"Fully support" - too much to ask

Dennis Kucinich can't get on the ballot in Texas as a Democrat, because the party in that state has a "loyalty oath" requiring all candidates to swear that they will

"fully support" the Democratic nominee, "whoever that shall be."

Dennis, of course, has vowed to withhold support if his party's nominee "doesn't disavow war as an instrument of foreign policy."

Some people seem to feel that Dennis is being disloyal to the Party, or out of line somehow. But this isn't the same thing as Lieberman running as an independent instead accepting the primary results that chose Ned Lamont. This is just Dennis saying he doesn't want to be forced to "fully support" someone whose policies he does not and cannot agree with.

For what it's worth, I agree with him. Why on earth should he be forced to abandon his core principles in order to run for office?

If the Texas Democratic Party wants to ask candidates to promise not to change parties if they lose - or if they win (I'm still steamed at Ben Nighthorse Campbell) - that's reasonable. If they want to ask them to promise not to run as independents, that's almost so. But to ask them to fully support a platform and candidate they think is bad for the country? "Fully" support?

I don't agree with that at all.