Where, anywhere, did I say I was a one-issue voter? But are there not single issues that are "trump" issues for you? Let me try you on a few.
I have agreed and disagreed with you in the past, to the best of my recollection, but we haven't had that many exchanges. Perhaps I only bother to respond when we disagree.
Since you said that Rice's position on abortion would eliminated her as someone you would vote for, that seemed to me to be a single issue position. Perhaps you disagree with her in other areas but just didn't state them. However, you then list a series of absurd single issues, mixed with some normal ones, and ask how I would respond to candidates with those positions. The whole exercise seems to concentrate on single issues while denying they are such.
I detest abortion just as you do. However, just as murder has always been left to the states to deal with as they see fit, only recently becoming a federal crime in certain cases, I think it should continue to be that way. I see no federal role for it and I think the Supreme Court was wrong in Roe versus Wade, even though that did not federalize murder.
I have not recently seen Condaleeza Rice's stand on abortion but I thought it was the same as mine. Therefore, a candidates position on abortion should be a concern for us when voting in state elections but of no concern in national elections, unless they are attempting to further erode states' rights.
Second: but you did sort of get around to it in your discussion of abortion. It isn't a single issue to you at the federal level because you don't think it should be decided at that level. Do you oppose all federal laws? Isn't murder a federal offense? Why shouldn't abortion be?
Third: what Rice has said I can quote almost verbatim. She says that she is "mildly pro-choice." Now, if you'll re-read my initial posting, what I demanded was clarification and sense. I don't know what "mildly pro-choice" means; it's a little like being mildly pro-rape, or mildly pro-child-abuse. How can you be? It's a coy choice of words, and she must clarify, if she wants my vote. Fair enough?
Fourth: are you not aware that, even within your guidelines, a president's position on abortion has MANY repercussions? We've seen it in issues of support for abortion on military bases, supporting abortion-advocacy groups abroad, signing bills such as banning live-birth infanticide. What about the all-important issue of appointment of judges? Look, there is a difference between your position (I hate it, it's wrong as the day is long, it should be banned -- but at a state level) and being "pro-choice" (it is neutral, up to the individual, should be a protected right). A person of the latter position will not appoint judges who will eventually get the issue handled at the state-level, as you wish.
Dan