While Virginia holds a primary in February where the state requires zero people to be registered in either one party or another, the Republicans figured a way around that. See, they want to make sure real Republicans, whatever the definition of that animal might be, are the only ones voting for the nominee for President. (As Raising Kaine suggests, they might be heading off a whole bunch of Democrats who will vote for Ron Paul.) That was the plan, anyway. I’m thinking these folks are just desperate about their loss of power. Here’s the story about the loyalty oath from WDBJ in Roanoke, and here’s a bit of analysis from the WaPo:

The loyalty pledge to the Republican Party that Virginia voters will be required to sign if they vote in the state’s GOP presidential primary on Feb. 12 is another attempt by the party to police the open primary system.

On Feb. 12, a GOP primary voter will have to sign a piece of paper that says, “I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for President.”

. . .

The pledge, which the state Board of Elections approved Monday, includes instructions that say someone who refuses to sign it “will not be permitted to vote.”

But state elections officials and other analysts said those instructions cannot be enforced because there is no way to keep tabs on whether someone keeps a promise to support the GOP ticket in the November 2008 general election.

“There is no way to police this. It’s a piece of paper,” said Olga Hernandez, president of the nonpartisan League of Women Voters in Virginia.

In 2000, Republicans asked state election officials whether they could require voters to sign an oath that they would support “all of the Republican Party’s nominees in the next election.” The State Board of Elections rejected that pledge but did allow the party to require GOP primary voters to sign a form stating they would not also participate in the Democrats’ nominating contest, which was held on a separate date.

It is not just that there is no way to police this, it is a bit problematic, I think, in this free country of ours, to require an oath concerning one’s future votes. That seems coercive to me, as I’m sure it will to a whole bunch of other citizens out there. Then again, the Republicans support George Bush’s use of torture, so supporting coercive measures against our own citizenry isn’t that far outside the expected, is it?

Put this under the category of “I’m SHOCKED!” Turns out, I really am shocked, because once this story hit the blogs and the papers the Republicans decided, in a rare moment of sanity, to rescind their call for a loyalty oath at the polls. Truly that is shocking.