The Responsible Party

[AFBlue]

I would like to try to build a platform for the "Responsible" party. The platform, ultimately, should be reasonably comprehensive; but should never take a position on personal issues that divide us; distracting and obstructing us from finding solutions unnecessarily. Abortion is the most obvious taboo subject here; if the platform were to take a position, we are immediately divided; to NOT take a position is the "Responsible" course of action.

The problem with your scenario is that you're not starting with a blank slate. So, by not choosing a position you're effectively going forward with the status quo, which is actually in effect a position. This party also doesn't exist in a vacuum, so regardless of whether you proactively legislate on an issue, the issue will be brought to you by others. I suppose you can simply abstain in a legislative role, but that's not an option when you're the Chief Executive. Same theory applies for appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

I just don't see how you could realistically pull off the "I don't have a position on that" position and get elected to a post where you have to make decisions.

[LnGrrrR]

Just come to the dark side. '03 Baby Blue Honda Odyssey - fits the wife, three kids, two of their friends, balls, bats, groceries, oh, and the animated corpse representing the guy that used to be me having a life. Have a 44 magnum not so much for home defense, but to keep my testosterone levels from falling too far. It's not working, btw.

I don't care about getting a van... it's my wife that doesn't want to look like a "soccer mom" quite yet. I keep telling her that she'll be a soccer mom in a few years anyways (kids are now 3 and 1) but she said we can buy the van THEN.

[boutons_deux]

As Jon Stewart said, Repugs swept The Conferate States

Obama Swept States With The Most Educated Workforces And The Highest Paid Teachers

Of the 10 most educated states, measured by the percentage of residents over 25 years old who have a bachelor’s degree or higher, Obama swept all 10.

Conversely, among the 10 least educated states, Obama lost 9 states.

Similarly, states that invested the most in teachers went overwhelmingly for Obama.

He swept the 10 states with highest average public school teacher salaries.

Among states in the bottom 10 for average teacher salaries, Obama won just one.

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2...ducation-2012/

Repugs' demographic base is uneducated, rural, text-adoring, "Christian", low-paid, non-unionized, right-to-work.

[Wild Cobra]

uh?

I know.

It's over your head, and I don't feel like elaborating as it would take a few paragraphs.

[ElNono]

It's over your head, and I don't feel like elaborating as it would take a few paragraphs.

How does buying cheaper (iow: getting more for your dollars) diminishes the standard of living?

Sounds exactly the opposite.

[101A]

The problem with your scenario is that you're not starting with a blank slate. So, by not choosing a position you're effectively going forward with the status quo, which is actually in effect a position. This party also doesn't exist in a vacuum, so regardless of whether you proactively legislate on an issue, the issue will be brought to you by others. I suppose you can simply abstain in a legislative role, but that's not an option when you're the Chief Executive. Same theory applies for appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

I just don't see how you could realistically pull off the "I don't have a position on that" position and get elected to a post where you have to make decisions.

Individual candidates of the party are able to take positions themselves; the party would not include positions on certain personal choice issues in its platform, or make it a legislative agenda to enact them. For instance, again regarding abortion: It would not be in the party's platform to have Roe V. Wade overturned. It also wouldn't say: "We support a woman's right to choose".

I would think capital punishment would be another position left out of the platform. Candidates, however, are free to have their own opinions; but they would not be able to assume the backing of the rest of the party when they pushed for legislation on one of those issues.

As for supreme court judges, the platform would have a "no litmus test" clause, but not much else. I understand that we are hard wired to think in terms of "liberal judge" or "conservative judge"; I don't think it has to be that way.