"count me among those who find all of this rather creepy"
Me, too.
Posted with permission.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/26/12417902-the-gops-affinity-for-loyalty-oaths?lite
The GOP's affinity for loyalty oaths
By Steve Benen
-
Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:50 AM EDT
It's easy to forget, but loyalty oaths were not uncommon in Republican circles during the Bush/Cheney era.
In August 2004, however, then-Vice President Cheney spoke at an event in Albuquerque, but locals were only allowed to get a ticket to attend if they first signed a loyalty oath swearing they "endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States {sic}."
A couple of months later, at a Bush event in Florida, a Republican asked those in attendance to stand, raise their right hands, and recite a Pledge of Allegiance ... to George W. Bush. As part of the oath, attendees were told to say: "Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States."
I'm trying to imagine what Republicans would say in 2012 if Democrats pushed voters to stand, raise their right hands, and pledge their allegiance to President Obama.
In any case, Bush and Cheney are no longer in office, but Republicans' affinity for loyalty oaths hasn't gone away. In recent months, we've seen GOP loyalty oaths pop up in Virginia and Kansas, for example, and in April, members of the Republican National Committee were invited to a private meeting with Mitt Romney -- before he'd secured the nomination -- but in order to attend, they had to, you guessed it, pledge their loyalty to Romney in writing.
But perhaps the most striking example came over the weekend in Massachusetts, where the state Republican Party didn't know what to do with all the Ron Paul acolytes who had taken over the state's delegation to the national convention. Party leaders quickly discovered the value of loyalty oaths.
But earlier this month, Kenney was one of 17 delegates and alternates disqualified by a Republican committee deciding who gets to represent Massachusetts Republicans at the national convention in Tampa. Kenney and others had failed to deliver in time an affidavit swearing, under the penalty of perjury, that they would support Mitt Romney's nomination for president.
And wouldn't you know it, some were uncomfortable with this.
Keep in mind, as the Boston Globe noted, these affidavits are "never mentioned in the Republican Party's rules for selecting delegates and has never been required of delegates in the past." But the state party had a problem this year with these Paulites, so they figured demanding written loyalty oaths would disqualify some of the undesirable delegates.
They were right to assume this -- several delegates balked, and Paul's backers were soon winnowed from the Massachusetts delegation.
I suppose reasonable people can disagree about the philosophy of loyalty oaths, but count me among those who find all of this rather creepy -- not just among Massachusetts Republicans, but in general.
Whether intended this way or not, the practice reeks of McCarthyism, and seems intended to create mindless loyalists who accept commands, rather than thoughtful voters engaged in a healthy democracy.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Idol - God. And, you pledge your allegiance to only the United States of America.
To do anything else is sacrilegious.
God, Country, mom & apple pie nothing more, nothing else. 
Is it considered superior to give preapproval to a friggn' politician?
How can that even be counted as a moral issue?
When did blank checks for thought processes become any kind of norm?
Did Nazi Germany start this process?
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer.
One people, one empire, one leader.
The creepy factor is just imprinted. We had a thread last night with the Raelians flying a plane over New Jersey with a flag trying to rehabilitate the Swastika, back to its more positive roots.
But once you hear that oath quoted a few times with such conviction, you never forget the sound of those voices.
Oh, it's just a coincidence, a pattern. I don't know if we should care or not. Since we appear to be going the repeat the cycle of the 1930's whether we want to go there or not.
It was reported with concern that there were oath taking ceremonies to swear allegiance GWB as he entered the White House and right after he had that banana republic or Stalinesque travesty of an inauguration, planes overhead, like a dictator showing off his toys.
And we can't forget the kevlar vest, the eggs and the times the procession was stopped along the way by angry voters and the talking head complaining about the lack of civility. He conveniently didn't mention the incivility of the mob outside Gore's official mansion during the evenings before the SCOTUS gave the country to the descendant of Prescott Bush of the business coup detailed in the Congressional Record. Yes, the coup of 2000 complete with brown shirts in FL, just in Brooks Brothers suits this time.
What a lovely image. No wonder we want to forget it as we don't want to be prisoners of Fate. But the GOP insist on 'going there' with their greasier version of O'Reilly playing Goebbels, Glenn Beck. They can't stop referencing Hitler, Stalin, Nazis and Communists because they know the power of the meme. They have called Obama's attempts to set up a national youth core of paid volunteers to do community work such as Clinton did 'the Hitler youth squad' as 'Obama youth squads' who were going to come and drag people out of their beds to the FEMA camps. We don't seem to have tired of these stereotypes.
Yes, the Paulites have a complaint as they had made up their minds who they were voting for before they showed up. They never intended to go into the convention and consider anyone else. They are purist fanatics just like the Tea Party.
There was a similar shutting down with the Democrats in 2004 and 2008 with some arm twisting. But the only oaths were among the electoral college voters and no one is suggesting that now. If the GOP have rigged that, it also doesn't make much difference. The big money with Romney selected him.
But the reports out of the Bush White House about them swearing an oath of allegiance to him personally triggered a lot of memories of older folks. His followers did follow his or Cheney's orders and trashed the Constitution, straight in our faces.
The Paulites have no one but themselves to blame for having hitched themselves to a man who refuses to leave the GOP and start a third party. This is who they are in bed with, no matter what they say. They did not oppose the coup of 2000, still support the majority of the GOP goals, and their cat fight means nothing.
Forced Loyalty Oath Locks Kucinich out of Texas Primary
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12256
"I, ______________ of __________________, __________ County/Parish, _____________, being a candidate for the Office of President of the United States, swear that I will support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. I further swear that I will fully support the Democratic nominee for President whoever that shall be."
The concern expressed by Kucinich was simple. If the eventual Democratic nominee supports the Iraq War, signing this oath would require Kucinich to support that nominee and therefore the war. To make matters worse, supporting the war would negate his duty as a Member of Congress to protect and uphold the Constitution. Like a few others, Kucinich knows that this is an unconstitutional war since it was never declared by Congress (See Article I, Section 8, "To declare war"
. What other choice did he have but to reject the loyalty oath? What justification did the other candidates have to accept the oath?
