I have no idea as to the truth of the Albyquerque Journal report. From personal experience with getting tickets to such events, I am highly suspicious of the accuracy. I have never had to identify myself, sign any papers, or pledge my loyalty to anything or anyone any time I have asked for tickets. From what I have seen these events have been pretty much open to the public.

Oh, please, Marky. Spare me your ridiculous hypocracy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31019-2004Jul31.html

The Albuquerque Journal reported on Friday that people seeking tickets to the Cheney event who could not be identified as GOP partisans — contributors or volunteers — were told they could not receive tickets unless they signed an endorsement form saying “I, (full name) . . . do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States.” The form warns that signers “are consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President Bush.”

Let’s see your outrage at this disgusting imposition of ideological purity, and then I might believe that you are something other than a complete phony.

Man you guys will try and create a controvercy out of the most innocous things.

You are thinking of Presidential Electors, not delegates. Electors for the Electoral College are chosen by each party to cast their electoral college votes if their candidate wins the state in the general election (exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, which have proportional allocation of electoral votes). They are entirely separate from delegates to the national conventions.

Consistent? In the sense that you will consistently ignore anything wrong on your side of the aisle. In that, yes, you are very consistent.

We’re not stopping a pledged Ron Paul delegate from taking her seat - we’re just working to stop people from reversing a decision long made. There are no “do overs” in elections - once done is done once and for all. If Paul’s people wanted to have a large section of the Nevada delegation, then they should have worked harder back in January.

What the Democrats are doing is kicking out a person who expressed the “wrong” opinion.

Very, very large different. Heck, just on the lack of forgiveness, this is a horrible act.

Had to fix this for you…

In the emotional aftermath of a hard-fought loss, Ron Paul supporters tried to make their voices heard…and in Republican-think, to offend Comrade McCain is the worst of all crimes, so out they go.

Save your pity, at least I’m consistent.

In the emotional aftermath of a hard-fought loss, a Hillary supporter blurted out her anger and frustration…and in Democrat-think, to offend Comrade Obama is the worst of all crimes, so out she goes.

If you can’t see the terrible nature of this - this disgusting imposition of ideological purity even when it might have been just an honest, heartfelt mistake…well, if that is the case, then I’m sorry for you.

The Wisconsin Democratic Party rules state that delegates to the national convention must pledge to support the nominee. She violated the rules, so I don’t have a problem with her being replaced as a delegate. Likewise, I don’t have a problem with your state party shutting out the Paul supporters since your party’s nominee has been decided. You apparently have a problem with one case, but not the other.

Now, you say the Paul supporters are using an obscure rule to overturn the will of the voters. A rule is a rule, no matter how obscure. How comfortable are you with your party nominating their delegates via teleconference? Doesn’t that sound an awful lot like a “smoke-filled room?”