Would you fully support a Presidential candidate who favored:

Would you fully support a Presidential candidate who favored:

• Creating a single-payer system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans by passage of the United States National Health Insurance Act.
• The immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq; replacing them with an international security force.
• Guaranteed quality education for all; including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.
• Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
• Repealing the USA PATRIOT Act.
• Fostering a world of international cooperation.
• Abolishing the death penalty.
• Environmental renewal and clean energy.
• Preventing the privatization of social security.
• Providing full social security benefits at age 65.
• Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
• Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.
• Protecting a woman's right to choose while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.
• Ending the war on drugs.
• Legalizing same-sex marriage.
• Creating a balance between workers and corporations.
• Ending the H1B and L1 Visa Programs
• Restoring rural communities and family farms.

I think the real question isn't whether any of these positions are deal breakers (I'd be surprised if any of them were), but if failure to hold these positions should be a deal breaker.

I favor reforming WTO and NAFTA rather than destroying them. I think that election bit is timid - while that's a good start, we need a national redistricting plan to end the gerrymandering of congressional seats, and we need complete public financing of elections. Also a few of them are a little bland - I'm in favor of restoring rural communities and family farms (I guess) but I'm not sure how exactly you would accomplish that. Same with "fostering a world of international cooperation."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Is it REALLY like a horse race? If so, I'd appreciate knowing where the prizes are handed out. I voted for Nixon in '68 and I'd sure like to collect a prize for being stupid.

Which means electability has to be part of the equation.

Bryant

... and it's not the black or the woman candidate.

It's refreshing because I've lived long enough to have heard this claimed as an excuse for not supporting a minority candidate ... and that's now not being (openly) claimed for Obama or Clinton.

It's disturbing because I've lived long enough to have heard this claimed as an excuse for not supporting a minority candidate ... and that could offer mainstream 'cover' for others to say the same about Obama or Clinton.

I've always been a simple sort of guy ... and usually don't base my vote on who "they" would vote for. I find it difficult enough to ascertain which candidate is aligned with my own values without divining what "they" would do.

:shrug:

after they lose in the primary to Hillary - no.

Also there are a few things missing - poverty, unions, and tax increases for the wealthy.

There is a very, *very* small chance that they plan on carrying through with their stances.

Not even FDR.

Our chance to elect a President isn't any guarantee that all the programs will be enacted. There's ALWAYS compromise ... hopefully without cutting babies in half. The flaw in a LOT of 'moderate' thinking is that somehow a 'moderate' course can be achieved with half the government steering to the far right and the other half steering to the middle. It just can't balance out that way ... and 'moderation' can't be achieved without balancing voices.

There's not going to be an international security force in Iraq any time soon, probably ever.

Instant runoff voting isn't as important as reforming congressional elections w/ more competitive House races, in particular.

In all seriousness though, of course. I just know I won't have that opportunity in the final election.

Primaries, of course. Unfortunately not enough others will, most likely.

You can even vote for yourself. :shrug:

I might - although as I am not what one would call a perfect Democrat, I did find two things on your list I don't much care for, one of which might be a deal breaker for me depending on how it's done.

That's very important.

And prosecuting the Bushies. That's important, too.

He's not one of the big three, and he's not in or formerly in the Seante, and he's never been a governor!

:)