Pete Jackson, son of Democratic Senator Scoop Jackson, voted in the Republican presidential preference primary (for Senator John McCain), and, as such, has -- as is required of every Republican primary voter -- declared "that I am a member of the Republican party."
I was also mentioned in the article, and I absolutely deny the claim that I found Super Tuesday to be "exciting."
UPDATE: Jackson notes below that he neglected to check the box saying he was a Republican. So he only intended to switch parties for the sake of the primary, but didn't actually do so, which is good, because now he is able to caucus for Obama on Saturday without violating an oath to not do so.
Posted by pudge at February 07, 2008 09:06 PM | Email ThisThe required oath disuaded us from voting in the primary. Sure, Republicans should choose their own candidates, but even though I vote Republican my vote is more a vote for the less damaging of the two viable candidates. The oath on the card was just too much for us, so it was better to not participate in the primary (and let "true" Republicans choose the candidate.
We do see in these posts that there are quite a few of like mind regarding the oath.
Posted by: Dick on February 7, 2008 09:50 PMI recall this was also their strategy for the Michigan primary, since Dems has no real primary there also.
Posted by: deadwood on February 7, 2008 10:21 PMHere's the text from the Herald article:
"Pete Jackson, son of the late, longtime Democratic U.S. Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson of Everett, is supporting Obama, but voted for McCain in the primary.
"It was my protest that the Democratic primary didn't count for anything, so I might as well vote for the best Republican," he said."
I'll ask a few souls--a Jesuit Professor and perhaps a Poly Sci professor or if I'm guilty of Chicago-style "plural" voting and need to atone. I'll let you know...
Posted by: Pete Jackson on February 7, 2008 10:35 PMHm. Aare you calling Pete Jackson a liar? :-)
Pete Jackson: At the same time, as I told Bill Sheets of the Herald, I will caucus for Obama.
Whoa whoa whoa. You promised not to, Pete. You swore: "I declare that I am a member of the Republican party and I have not participated and will not participate in the 2008 precinct caucus or convention system of any other party."
I was having fun with the "switched parties" thing, although you did in fact declare yourself a Republican, so it was true, for the sake of the primary. Obviously, yes, it was no a permanent switch, just for the primary: and of course, there's nothing stopping you from going back to Dem.
But for you to caucus for Obama is an absolute violation of your promise to not caucus with any other party in 2008. Whether it is legally binding or not shouldn't make a difference.
Posted by: pudge on February 7, 2008 10:44 PMSo, whatever. All I can really hope to do is appeal to peoples' better natures to abide by their word.
However, I do plan to look through the records later for known Democrats who voted in our primary, just for fun, and if I find anything interesting I'll post it. :-)
Posted by: pudge on February 7, 2008 11:07 PMYou are either a Democrat or Republican. You cannot be both. You are voting in the Republican primary and then caucusing for Obama.
Yet another case of Democrat vote rigging to throw our primary to McCain.
Scoop jackon would be rolling in his grave. Be a man and pick one or the other but stop rigging the vote.
Posted by: pbJ on February 7, 2008 11:21 PMAs per my post above, my vote for McCain does not count because I didn't check either party. I didn't "rig" anything--I was protesting that the Dems opted for a beauty contest. You are lucky, BTW, that your ballot at least counts for something.
I'm a Democrat (although, like everyone else, I miss the old Grange-style system of cross-over voting). I hope that's "man enough" for you.
Posted by: Pete Jackson on February 7, 2008 11:32 PMHowever, please understand that many Republicans resent that Democrats are allowed to help pick our candidate. So there's a lot of hard feelings about this already, compounded by the fact that you initially said you voted for McCain AND that you are a Democrat AND that you would caucus for Obama. The claim that you are a Democrat would not be a literal violation of the oath (as you were only claiming to be a Republican at the moment you voted), but it is in spirit; and the caucusing for Obama would be a literal violation.
However, you apparently didn't know about the checkbox and you didn't check it, so there was no oath, and therefore, no lie. I won't ask whether you would have checked the box if you knew about it, and knew what it said.
Personally, I am not a native Washingtonian like you, so I have no particular affinity for the old "blanket" primary. I don't even care too much which system we have, as long as it serves the best interests of the party, and as long as the wishes of the party are respected by the government. The old "blanket" primary violated the rights of the members of the party, so I am glad it is no longer able to be forced on the party.
I think that this year's experience will convince the GOP to only allow the primary to be used at all (if at all) if the Democrats do it too. There's a lot of angry Republicans out there over the fact that McCain is so far ahead right now largely because non-Republicans voted for him.
So you're a Gregoire speechwriter, eh? I wish you no ill will whatsoever, save this: my goal is to make you unemployed sometime soon after election day this year. :-)
Each pile is run through a machine that will ignore the fields that should be ignored; so if the Dem pile, ignores the GOP vote, if no box is checked, ignore both, etc.
It is possible that his ballot got put into the wrong pile. There is, unfortunately, no way to know if this happens, which could point to a flawed ballot design.
If the Republicans choose to select half their delegates from the primary, that is their business and their choice.
None of this would be a problem is Washington had partisan registration like most other states do. I am guessing that the Legislature will abolish the primary once and for all before 2012. That is, unless "fiscal conservatives" enjoy seeing $10 million worth of our taxes wasted on this every four years. I know I don't appreciate it.
The parties owe nothing whatever to self-styled "independents" like WVH. The fact that she has found a home here shows me what she really is. Her vote in the general election is inviolate. Her "exclusion" from the primary process is the price she pays for her "independence."
Parties will rise and fall based on whether or not they deliver the goods for their members. But until such time, they have the right under law to decide how to select the person who will carry their banner into the general election.
In 1996 tens of thousands of liberals like myself voted for Ellen Craswell for Governor in the "blanket primary." We wanted to embarrass the GOP and we were successful. That is why the Republicans were successful in their lawsuit, joined by the Democrats, against the blanket primary.
If people want a primary so badly, the price for it will be partisan registration. They can't have it both ways, and they won't get it. Certainly whining about it won't get it for them.
I don't buy the simple mistake claim. Growing up as the son of a hero affords a kid all sorts of bennies. Talking his way out of minor fixes is one of them.
This spin put on by Jackson ranks up there with the greatest of the spinmeisters- Carville and Clinton come to mind.
Posted by: swatter on February 8, 2008 06:54 AMAnd those of you who have money in the jar predicting when the press would turn on McCain- the winner is the person who predicted the day after Romney drops out. Politico.com takes the first shots.
Posted by: swatter on February 8, 2008 07:09 AMYou shouldn't crash Parties you're not invited to.
You might be right that it is dumb of the parties to not invite everyone in....but that's the business of the people who made the party.
Not you.
You don't like it, "vote with your feet," go start your own all inclusive party, and if you're right that everyone in the State would love that, your new party will succeed.
It's difficult to reconcile conservative principles of free association, freedom of contract, and freedom of expression with the notion "hey your party has to let me in" and "the Govt. should make rules regulating parties to tell the parties they have to let me in."
Why would you be in favor of government control over political parties? Isn't that communism?
Posted by: Partisan on February 8, 2008 08:00 AMYou did? I must've missed that.
Now that there is a real person that 'queered' the system, voted and lied about the oath (Pete Jackson is too smart not to have noticed the box) let's see what the Rs are going to do.
There's no need to get concerned about whether or not he lied above: we'll all find out the truth in short order. And I, for one, see no need to impugn someone now over something I can't know now, but will know soon.
And again, EVEN IF he is lying, there's not much to do. It's not legally binding, as best I can tell. Maybe I'm wrong there. There's room to publicize it, but not much else.
As to "too smart," I have talked to Republicans who are, I presume, approximately as smart or smarter than him, who also missed the box.
Doug: Pudge, this is the thought process of many life-long Washingtonians ... The point being is that he considers himself a Republican, but not a member of the party and as such won't sign the oath.
Yep. And I am against the oath *as it is currently worded.* I would have worded it more like the Democratic oath: such that you are not stating you are a "MEMBER" of the Republican Party, but you ARE stating "I am a Republican."
However, I absolutely would have left in the part about not participating in the caucus / convention system (for 2008) of any other party.
Cleve: It's difficult to reconcile conservative principles of free association, freedom of contract, and freedom of expression with the notion "hey your party has to let me in" and "the Govt. should make rules regulating parties to tell the parties they have to let me in."
Yep. We can argue about what the party should choose to accept, but I see no room for disagreement about whether the party has a right to make such choices for itself.
Posted by: pudge on February 8, 2008 08:16 AMThis year is a perfect example. McCain is the nominee. If Dems were voting in the primary they more than likely would have voted McCain in as well. Instead we turn off likely tens of thousands of voters who want to vote for McCain but won't sign the loyalty oath. Maybe they turn out in November or maybe those rugged individualists say forget it. Either way, we are a state that is run by democrats and we're losing ground every year, so what do we do...turn off the independents even more. Smart.
I said the MSN would go after McCain once he had it. So what prize did I win? (-:
This is just the start my friends. They will do what ever it takes to make his temper burst!
The MSN wants Obama or Billary, not McCain.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 8, 2008 08:38 AMWell there appears to be confusion here.
In post #7 you wrote:
"Ok, Pudge, you got me: On my primary ballot, I chose the Republican Party as "my affiliation." At least until I voted for McCain and dropped it in the mail, I was an "affiliated" R. At the same time, as I told Bill Sheets of the Herald, I will caucus for Obama. I remain a committed (albeit frustrated at times) Democrat."
And now you are claiming you did not check the box stating you were a Republican. So did you lie in post 7 or are you lying now?
And no, my ballot counts for nothing as the Republican candidate was already decided by Democrats and Independents voting in the Republican primaries of other states.
I just find it a sleazy tactic at any rate, even if you never really checked the box (which it appears you cannot give a straight answer about).
As someone who used to be a Democrat for over 40 years and admired Scoop Jackson, I am disappointed to say the least. Such sleazy tactics are one reason I am no longer a Democrat. That you would brag about it is even more disturbing.
If you really wanted to protest Democrats, you could grab a marker and cardboard and make s sign and picket like all the other liberals.
Posted by: pbj on February 8, 2008 09:15 AMHow would you like it if I show up tomorow and caucus for Hillary?
Posted by: pbj on February 8, 2008 09:18 AMIf a public figure abuses the system, then that says a lot about the system and the public figure.
My cubbymate now says he is going to caucus with both the Rs and the Ds (his loyalty, he says, is fleeting), as well as vote R.
Posted by: swatter on February 8, 2008 09:42 AMAnd how can your Joe Six-Pack cubbymate caucus with both? The are at the same time.
Posted by: pudge on February 8, 2008 09:48 AMBeen a long time since we sparred. Fact of the matter neither party is a big tent. You have no idea what I or any other indie thinks other than for dems if you don't support gay marriage, don't support abortion on demand and don't support unionization of schools, you have no voice. I have one issue, competition in schools and I am glad that some dem legislators are pushing repeal of common school laws. Now, on the republican side if one supports children's health care and thinks that there are some issues that only government can solve, you are a liberal or communist.
Fact is ideologues and party people like you who label at every opportunity and attempt to demonize those who don't follow in lock-step with the koolaide drinking ideology have driven droves out of both parties.
From what I am able to determine both parties are led by idiots who don't know the first thing about expanding their base which is something they could learn from a customer service driven entity like Nordstrom, which is you don't alienate potential customers. It appears that party leadership on both sides is so lacking in the Harvard Business School term of emotional IQ that I expect us selfstyled indies to be growing in ranks.
Now, if you want to give up your addiction to education union money and really think about how competition in education can fix the education mess, maybe we can talk. Until then you are simply a blowheart who got into leadership because no one else wanted the job.
Posted by: WVH on February 8, 2008 09:49 AMIt sounds like the Obama campaign isn't worried too much about people violating the oath as long as they will vote for their candidate...especially since the oath isn't legally binding.
Interesting.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 8, 2008 09:57 AMMy taxes support the system. Why then am I forced to make a declaration that limits my freedom to choose the candidate of my choice?
Since the introduction of this new system, I have voted in each of primaries and not selected the party box. In each of these primaries the demo-rat in charge of my voting place has tried to insist that I must select a party or my ballot will be rejected. Each time I have had to remind these buffoons that my choices for non-partisan races and other ballot choices still count.
I wonder with the problems I have had whether other voters have made party choices based on the mistaken assumption that party selection is mandatory for all ballot choices. Probably a lot. I also wonder how many voters simply do not vote in primaries because they refuse to choose.
Again all tax payers carry the cost of these partisan elections and there are important other ballot choices that do not require party preference on these ballots (not relevant in this primary though). This is not right - it unfairly disenfranchises the independent voters of this state.
If the parties insist on having partisan elections, let them pay for them. Non-partisan issues should not be placed on these primary ballots. They should only be placed on general or special election ballots that do not require party affiliation.
Posted by: deadwood on February 8, 2008 10:18 AMCount me among them. Why did they even bother mailing me a ballot? Pure waste of money, since the decision has already been made. I'm beyond disgusted.
I'd like to see the primary system changed to where primaries/caucuses are held in all states concurrently. The results of the voting should be kept quiet until all ballots have been cast and counted, to hinder the media from manipulating the results. Finally, the damned campaigning should be wrapped up before the primaries start.
Posted by: Peggy U on February 8, 2008 12:40 PMHe should be welcomed as an, albeit brief, Republican because one day people like Peter Jackson will give the GOP a real majority.
Posted by: Bill S. on February 8, 2008 02:52 PMNot that it matters.
Posted by: redflag on February 8, 2008 04:54 PM