One of the touchier issues candidates for office have to deal with is the interest group questionnaire - not the kind of questions that newspaper usually will ask, which generally allow for open-ended explanations, but rather the yes/no type: "Do you agree or disagree with this?"
Back when advising candidates, our usual counsel was: Don't answer those, even those of your allies. It's an invitation to allow other people to put words in your mouth. Better (even safer) to insist, generally, to explain your own views in your own way.
A mini-squall (just one of the most recent) in the Republican primary for the Idaho 1st U.S. House district concerns one of these surveys, this one issued by the Tea Party Boise. Some federal office candidates answered to the group's satisfaction, others partly or not at all. In all cases, what was asked was whether the candidate agreed with the statement presented, or was allowed to present a numerical score - no room for clarification or expansion allowed.
So what was asked? Some sample statements with which to agree, or not . . .
Mandate a force reduction of federal employees of 25% across the board, except for the military and Homeland Security
Return our currency to the gold standard
Eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Vote “NO” on any bill or measure that allows one state to gain
advantage over another
Immediately launch a full investigation of the payoffs, special
deals and outright bribes used by the President, Speaker and
Vote to repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution,
effectively returning the selection of U.S. Senators to the
individual state legislatures
Vote to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations
Vote to repeal the Hate Crimes Law
Vote “NO” on any bill that uses terms like “Social, Economic or
Environmental Justice” to justify the provisions of the bill
Our rights are granted by our Creator, NOT by men, or by the
Our progressive tax system needs to be replaced with a “fair,
“flat”, or “consumer” tax