Q:

7 Essential Questions - Temporary Moderators

As per the Moderator Pro Tempore blog post, after about a week SE looks for temporary moderators for new sites to help with the development of the community and to act as a liaison between the community and SE.
The recommendations for requirements from that blog post are:

Have a reasonably high reputation score to indicate active, consistent
  participation. 
Show an interest in their meta’s community-building
  activities. 
Lead by example, showing patience and respect for their
  fellow community members in everything they write. 
Exhibit those intangible traits discussed in A Theory of Moderation.

It's also useful that you have the time to spare for the role, as participation is expected (hoped!) to increase once we are into public beta, and you will be expected to be completely unbiased while fulfilling your moderation duties.
Remember that these positions are only for the duration of the beta, at which point the community should be strong enough to handle full elections.
Anyone within the community is welcome to nominate themselves or others, though please make sure you read the blog post in full beforehand.
For examples of what nominations can look like, take a look at this question from the Raspberry Pi Meta which was posted when that site was at the same stage.
Note: No answer will be chosen on this question at any time. After appointment, the question will be closed.

A:

I'm throwing my straw fedora in the ring.

 

 
profile for Yannis Rizos on Stack Exchange, a network of free, community-driven Q&A sites http://stackexchange.com/users/flair/35162.png

I've been moderating Programmers, a graduate Stack Exchange site, for about 10 months now, and I'm quite familiar with the tools and should I be appointed, I'd be ready to moderate the site from day one.
That's about it, if you are interested in learning more about me, feel free to ping me in our chat room. 

A:

profile for Affable Geek on Stack Exchange, a network of free, community-driven Q&A sites http://stackexchange.com/users/flair/45534.png

Christianity.SE and Politics.SE are both topics that devolve very quickly into "He said / She Said" chauvinistic mudfights.
That said, at least on C.SE, I've shown that one can have an opinion, but still discuss it critically.  I'd like to believe that:

my deep knowledge of political theory (I was an econ / public policy double major at William and Mary, plus I worked on Capitol Hill) 
as well my experience on what probably should be the other most contentious SE (I'm the highest rep guy there)
and finally, the fact that I was able to pastor a very, very liberal church, all the while being a secret conservative*
*Note: I am not a religious zealot, and I do not seek to convert anyone to my religion.  I see it as rules that other people get to impose on me!

shows that I have the skills and ability to add to this site's success.
Way, way back in College (more than half a lifetime ago now!) I was a Voter Registrar in my state. I signed people up to vote, and encouraged them to have their voices heard. Twenty years on, I still care far less about where people fall on any given issue, then whether or not they are actively thinking about it and exercising their voices on the matter.
My theory is moderation is modelled on that idea

Close Votes should be used for spam and wildly off-topic things.
Even "off-the-wall" questions can be salvaged (I'll get that Reversal badge yet!)
Good questions make good answers easier, but even a lesser-informed question can make for a great answer on occassion.

My vision for this site is simple:

It is a place where people come to get facts and not opinions about politics.
It is a place where dispassionate analysis fuels passion about life, government, and thinking about how society can best organize itself.

Early on, I put forward a pretty good definition of what politics is in order to define what's on topic (Politics is the end result of conflicting egos working themselves out over matters of policy - This means analyses of egos, rules, and policy are all on topic.)
And, finally, I believe that moderation is a balance between encouraging people to communicate, all the while keeping them objective and coherent.

A:

My platform for this site would be to help the community graduate by being respectful, knowledgeable, interesting and fun. There are already many great contributors here, and I would simply love to have the opportunity to help this site!

(source: stackexchange.com) 

I really, really like politics, but I don't have any affiliation. I am not right leaning or left leaning... I am very curious about it, and about how the world works from that point of view. I am a rational, scientifically-oriented person and I tend to have strong opinions, weakly held.
I will bring an open and curious attitude to the site.
I am an elected moderator on Skeptics, so I have valuable experience to help a community build itself from beta to graduation - especially on a subjective topic like politics. 
I can help to keep in check the various pitfalls a subjective site can fall into: arguing, hostility, etc.
I am also a high rep users in the sites where I participate (26k on skeptics, 11k on stackoverflow, 5k on physics). 
While I am a noob now, I do intend to earn a high rep position anyways.

To the community that knows me from Skeptics: this site is different from skeptics, and I will not badger people with requests for references nor I do intend being very hands on like I am on skeptics. Different sites have different needs. It will be up to us to decide what standards we want, and I will stand for them.

