I feel really strongly about this, so I need to post it:

[robinlynne]

re: CA-50, Francine Busby, and democratic candidates who don't want to look like "sore losers". I strongly believe the dems are part and parcel of our our loss of democracy, and that we need to stand up loudly while there is still time to take back our country. It is way past the time to play politics, and "wait till the next election".
We have had a systematic loss of democratic (and other kinds of) rights in this country. Unless we get our candidates to stand up and scream about it, we will lose. Election protection must be our number, number 2, and number 3 priority. It is the only way we can possibly achieve the other goals we hold so dear.

Here is: THE HONEST ELECTION CANDIDATE'S PLEDGE

1. I pledge to work hard to make sure that every
citizen who votes for me has her vote counted.

2. I will not concede any contest I am involved in
until I know that every absentee and provisional
ballot has been counted.

3. I shall make sure that non-partisan exit polling
is conducted.

4. If the final results of counted votes is
different from the exit polling by more than the margin of
error, I will demand and force a recount.

5. I shall exhaust every possible legal recourse to
assure that every vote cast for me by a legal
citizen is counted.

6. If asked to "concede" I shall respond: "Only when
every vote cast for me has been counted - to do
anything less would be a violation of the Constitution."

7. If I am called a "sore loser" or a "waster of
taxpayer time" I will reply that: "Democracy is
never a waste of time and wanting to see Democratic
Government working is never a bad cause."

We should withhold our money and volunteer time from
any candidate that refuses to sign this pledge or
who has ever violated any part of it.


This was written by a bradblogger.
If you want me to work for Francince Busby again, or anyone for that matter, I will, as long as they first take this pledge!

[kpete]

1. robinlynne

I agree with you 100%

Thanks for posting!

[baldguy]

2. This is fine for honest & honorable candidates.

But what about the Republicans?

[Jackpine Radical]

3. What about them?

Let them go copulate with themselves.

[jeff30997]

4. LOL!

[robinlynne]

6. well, they weren't really going to get my vote anyway....

[blue cat]

10. Good point!

[emlev]

7. Here's a Repub. candidate in Missouri who's calling for a hand count!

This from BradBlog: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3327

Hand Recount Requested by 'Sore-Loser', er, Republican in Missouri Primary
AP Reports Republican Hand Count Request, Continues to Ignore Busby/Bilbray Election Challenge…

Blogged by the road (from St. Louis, Missouri) by Brad…

As we wait for the results of the hearing today in the Busby/Bilbray CA50 Election Contest (see this story on the latest absurd claims from the defendants arguing that the U.S. House, not the voters of California get to decide who will be the "winner" of the election) and as I prepare to meet today with folks from the Missouri Honest Elections group, this story was brought to my attention.

No, it wasn't a "sore-loser" who requested the hand "recount" in Missouri's recent primary election for State Auditor. It was a Republican. As we know, only Democrats are "sore-losers" when they ask for such things.

To underscore that point, the following quotes are from an AP report on the matter. AP never bothered to report on the requested hand count in the Busby/Bilbray election, or even on the fact that a contest and lawsuit have now been filed in California Superior Court! We suppose that matter, since it was a Democrat who may have been screwed by the machines — never mind that it was a federal race determing a new U.S. House member, versus a primary for a state election — is just not to be considered newsworthy by the AP.

Anyway, Republican Jack Jackson reportedly came in second to Republican Sandra Thomas after the machine count of votes in the Missouri Republican Election to determine the Republican candidate for State Auditor. Jackson received a few reports of problems throughout the day, and so — responsibly — has asked for a full hand count and, according to AP says, "Whatever this recount shows, I will accept… right now, I am still a candidate."

We agree.

More here.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3327

[Ghost in the Machine]

5. Sounds like a plan to me...

It's well past time that We the People start mattering again to the politicians we vote for. They need to quit taking us for granted, and remember who they work for. But, as long as We the People choose to remain silent, complacent or indifferent to the widespread and rampant fraud and abuse going on, we deserve what we get. I mean that seriously.

Each and every one of us needs to be taking lessons from the Mexican citizens, and how they cherish their vote and democracy. Keep your eyes open, people... and take plenty of notes. There's gonna be a test on this in November.

[Land Shark]

8. After election, nonvoters irrelevant, so there's only "winners" & "losers"

Given only winners and losers, the winners can't sue themselves or regulate themselves, so ONLY THE ALLEGED LOSERS can pursue the integrity of the system. The "winners" can't sue themselves! If they did, they wouldn't be motivated enough for the theory behind our adversarial system of justice to work. So, if we try to shame the "sore losers" into saying nothing or doing nothing or never suing, then guess what? Democracy is literally left defenseless.

But aren't we supposed to be defending democracy, instead of abandoning it to enforced indifference?

[mopinko]

11. is it legally possible for a winner to ask for a recount?

or is it just nutty? i think it would be great if a winning candidate said, well, i won, but i see that there was this problem, or that problem, and i want to make sure all the votes are counted. so i am asking for a hand count.
i realize this is never going to happen, but i am curious if it could.

[blue cat]

9. Great post!

We need to print this out and fax to the dems in office. It would send a message if they received a bunch of faxes from disgruntled voters.

[never_get_over_it]

12. I think it was Thom Hartmann

on one of the days he substituted for Randi (think it was Friday 8/18) who commented that the Dems don't want to make an issue of election fraud for two reasons:

1. If its too much an issue people won't bother to vote
2. They won't get volunteers in their campaigns because folks who would voulunteer might direct their efforts to fighting election fraud

Of course neither of these reasons will matter when the elections are being stolen - doesn't matter how many volunteers you have if "they" fix the election.

[wiley]

13. Recommended and KIcked and Supported 100%!

[wiley]

14. How about adding?

x. I will know who the person or entity is in my county or state that oversees all aspects of the voting process, and demand to respond to or participate in any decisions made with regards to the maintenance of voter rolls, registration and eligibility. I also commit to addressing these issues at least 6 months in advance of any primary or general election. Following my win or loss in the general election, I will prepare a report and review of my findings to all local, state and federal entities and individuals. I will follow-up with the results of this analysis, regardless of the results of my campaign.

[helderheid]

15. Only people who truly lost can be sore losers. Others are rightous heros

fighting for our only voice, our vote!

[nicknameless]

16. Rove NEVER accepts failure. Some extreme lengths he went to in ’94:

Story from 1994. Hooper was Rove's candidate.

http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/Syl/AmerPol/BushvKerry04/311RoveArt04.htm

(snip)

Newspaper coverage on November 9, the morning after the election, focused on the Republican Fob James's upset of the Democratic Governor Jim Folsom. But another drama was rapidly unfolding. In the race for chief justice, which had been neck and neck the evening before, Hooper awoke to discover himself trailing by 698 votes. Throughout the day ballots trickled in from remote corners of the state, until at last an unofficial tally showed that Rove's client had lost -- by 304 votes. Hornsby's campaign declared victory.

Rove had other plans, and immediately moved for a recount. "Karl called the next morning," says a former Rove staffer. "He said, 'We came real close. You guys did a great job. But now we really need to rally around Perry Hooper. We've got a real good shot at this, but we need to win over the people of Alabama.'" Rove explained how this was to be done. "Our role was to try to keep people motivated about Perry Hooper's election," the staffer continued, "and then to undermine the other side's support by casting them as liars, cheaters, stealers, immoral -- all of that." (Rove did not respond to requests for an interview for this article.)

(snip)

Initially, things looked grim for Hooper. A circuit-court judge ruled that the absentee ballots should be counted, reasoning that voters' intent was the issue, and that by merely signing them, those who had cast them had "substantially complied" with the law. Hooper's lawyers appealed to a federal court. By Thanksgiving his campaign believed he was ahead -- but also believed that the disputed absentee ballots, from heavily Democratic counties, would cost him the election. The campaign went so far as to sue every probate judge, circuit clerk, and sheriff in the state, alleging discrimination. Hooper continued to hold rallies throughout it all. On his behalf the business community bought ads in newspapers across the state that said, "They steal elections they don't like." Public opinion began tilting toward him.

The recount stretched into the following year. On Inauguration Day both candidates appeared for the ceremonies. By March the all-Democratic Alabama Supreme Court had ordered that the absentee ballots be counted. By April the matter was before the Eleventh Federal Circuit Court. The byzantine legal maneuvering continued for months. In mid-October a federal appeals-court judge finally ruled that the ballots could not be counted, and ordered the secretary of state to certify Hooper as the winner -- only to have Hornsby's legal team appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which temporarily stayed the case. By now the recount had dragged on for almost a year.

When I went to visit Hooper, not long ago, we sat in the parlor of his Montgomery home as he described the denouement of Karl Rove's closest race. "On the afternoon of October the nineteenth," Hooper recalled, "I was in the back yard planting five hundred pink sweet Williams in my wife's garden, and she hollered out the back door, 'Your secretary just called -- the Supreme Court just made a ruling that you're the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court!'" In the final tally he had prevailed by just 262 votes. Hooper smiled broadly and handed me a large photo of his swearing-in ceremony the next day. "That Karl Rove was a very impressive fellow," he said.

Typical. rethugs are hypocrites on every issue.