Hard-Core Me
I took this test today. Final score? At the bottom of the results page, I’m told that my “political philosophy is hard-core liberal.” WOOT!
Not only that, but my number one candidate match was … you guessed it, give it up for my favorite little munchkin … Dennis Kucinich! Of course, not really a candidate anymore. He’s dead in the water now, thanks to the MSM drowning pool, but it still made my dick hard. Matched him at 80%, I did. I’ll try to do even better the next time.
Second place runners up were a tie: Mike Gravel, another belly up casualty, and Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party. Cynthia I know little about, other than what I’ve read on her website. Must have missed the Green Party debates. My bad. She would be the total package, though … black and female! Two birds with one stone there.
Then I aligned with Obama, Clinton and Edwards, in that order. Thank God the Republican “ē”s were at the end of my list, with either single digit or zero percentage agreement scores. Romnē, Giulianē, and particularly Huckabē. I’d probably have had to slit my wrists otherwise.
Based on my most excellent answers, this is where I placed on the political chart. (I’d be interested to know others’ results. Anyone? Anyone? Click here to take the quiz in a separate window, then share your results. Inquiring minds want to know.)
presidential candidates, 2008 election, politics
January 28th, 2008 at 5:53 am
My score was mixed. I wasn’t surprised because although I consider myself a liberal, I’m not hardcore. For example, I don’t believe there should be gun control of any kind. I also don’t have a problem with the amount of my tax dollars that goes to defense. In fact, that’s the only issue I really had with Kucinich and why I wouldn’t have voted for him because he wanted to put less money in defense and put it into education (that was a run on sentence). I don’t agree with that. I realize that makes me a bad liberal. Don’t get me wrong, more money should be put into education but money shouldn’t be taken from our defense in order to do that.
Regular visitors here know my dislike for Ron Paul so it may come to a surprise that, according to this quiz, I’m a Libertarian-Leaning Liberal.
My Personal Score is 75%. This means I believe in tolerance for different people and lifestyles. That’s nice to know. Although I do wish my score was higher on this one.
My Economic Score is 32%. This means I supposedly believe that a good society is best achieved by the government redistributing wealth. I also supposedly believe that government’s purpose is to decide which programs are good for society, and how much should be spent on each program. I inserted supposedly because I don’t like the way this is defined. Just because I don’t want churches to be the distributor of welfare doesn’t mean that I believe the government should decide what programs are good for society. This is where this quiz pissed me off.
63% - Cynthia McKinney
58% - Dennis Kucinich
55% - Hillary Clinton
53% - Barack Obama
50% - Mike Gravel
50% - John Edwards
28% - Rudy Giuliani
25% - Ron Paul
25% - Fred Thompson
23% - John Cox
20% - Alan Keyes
18% - Duncan Hunter
18% - Mike Huckabee
18% - John McCain
13% - Mitt Romney
January 28th, 2008 at 6:13 am
On Rain’s blog, Diane mentioned that Coulter is a closeted lesbian and that could be the reason she spews hate because she doesn’t like that side of herself. (I’m paraphrasing)
Could it be the same with me and the Libertian party? Am I a closet Libertian? Is that why I diss Ron Paul whenever I can? Moreso than any other candidate?
No but wait…Paul comes in at 25%. Way below the Democratic candidates. I do dislike Paul! I do! Yeah!
January 28th, 2008 at 9:34 am
According to the test I’m a “Moderate Liberal.” I’m in favor of gun control, and the death penalty, but only in cases where children are the victims. The test said that Gravel is my ideal candidate LOL!
January 28th, 2008 at 9:38 am
I’d be for the death penatly in any case if the system was different.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I like Gravel a lot. My biggest issue with him is that he spoke the truth but never offered solutions. For example, when asked about health care he said that the US is broke. We can’t afford a universal health plan, regardless of what the rest of the Dems say.
I totally dug his response, but I would have like to see him take it a bit further. Such as in telling us how the government could cut costs so that we can afford it.
I used health care as an example, but I’m not convinced that universal health care is the way to go.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I don’t really remember where Gravel stands on most of the issues. How many debates did he participate in?
January 28th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
He participated in the early debates, not the recent ones on the networks. Though it’s useless now, you can learn about his views here: http://debates.news.yahoo.com/. Actually, the link is still useful because it provides a refresher on where the D candidates stand on the issues. Each candidate speaks without getting interrupted.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
little navigator - “(that was a run on sentence)” What would Linda think? :-)Anyway … questions. Why are you against gun control “of any kind?” Also, you’d be for the death penalty in any case if the system was different. Different how? Just curious. I agree with you about Gravel, btw.
rainlillie - I too am for gun control. I’m totally against the death penalty regardless of the circumstances.
Fun getting to learn more and more …
January 28th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
“Why are you against gun control “of any kind??
Because I’m so Libertian that way. HELP ME!
I guess I went overboard on my “of any kind” statement. I’m fine with gun owners needing permits and having background checks enforced (this includes buying guns at a show). But as long as gun owners have permits they should be allowed to own any type of gun they want. Even those heavy duty ones (I don’t know the names).
“Also, you’d be for the death penalty in any case if the system was different. Different how?”
Different in that an innocent person is never sentenced to death. Since that is impossible, I’m against the death penalty.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Well, Doug, no surprise with me — I am a hard-core liberal. My personal score was 92% and my economic score was 8%.
I believe in democracy (with protection for minority rights) and that our government only receives its authority from “we the people.” That is one reason I have been so vocal in my displeasure with this fascist-leaning administration.
I do believe in personal responsibility — for those who are able to be responsible! I believe our government should help and protect children, the elderly, and those who are handicapped. I believe that to whom much is given, much should be expected. For that reason, I believe in progressive taxation and that the tax cuts for the wealthy have only enabled them to get bigger and bigger slices of the pie while leaving fewer and fewer crumbs for everyone else.
I believe in absolute freedom of religious belief, but feel that sometimes the government must step in when religious beliefs may lead to actions harmful to others. I am glad our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to leave religious tests for office holders out of the Constitution, thus I abhor the politicization of religion.
Oh, and I believe it is the absolute height of stupidity and hypocrisy when conservatives howl that liberals believe in a nanny-state when it is they who want the government to decide for us that it is in our best interest to remove another nation’s leaders, that a woman must carry a pregnancy to term, that schools should teach family or religious values, or that the government needs to oversee our private conversations or private sexual conduct.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
“I believe that to whom much is given, much should be expected.”
I have more than the average person and nothing was given to me. I busted my ass to ensure that I…well, I’ll sound show offy if I go further. But please know that nothing was given to me. In fact, most women aren’t handed anything. We start our own businesses from scratch while men inherent the businesses they own.
That said, I don’t mind paying my share of taxes.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
little navigator - Now, now … nothing wrong with being a bit of a Libertarian. I believe a few months ago I actually wrote something about planning to register as one because of my disappointment in both the Reps and Dems. But thanks for ’splainin’ yourself.
Doug - Dang. Please throw your hat into the ring next time around, ‘kay? I’ll even be your campaign manager!
January 28th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
“nothing wrong with being a bit of a Libertarian.”
but according to the quiz i’m a Libertarian, not just a bit. The thing is that when I read the Libertarian agenda, I agree with just about everything. That said, I realize that there is a big difference btwn the written word and actual policy.
Same as Doug B, I also believe in personal responsibility. But in the end I hold myself at a higher standard than the rest of the country.
January 28th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
little navigator,
I understand your point. I’ve worked hard for what little I have too. When I was younger and able I often worked two jobs. Now I work one job, long hours.
But what I had in mind when I made the “to whom much is given” remark (and actually I was paraphrasing Jesus) was moral responsibility. I wasn’t at all thinking of wealth redistribution. I was thinking about how some of us were given more talent and aptitude than our fellow travelers. Some of us were born of healthier stock and are better able to work hard and succeed. And all Americans have a country of great opportunities for those willing and able to apply themselves. Basically, I meant the stronger should help protect the weaker as a moral obligation. Those with more bear greater responsibility than those with less.
I believe that it is harder for a poor person barely getting by to pay taxes than it is for rich person who can afford tax shelters. More poor people with little or no health insurance die from undiagnosed and untreated illnesses than do rich people. I believe it is obscene for CEOs to sit on their fatcat a$$e$ and rake in 262 times the salary of the average worker, when the companies they oversee are less and less inclined to pay their hourly employees competitive wages, or provide for them pension plans and affordable health insurance. What conservatives call “wealth redistribution” I think of as leveling the playing field. (Did you see my latest blog post on Republican economics?)
In short — whether we believe in God or simply nature — some of us were “given” more than others to begin with. Does that good fortune or blessing obligate us to those with less? I feel the answer is yes.
January 28th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
I’ve had people in my family murdered, but I never wanted the killers executed. I just don’t see any point in letting someone who takes a child’s life live.
I know there are flaws in the system, but if someone confesses and the evidence is overwhelming, I would support the death penalty in that case.
January 28th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
“I believe in absolute freedom of religious belief, but feel that sometimes the government must step in when religious beliefs may lead to actions harmful to others.”
ITA!
January 28th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I realize you were paraphasing the supposed words of Jesus. It’s a tired old phrase I get tired of hearing.
I disagree with the majority of your post. I don’t mind CEO and their fat paychecks and bonuses. Nor do I believe that a company should be obligated to provide pension plans and such. Those are perks.
Do I feel a sense of moral responsiblity to those who have less? Yes. But do I feel that our “good fortune” obligates us to those who have less? No.
The government does, and should provide, for those who have less than. But I see it more of a public safety issue rather than a moral issue.
I don’t think that morality should be regulated.
January 28th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
“I realize you were paraphasing the supposed words of Jesus. It’s a tired old phrase I get tired of hearing.”
Wow, Doug B. That was rude. My apologies.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
little navigator,
Your insights and criticisms are most welcomed by me. We often will not see eye to eye on things because of our different perspectives … and I guess we just disagree a bit on this one. So I will leave it there. And no more tired old phrases from me (this time). Take care.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:25 am
Too many Dougs. Bygones. I should vote for Hillary, damn this test, I was set on Obama.
Ha ha, gay/libertarian closet, scary stuff those closed doors. If the test had shown I was a Romney chip, I think I would have decided guns were ok and blown my brains out.
Guns-no. Hang em high swing em low…can’t go there and YET if I had a gun in my hand and a person were about to kill an innocent bystander or my beloved, BANG. No hesitation. And no idea what that says about me. My views have not changed…well, ever. And we all have much of something to give, even if it is only the opportunity for another person’s chnace to give.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:52 am
DJ -
“Guns-no.” Obviously I agree.
“Hang em high swing em low…can’t go there …” Ditto.
“and YET if I had a gun in my hand and a person were about to kill an innocent bystander or my beloved, BANG. No hesitation.” Whoa, I get you there, too, but like you said, I have no idea what that says about me. My opinions haven’t changed and won’t ever, either, but that would be a tough one. Fortunately, not having a gun I wouldn’t have to make that decision.
But I’d bet I could smash a skull like a melon with a baseball bat. Don’t know what I’d do. Maybe just bunt, and not go for the homerun.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:59 am
[...] a vegetarian who writes about current events, found a good online quiz that ranks your views and opinions in comparison with the candidates. It is one of the best of [...]