrat, Fredericks said, “Sign their stupid pledge — it means nothing — and stick it to them.”

Is this what conservatives and Republicans have come down to in the Commonwealth: publicly urging their members to lie and make false promises?

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

37 responses to “Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness — No Longer Applicable?”

  1. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    So make people register by party and they only get a party ballot..End of problem. Of course democrats have done this for years and your only now upset?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The legislators like this or they would change this. You are charmingly naïve, Dick. Both sides have done this, especially when the primary will clearly determine the outcome, not the general election.

      Voting in the primary leaves a record. If you later seek to be a party convention delegate, appointee or candidate, you can be challenged. But if you really want to support someone (in this case Morrissey, the white guy daring to run in a black seat), some will.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I know folks have done it. But publicly urging folks to lie, saying a pledge “means nothing” goes over the line as far as I am concerned.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Yes. That was the point.

          Dick did say this: ” Democrats are requiring people wishing to participate to sign a statement declaring themselves to be a Democrat. Republicans have had similar requirements in the past. See here, here, and here.”

          But I do recall other times when folks who were not GOP were urged to vote for the “wrong” candidate in the primary…

          Both sides, these days work to get the most extreme , problematical candidate elected on the opposing side!

          But it clearly does not “work” in some districts where they WANT the most extreme candidate to BE their elected representative!

          Election and Climate denying is no longer “disqualifying”, it’s a badge of honor!

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I think it matters why one is voting in a primary one would normally not be voting in. In this case, I think the R’s want a more right leaning D candidate which to me is perfectly fine (honor pledge notwithstanding). Now if the R’s were pushing a more extreme D in order to make their candidate more palatable (as the D’s did in several cases during the last cycle) I think that just leads to more partisanship in our government.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Have to agree on that.

          3. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Sometimes. In this case, Morrissey is seen as a potential pro-life vote in Congress. I think that is wishful thinking, but that’s what is going on.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Okay. Personally, “pro-life” in Congress would be different than “pro-life” in a given state legislature given the alignments in the two bodies.

            I think one more “pro-life” in Congress won’t change much with such a large number of people nationally (thus represented in Congress) as not “pro-life” no matter what.

            In a state legislature like the Va GA, one vote might make a difference on a measure at some point in time.

            I just never saw Morrissey as have consistent positions that allowed folks to really have an idea of who he really is or not.

            perhaps I’m wrong. I admit I don’t know him in depth but the perception is his positions are not self-consistent and the evolve.

        2. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          State law requires primary voters to assert they are not going to vote in another primary.

          The parties do not like the opportunities for meddling that enables and attempt to avoid that using devices like partisan “Firehouse Primaries” and conventions where they can better restrict participation to their own voters.

          The disregard you object to is in response to partisan disregard for the way the GA has regulated elections.

          That makes your response disregard to disregard of partisan disregard that was itself disregard for state law. Those who disregard your disregard add another layer of disregard.

          Whew. Tempest in a teapot anyone?

        3. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          State law simply requires primary voters to assert they are not going to vote in another primary.

          The parties do not like the opportunities for meddling that enables and sometimes attempt to avoid that using devices like partisan “Firehouse Primaries” and conventions where they can better restrict participation to their own voters.

          The disregard you object to is in response to partisan disregard for the way the GA has regulated primaries.

          That makes your response disregard to disregard of partisan disregard that was itself disregard for state law. Those who disregard your disregard pile on another layer of disregard.

          Whew. Tempest in a teapot anyone?

    2. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      I am not a member of any current political party nor will I ever be. Forcing me to “register by party and then only get a party ballot” would effectively disenfranchise me and others like me.

      Forced party registration is deleterious to the concept of voting rights and to free and fair elections.

      George Washington used a fair portion of his 1796 farewell address to warn us of the dangers political parties pose to our Constitution and our Republic. I trust him a whole lot more than I trust any political party or politician living today.

    3. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      I am not a member of any current political party nor will I ever be. Forcing me to “register by party and then only get a party ballot” would effectively disenfranchise me and others like me.

      Forced party registration is deleterious to the concept of voting rights and to free and fair elections.

      George Washington used a fair portion of his 1796 farewell address to warn us of the dangers political parties pose to our Constitution and our Republic. I trust him a whole lot more than I trust any political party or politician living today.

    4. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      I am not a member of any current political party nor will I ever be. Forcing me to “register by party and then only get a party ballot” would effectively disenfranchise me and others like me.

      Forced party registration is deleterious to the concept of voting rights and to free and fair elections.

      George Washington used a fair portion of his 1796 farewell address to warn us of the dangers political parties pose to our Constitution and our Republic. I trust him a whole lot more than I trust any political party or politician living today.

      1. James Kiser Avatar
        James Kiser

        then ban parties

  2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    My father had to register as a Republican in our PA county in order to participate in the primary (in those days that county was reliably Republican so the primary was the only chance one had to vote for one’s representatives). Maybe we need that here. If they were doing this in order for the D nominee to be more beatable by the R nominee in the general, I would be more upset (yes, I know bothsidesism and all – nonetheless I don’t agree with the practice). It is a little disconcerting that there is a major R media figure publicly stating that a pledge of honor means nothing but that is the Republican Party these days. The honor ship sailed a long time ago.

  3. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I seriously wonder if two-party control of our elections is healthy for governance these days.

    Both sides work to get the most extreme candidate on the opposing side to be their candidates and both sides also on issues tend to point to the most extreme positions as the default positions.

    We see this all the time now with demonization of folks on issues like the environment and abortion to name two,

    The mainstream holds much less extreme views but they are now a shrinking number.

    When we have an election process that seeks to get election the most extreme , we end up with two opposing candidates, both with underwater approval numbers and one goes out to win, sometimes with 1% or less AND they then take over the office to govern as if they have a mandate to impose things 1/2 the electorate disagrees with.

    1. Matt Hurt Avatar
      Matt Hurt

      “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        that’s a mouthful

      2. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        If only Adams and Jefferson would’ve adhered to this Farewell Address.

      3. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        God bless George Washington.

  4. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    I would not sign such a pledge unless I genuinely intended to vote for Morrissey in the election. There is nothing wrong with switching parties.

    I’m not clear why Fredericks thinks it would be “sticking it to them” by voting for Morrissey, a moderate on some issues, to avoid the election of a more consistently leftist candidate. The Republican candidate has about zero chance of getting elected in this district. The Dem primary is the real election, and to Republicans, Morrissey is the best they can reasonably expect.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      re: ” The Republican candidate has about zero chance of getting elected in this district.”

      Which is interesting.

      Why can’t the GOP , why won’t the GOP run a principled person who actually seeks to represent the voters in this district? Why do they choose to run someone who is a Trump supporter who says the election was corrupt?

      Why does the GOP run folks like this in the first place?

  5. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    The real issue is that anyone, of any party, would vote for scumbag Morrissey under any circumstances. The Repubs should take joy that he is on the Dem side of the aisle and not one of their own.

    Blowing off the pledge is itself despicable. The Dems were no better in the mid-terms spending something like $40M to advance extreme Repubs in the primaries. There may be honor among thieves, but apparently not among political partisans these days.Turnabout is not fair play in this case, but is one reason I’m happily Independent. A pox on both their houses.

    Having Morrissey in the General Assembly is terrible, electing him to Congress would disgrace Virginians of all persuasions.

  6. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    ID cards for Democrats? That might solve this problem. McClellan has a charisma problem. Fighting Joe does not. I doubt Republicans are going to roll out and vote in large numbers on a Tuesday before Xmas just to be a weasel.

  7. Donald Smith Avatar
    Donald Smith

    Sorry, no sale here. Democrats spent millions of dollars to play in GOP primaries this year, and admitted it. Arizona Democrat Congressman Ruben Galleo, when pressed on it by a reporter said “Politics ain’t beanbag.”

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Supporting a candidate in the other party’s primary because you think that candidate will be easier for your party to defeat is a whole different issue than publicly urging your fellow believers to lie and declaring that a pledge I “means nothing”. I would have thought an alumnus of UVa with its honor code would think so as well.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        If you actually believe in “honor” it is surprising that you are finely parsing shades of dishonor. This dishonor is ok, but that dishonor is beyond the pale.

        Both funding extreme opponents in primaries and urging disregard of partisan fealty oaths are illustrations of the rot in both parties. That bipartisan rot has made Independents more prevalent than either Repubs or Dems, and for good cause.

        I had thought better of you than that you would embrace dishonor great or small. Was I mistaken?

      2. Donald Smith Avatar
        Donald Smith

        “I would have thought an alumnus of UVa with its honor code would think so as well.”

        Well, we Virginia graduates know there’s a difference between radio talk show hosts and elected officials who (a) took oaths and (b) are supposed to behave honorably. Doesn’t seem that you can tell the difference.

        And, when someone then uses our Honor Code to lecture us, we roll our eyes. Especially if we see them applying standards differently to themselves, than they do to others.

      3. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        If you actually believe in “honor” it is surprising that you are finely parsing shades of dishonor. This dishonor is ok, but that dishonor is beyond the pale.

        Both funding extreme opponents in primaries and urging disregard of partisan fealty oaths are illustrations of the rot in both parties. Rejecting that bipartisan rot has made Independents more prevalent than either Repubs or Dems, and for good cause as Doug Wilder once responded to Ollie North’s brag that he was the most investigated man on earth.

        I had thought better of you than that you would embrace dishonor great or small. Was I mistaken?

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          I never said that I approved of funding extreme opponents in primaries. I just said that is a different situation from publicly urging voters to lie and disregard pledges. In addition, I don’t see how what Democrats did in Arizona or in other states can excuse what some conservatives are advocating in Virginia.

          1. Donald Smith Avatar
            Donald Smith

            “I never said that I approved of funding extreme opponents in primaries.”

            Then you should have a word with your brethren. That’s exactly what they did, to the tune of millions of dollars, in this past election.

            https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/07/democrats-boosted-extremists-republican-primaries-was-that-wise

          2. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            “Supporting a candidate in the other party’s primary because you think that candidate will be easier for your party to defeat…” is what you said.

            In the mid terms that was Dems funding extreme Repub candidates to the tune of $40M.

            You can carve that as finely as you want, but what you were doing was parsing shades of dishonor and finding some less dishonorable than others.

            The honorable thing would have been to denounce sleazy and dishonoable campaigning on both sides, but you chose not to do that while citing UVa’s honor code.

            That is disappointing.

          3. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            If you haven’t caught on by now, a good number of his comments are intellectually dishonest.

            His responses remind you more of a partisan politician, than the unbiased and even keeled individual he likes to play himself off as.

      4. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        I suppose it could be argued that since politicians’ pledges to us mean nothing to them, our pledges to them should also mean nothing to them. And the same goes for political parties. They have no moral leg to stand on when complaining about voters not keeping to a pledge which, in a state with no party registration, is disingenuous to require in the first place.

        That argument aside, though, since the public treasury funds party primaries, it can be argued that a political party which requires a pledge of party loyalty as a condition of voting in its primary is engaging in voter suppression, and may be breaking the law.

        It is not just party members whose tax dollars fund a party’s primary.

        ADDENDUM:

        In my research, I cannot find anything in the section of the Code of Virginia dealing with primaries which empowers a political party to require any kind of pledge as a condition of voting. The only restriction on voters I can find is that one may not vote in more than one party’s primary.

        Of course, I am not an expert on election law, so I welcome someone posting the enabling legislation which allows political parties in Virginia to require a “loyalty oath” as a condition of voting.

        https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title24.2/chapter5/article4/

        Question: Has anyone here ever refused to sign or swear such a pledge and been turned away during a primary?

  8. John Fredericks Avatar
    John Fredericks

    Get a life dude- they lie to us everyday you can shove your sanctimonious B.S. The Dems steal elections! Hey guess what? I want to stick it up their butt.

  9. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Both Parties have done this in the past and also encouraged their voters to cross over to cause problems for the other side.

    North Carolina has party registration. Only voters from the affected Party or Independents can vote in primaries. There was a runoff primary election on the Democratic side for Wake County sheriff. Republicans were not allowed to vote in the runoff election.

  10. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    Let’s get one thing straight here. The ad is paid for by a Joe Morrissey exploratory committee. I just heard it an hour or two ago.

    Now let’s also drop the pretense of Dem election purity – Dems who have perfected cheating, who institute ranked choice to subvert the will of the largest blocs and who have never hesitated to run candidates for no other purpose than to advance their cause.

    I wish the Republicans would actually make an effort. What good has the racialism done for Blacks these last 50-60 years? Maybe they should vote for different ideas, instead of voting as a bloc as told by the people who supposedly care for them with crappy schools, crime, drugs, etc…

Leave a Reply

Read More