Loyalty oaths not a bad idea! ( in reverse)

[gordianot]

Bush had a good idea requiring loyalty oaths. Only problem is the wrong people were signing the oath. If candidates want us to attend a rally they need to sign an oath with the audience (potential voter).

In my loyalty oath I require the following of my candidate:

1. No agendas for World Domination, Economic or Military.
2. Adhere to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
3. Follow rule of established law.

I know this is naive, but I understand that these threads are scanned by many interested and varied parties.

What have I forgotten?

[alittlelark]

1. " Open, and recountable elections will be mandatory"

[jeff30997]

2. The IQ of the candidate must be...

Higher than the IQ of an oyster.

[gordianot]

3. And they understand the meaning of the word "Debt".

Coming from a lifelong tax and spend Democrat.

[sangh0]

4. I don't know about this

Something tells that an oral oath from a politician might be worth less than the paper it's written on

[gordianot]

6. Bush did both oral and written.

I think the oath should go in reverse. A candidate should pledge an oath to the voter and be held accountable

[ReaderSushi]

5. Here's an oath!

I solemnly swear to spend the next four years treating George Bush the way Republicans treated Bill Clinton.

[gordianot]

7. Democrats left in Congress need to have the same oath.

[sangh0]

8. So I guess your oath is

"Getting the Dems is more important"

[gordianot]

9. Woo you lost me.

Bush needs the same treatment Clinton experienced. Democrats would not have to make up anything (as Republicans went fishing on Clinton)there are plenty of legitimate of complaints to go around.

I want my candidate to say:

"I will not be a door mat for Republicans."