Would you support the following candidate for President?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is obviously a Democratic candidate for President.
He has the following views:

Terrorism: Increase funding for borders, ports. Supports court sanctioned wiretaps. Use existing information more efficiently (for example several 9/11 hikjackers bought tickets with their real names, and were wanted by the FBI). Promises to do his best to capture Osama, and if succesful, would let every New Yorker give him a paper cut.

Environment/ Energy: Increase funding for alternative energies like solar, wind, and nuclear fusion. Sees global climate change as a national security issue, for example increased Gulf of Mexico hurricanes, and a rising sea level make FL and LA less secure.

Foreign policy: Refuses to rule out any options with foreign policy, but generally supports coalition building.

The economy: Supports a non-ideologically driven agenda of what works best. Would employ many top economists to determine the best course of action. Hints that this would be more economically liberal than the current economic policies.

Taxes: Favors increasing taxes on those who make over $250,000 a year. Supports an estate tax on that part of the estate over $2.5 million.

Gun control: Quotes JFK, and says that it doesn't seem so unlikely now:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gay marriage: Says that the federal goverment should recognize any reasonable civil union. Exact definitions of marraige should be up to the states.

Abortion: "Reluctantly" supports Roe v. Wade

Drugs: Would legalize and tax pot

Eminent domain: Opposes people being forced to sell

Minimum wage: Wants to raise to $6.75 an hour and then tie to inflation

Iraq: Would issue an official apology as to how the war has been conducted. Would train Iraqi soldiers, plans to competely leave within 2 years.

[adam]

Terrorism: Promises to "do his best" to catch Osama...this phrase always sounds suspect to me. Either do it or don't. I mean hell, GWB is "doing his best".

Foreign Policy: This translates to me as "I'm not sure what to do, but if it looks good in polls..."

The economy: More liberal than current policies!? Unless he is a die hard communist, I don't think this is possible. Also, I don't like a candidate that doesn't know what he wants to do. Hire economists absolutely, but not to think for you.

Taxes: Unless he has 30 years of used car sales experience, he wont be able to sell me on tax hikes. I would be more likely to support a fair and effective flat tax that excludes people making dismally low (35k and under in my mind) from paying taxes.

Guns: I like this part about him. I do believe that the right to bear arms is the 2ND ammendment for a reason.

Abortion: This part disgusts me. I hate when politicians throw around the word "reluctantly" as though it completely changes their posistion. They aren't "pro-choice", they are "reluctantly pro-choice". They aren't "pro-war" they are "reluctantly pro-war". Well I "reluctantly" don't see a god damn difference! I like an up front politician, if your pro-choice...say so. Don't beat me over the head with decieving soft language.

Drugs: I would support legalization, but oppose taxing.

Minimum wage: Not a big issue for me, but I see it as more of a state thing.

Iraq: An appology is a non-issue for me, I don't demand one and won't have an overwhelming deal of respect for said candidate because he issued one. Also, I don't think training their soldiers is our job.

So on the whole...I would say I disagree more than I agree with your candidate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Terrorism: Promises to "do his best" to catch Osama...this phrase always sounds suspect to me. Either do it or don't. I mean hell, GWB is "doing his best".

He promises to do a lot more than Bush is doing in terms of actually fighting terrorism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, he promises to do the best option regardless of what the current polls says.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, more liberal than the Bush admisntration. He says he has some ideas, but he wants to make sure that they are truly the best ideas, and doesn't want to merely implement ideas for the sake of ideological purity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well obviously you disagree here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He states he is personally opposed to abortion, but doesn't want to force his morals on others.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, he is supposed to be a Democrat.

[bullmoose88]

Could I? Perhaps...

Would I? Depends on who the Rs are running.

[adam]

He promises to do a lot more than Bush is doing in terms of actually fighting terrorism.

That isn't saying a whole. With the exception of killing a few important people connected to the islamofascist movement, GWB hasn't done a whole lot at all to fight terrorism. I mean, just weeks before 9/11 he cut counter terrorism...and now he is cutting a huge portion out of port security for the same lame reasons that he cut counter-terrorism funding. I mean, we can afford to build death rays in space...but we can't afford to secure our ports.

In other words, saying that you'll do more to fight terrorism than GWB is like saying. "If elected, I will do my best not to shoot anyone".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It really depends on the character of the politician. In a general sense, when a president (or candidate) says "We are considering all of our options" it usually translates to "We are waiting for our pollsters to call". So I am supposed to count on a politician to be honest and genuine. No need for a witty analogy here...that sentence is funny enough as it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I really need to know how he could be more liberal. Does he intend to drop more spending on top of the 60% increase Bush is accountable for since he took office? Or will he fund meaningless "play programs" such as missions to Mars and Space missles while neglecting serious programs such as border control and underfunded military brackets.

Or does he plan to just levy taxes to compensate for this debacle of a spending policy?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That sounds better, but it's still the same line of crap. The candidate is pro-choice, whether he is personally opposed or not - he is pro-choice. No need for fancy language. Whe pro-choice people use that line it doesn't fool conservatives and just pokes at other pro-choice people. Honesty is the best policy.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes.

[Nym90]

Obviously it depends on who else is running, but I think I would.

[TomC]

Obviously it depends on who else is running, but I think I would.

[MaC]

I stopped reading after 'increase funding'.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This poll seems to show that mainstream liberal positions can be a winner. I'll admit this candidate leans a little bit libertarian compared to the average liberal, but he's really not too far off from most liberals.

[MaC]

that's because this forum is liberal before any other ideology and slightly more libertarian than the mainstream.