Should we all just get along?

Goodness knows, it's easy to be disgusted with both political parties these days, but nonetheless I can't help thinking that the Unity Ticket movement is heading in the wrong direction. Unity08 has the goal of running a ticket with one Democrat and one Republican running on the "crucial issues" facing America today. Here's their statement of beliefs:

Unity08 divides issues facing the country into two categories: Crucial Issues – on which America’s future safety and welfare depend; and Important Issues – which, while vital to some, will not, in our judgment, determine the fate or future of the United States.

In our opinion, Crucial Issues include: Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.

By contrast, we consider gun control, abortion and gay marriage important issues, worthy of debate and discussion in a free society, but not issues that should dominate or even crowd our national agenda.

In our opinion – since the disintegration of the Soviet Union – our political system seems to have focused more attention on the "important issues" than the "crucial issues." One result: The political parties have been built to address the interests of their "base" but have failed to address the realities that impact most Americans.

Now, I suppose one of the things that marks me as a hard core conservative is that just about any attempt to "capture the center" always strikes me as an attempt to move us to the left. (Heck, on most issues the compromises we're told we should make to maintain the Republican majority strike me as often trending left, so there's no way that a 50/50 coallition is going to do better in my book.)

But is it just me or do some of their "important" vs. "critical" distinctions seem a little odd? Or instance, if either side is right about abortion, allowing the other side any ground is unacceptable. If it's murder, it should be ended. If it's like having a wart removed, there should be no restrictions. I don't see the point of a "unity" approach on this.

And how the heck does global climate change end up on the "critical" list?