NOW asks the membership

As a NOW member I received a survey tonight about endorsing a candidate for US President.  It listed many names with six or seven places to mark if we liked them a lot, a little or not at all.  Fortunately there was a space for a comment.  Here is mine ~

I would have done this in an entirely different way.  I would have listed the issues, asked members to assign importance such as MUST, PREFER, LIGHTLY MATTERS, DOESN'T MATTER.  Then if candidates meet the issues, that matter to the membership, they might achieve endorsement.  Issues first - not people.  Then if an endorsed person changes their position, they no longer qualify and remove themselves.  NOW needs to be issue-defined not person.  Finally, if no one meets the required issue agreements, then NOW has no endorsement.  We should raise above this nonsense of choosing the lesser of the bad offerings - set our bar and hold it firmly.

Why are we picking people on some sliding scale, like a popularity contest?  It is not how I make my interior decisions.  I make a list of requirements; peace, choice, health care, global responsibility, social consciousness and see if ANYONE meets them.  If someone does, I consider if they have a vision worth following.  I require that of myself so why not the organizations I endorse?  PS. I hope they read my comment.