The Texas Democratic Party says Dennis Kucinich will not be on the party's primary ballot in March. Kucinich did file the necessary paperwork, but would not sign a loyalty oath to support the party's nominee in November. This whole thing seems rather silly to me.
Is it really the business of the party in Texas to demand loyalty from a national candidate? To me, that would seem to be more a matter for the national party leadership, if such an oath is proper at all.
The party needs to do away with this loyalty oath nonsense. That sounds more like something George Bush would do anyway. I have a long history with the Democratic Party, having been an elected precinct chair and a delegate to the state convention 5 times, but I would never sign a loyalty oath to any party.
Once in a while a nutjob slips through the primary process (LaRouche supporters, etc.) and no one should be forced to support them just because they're running on the Democratic ticket.
What is the purpose of a primary anyway? Is it so the state leaders can tell voters who they can and can't vote for? Or is it to determine who the rank-and-file voters of the party want as their candidate? I hope most of us would agree that it's the latter.
I urge the Democratic leaders to do away with the archaic loyalty oath, and place Kucinich on the ballot. It would be the fair and democratic thing to do -- and isn't that what Democrats are supposed to stand for?
All 9 of the Supreme Court Justices seem to disagree with you. Although it may seem harsh, he is welcome to run as an independant if he disagrees with the bylaws of the Democratic Party of the State of Texas.
ReplyDelete