Loudoun Isn’t the Only Place Where Republicans Are Pledge-Challenged

By Lloyd the Idiot

UPDATED 8/17.  More fun with the Henrico Republican leadership who, after meeting with Geary and trying to get him to withdraw, released a transcript of sorts of that meeting to the lcoal mediaGeary sounds like no angel, but HCRC has terribly bungled this whole thing.  Janis to announce today his independent run.

UPDATED 8/15:  A reader pointed out some factual inaccuracies in my post below regarding the incumbency of  Mr. Geary (he’s not the incumbent) and the pledge he may be breaking (state RPV pledge).  As always, I’m willing to edit for any errors.

In yet another example (as if we needed one) where the Republican pledge of unquestionable allegiance to yet-to-be-named nominees means absolutely nothing, take a look at the Henrico County’s commonwealth’s attorney race.  As reported in the Richmond-Times Dispatch here and here, the Republican nominee and current for CA, Matt Gearey, is being challenged by a Republican legislator, Del. Bill Janis, who will run as an independent.  Geary had an affair which leaked a year ago, apparently sufficient justification for going back on your word in Henrico.

Keep in mind that Janis is not just some one-time candidate who wasn’t happy with the way things went at a convention (I’m not sure what the method of nomination was, but if Janis voted , which he probably did, he’d likely be subject to some local level pledge in addition to the state one).  Nope.  He’s a sitting member of the House of Delegates no less.  Apparently, he’s now technicially abandoning the Republican party, so the argument is that he’s not breaking any Republican Party pledge.  To that, I offer a quote from noted orator Chad Ochocinco, “Child, please!” If he’s not going to be bound by the pledge then why should anyone anywhere?

I’m not trying to defend Geary or disparage Janis.  I’m just making the point that these pledges, either at the state or local level, are ridiculous.  Obviously, party registration would help end the insanity, but even without such registration, these inane pledges need to go.


  • James Young says:

    It seems to me that “moral turpitude” is adequate justification to deny the GOP nomination. There is precedent: in 1998, Alaska Republicans leaders withdrew a GOP nomination for Governor won in a primary when evidence of criminal conduct by the nominee was revealed after a primary, and endorsed one of the other contestants for the nomination.

    As I’ve said before, the pledge is necessary because the Virginia legislature will not allow registration by party. Is it imperfect? Obviously, because it requires individual honor, a commodity in short supply among politicians. ‘Fact is, if Geary had any, Janis wouldn’t need to run. Obviously, I am glad that I don’t have to vote in Henrico County.

  • LloydTheIdiot says:

    I don’t see how they could be “necessary” when they are ignored either by the losing candidate or the local party at the slightest inconvenience.

    In Henrico, for example, there was no “denial” of the nomination, and, moreover, the nominee’s actions were nothing illegal from what I understand.

  • James Young says:

    There are two problems with your formulation: they are not always — nor even frequently — “ignored … by the losing candidate,” and so far as I know, never “ignored … by … the local party at the slightest inconvenience.” As for the former, they will be less so if Republican activists impose a penalty to losing candidates who ignore them.

    And if you consider infidelity to be a “slight[] inconvenience,” I would suspect that you’re not reflecting the values of most Republicans. That is “nothing illegal” is immaterial to the larger point that a man who will not keep the most solemn pledge he makes in his personal life cannot be trusted to keep his public pledges. Republicans should have higher standards than Democrats.

  • LloydTheIdiot says:

    James, apparently, you haven’t spent much time in Loudoun County.

    If you had, you’d know about two races in 2007 where the losing candidate ignored the loss and filed to run as an independent. You’d also know that one of those losers is now back in the local party as a district chairman.

    You’re second paragraph not only misses the point but smacks of hypocrisy. The Henrico situation is that the local party wants someone who doesn’t have the baggage of an affair, which, as best I can tell, had nothing to do with his performance as CA and was known before the nomination. The hypocrisy comes in how you’re willing to disregard a “solemn” pledge because someone else has disregarded an entirely different one.

  • James Young says:

    In fact, I don’t spend much time in Loudoun County. And I condemn the behavior you discuss. But simply because 17000 people annually ignore the laws against murder doesn’t mean that they are bad laws, or should be repealed.

    And as for “smacks of hypocrisy,” note that I’ve already said that “I am glad that I don’t have to vote in Henrico County.”

    And who called it a “solemn” pledge? It’s a political promise, a commitment to future behavior. That you seem to believe that it’s equivalent to one’s marital vows tells us more about you than it does about the pledge, or possibly, simply reflects your effort to belittle it. As for me, I deem it not “solemn,” and not nearly so “solemn” as one’s marital vows, but neither do I view it as unimportant, or useless.

  • […] years, I”ve been screaming about the idiotic Republican loyalty oath (see here, here and here as a few example).  FINALLY the state Republican party  is getting the […]

Leave Comment