Here's the deal. Imagine you are a National Security/Foreign Policy consultant for a Dem challenger in a purplish district, facing a three term (R) incumbent, a Mean Jean Schmidt rubber stamp type.
Your guy is a veteran, finance lawyer, school board and town council type. Low name recognition, but good positives, no negatives except he's only lived in the district for 15 years-dang newcomers. Cash on hand is about 50% of incumbent.
The district is composed of an fast growing exurbia of a major metropolitan center with a largely rural section.
They are debating tonight
You expect a plant question about how would your candidate would vote on a resolution for demanding an immediate cease fire and negotiations with all parties in the Levant crisis. You've advised him to mush-mouth it with an artfully crafted, platitudinous dodge/straddle (if I do say so myself), but he's pushing back. Wants to appear "decisive". Whatta nut. You expecct the question to be very focused in the IMMEDIATE response to the crisis, not historicity of the genesis of the crisis, not long term fixes, or the justness/injustice of any of the aggrieved parties.
What do you do?
NB: I know there are many I/P diaries, but implicit in many of the comments is a strong normative thread of what a progressive/dem should think or do. That supporting one side of the issue or the other risks harm to the party, and urge neutrality. But neutrality necessarily advantages one side. And there is a meta-thread in here, too. it is a question of who we are and what we stand for. Would love to hear your thoughts