Presidential Selection! In 2007!
Bah. GMail mangles .txt attachments by refusing to allow them to be downloaded or shown- even worse than how they used to do it. Even worse, they cut them off if they're too long. Sure, you can still see the end parts via "view original source..." if you don't mind having the characters with email escapes and enforced 80 character limits in them. Bah.
So instead of the email I sent myself, here's a random presidential selector from the magic of the Interweb. Check it out at http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html .... though I'd be curious as to where they got the positions for each candidate, as some of the candidates "stated" positions are unclear on some points or different from a widely suspected "actual" opinion.
1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Kent McManigal (65%) Click here for info
3. Mitt Romney (58%) Click here for info
4. Rudolph Giuliani (55%) Click here for info
5. Ron Paul (54%) Click here for info
6. John McCain (52%) Click here for info
7. Dennis Kucinich (51%) Click here for info
8. Newt Gingrich (51%) Click here for info
9. Barack Obama (50%) Click here for info
10. Joseph Biden (50%) Click here for info
11. Al Gore (50%) Click here for info
12. Bill Richardson (50%) Click here for info
13. Hillary Clinton (50%) Click here for info
14. Christopher Dodd (48%) Click here for info
15. Chuck Hagel (46%) Click here for info
16. Mike Gravel (45%) Click here for info
17. Mike Huckabee (44%) Click here for info
18. Wesley Clark (44%) Click here for info
19. Sam Brownback (43%) Click here for info
20. Fred Thompson (41%) Click here for info
21. Tommy Thompson (41%) Click here for info
22. Tom Tancredo (39%) Click here for info
23. John Edwards (37%) Click here for info
24. Duncan Hunter (31%) Click here for info
25. Jim Gilmore (27%) Click here for info
26. Elaine Brown (19%) Click here for info
Congratulations Kent, never knew of your existence before now. Otherwise, an unhelpful flatline from 40-55% or so. And Mitt Romney #2? My least favorite of the 6-7 serious candidates, a big government conservative of the Bush Jr. mold who either is blatantly pandering with his immigration nonsense chatter or is nuts? Right. (Also, Ron Paul was on the Colbert Report yesterday. Fun.)
Also, Tom Tancredo not getting negative points makes me sad. The "immigration" and "environment" issues needed a super-high priority option compared to the others, at least for me. A few question comments:
2. What would be your ideal candidate's position on LEAVING IRAQ?
*Would support President Bush's policy of no time line for withdrawal in Iraq.
*Would support a deadline for withdrawal in Iraq.
Is there an option for "eventually leave Iraq but don't be an idiot and blab the date and details about when we do it?" I guess that's number 1, but eh.
4. What would be your ideal candidate's position on SOCIAL SECURITY?
*Would work to make it solvent, possibly raising the earnings ceiling and/or the retirement age, etc.
*Would consider other options, including privatization.
*Neither
What, you can't do both (ideally)? Also, seems to be missing the popular "look away and pretend it won't be a problem" view held by most candidates. One of the few things I give GWB for was attempting to tackle Social Security, and we all know how well that went. Brave, but doomed.
7. What would be your ideal candidate's position on GAY & LESBIAN ISSUES?
Not really a prez issue (at least the marriage options presented; don't ask, don't tell would be relevant). The Defense of Marriage act already passed, which is about as far as the Prez & Congress can go with regards to this issue. (Actually farther, since it seems to abrogate the "full faith & credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution). This should be 100% a state issue. Everything else is up to the states and the courts - I guess the President can lend his prestige to suggest a Constitutional Amendment, but that didn't work with Bush, and the President is technically irrelevant to this anyway.
For what it's worth, policy-wise I suspect my candidate is Hillary. This is especially true if her recent swing to the left is the expected posturing for the primary (though WTF was up with her supporting the flag burning amendment 2 or so years back?). I like Obama, but he's the quintessential vice-presidential candidate, and he said himself that he'd like more time to learn the business of governing. He may well make a great president, but is it too early to tell? John Edwards is the one I agree with least of the Dems, but he's also easily the most electable. If the Republicans can't hold Southern-border states like Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia, their electoral math quite simply doesn't add up, and Edwards puts those states in play (which Obama & Hillary would have a much tougher time taking). If he'd won the primary in 2004, we'd have President Edwards right now. Three strong candidates, I think.
As for the Republicans... well, all I'll say is that if Giuliani gets the nod but doesn't win, the Republican party may well be stuck with pro-life candidates for a long time in the future. See, God didn't approve when you broke faith and nommed a pro-choice candidate. They can say "See, we tried, and it didn't work." Bah. (And I'm not even that fervently pro-choice, but I think diversity of opinion on that issue in both parties is healthy.)
So instead of the email I sent myself, here's a random presidential selector from the magic of the Interweb. Check it out at http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html .... though I'd be curious as to where they got the positions for each candidate, as some of the candidates "stated" positions are unclear on some points or different from a widely suspected "actual" opinion.
1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Kent McManigal (65%) Click here for info
3. Mitt Romney (58%) Click here for info
4. Rudolph Giuliani (55%) Click here for info
5. Ron Paul (54%) Click here for info
6. John McCain (52%) Click here for info
7. Dennis Kucinich (51%) Click here for info
8. Newt Gingrich (51%) Click here for info
9. Barack Obama (50%) Click here for info
10. Joseph Biden (50%) Click here for info
11. Al Gore (50%) Click here for info
12. Bill Richardson (50%) Click here for info
13. Hillary Clinton (50%) Click here for info
14. Christopher Dodd (48%) Click here for info
15. Chuck Hagel (46%) Click here for info
16. Mike Gravel (45%) Click here for info
17. Mike Huckabee (44%) Click here for info
18. Wesley Clark (44%) Click here for info
19. Sam Brownback (43%) Click here for info
20. Fred Thompson (41%) Click here for info
21. Tommy Thompson (41%) Click here for info
22. Tom Tancredo (39%) Click here for info
23. John Edwards (37%) Click here for info
24. Duncan Hunter (31%) Click here for info
25. Jim Gilmore (27%) Click here for info
26. Elaine Brown (19%) Click here for info
Congratulations Kent, never knew of your existence before now. Otherwise, an unhelpful flatline from 40-55% or so. And Mitt Romney #2? My least favorite of the 6-7 serious candidates, a big government conservative of the Bush Jr. mold who either is blatantly pandering with his immigration nonsense chatter or is nuts? Right. (Also, Ron Paul was on the Colbert Report yesterday. Fun.)
Also, Tom Tancredo not getting negative points makes me sad. The "immigration" and "environment" issues needed a super-high priority option compared to the others, at least for me. A few question comments:
2. What would be your ideal candidate's position on LEAVING IRAQ?
*Would support President Bush's policy of no time line for withdrawal in Iraq.
*Would support a deadline for withdrawal in Iraq.
Is there an option for "eventually leave Iraq but don't be an idiot and blab the date and details about when we do it?" I guess that's number 1, but eh.
4. What would be your ideal candidate's position on SOCIAL SECURITY?
*Would work to make it solvent, possibly raising the earnings ceiling and/or the retirement age, etc.
*Would consider other options, including privatization.
*Neither
What, you can't do both (ideally)? Also, seems to be missing the popular "look away and pretend it won't be a problem" view held by most candidates. One of the few things I give GWB for was attempting to tackle Social Security, and we all know how well that went. Brave, but doomed.
7. What would be your ideal candidate's position on GAY & LESBIAN ISSUES?
Not really a prez issue (at least the marriage options presented; don't ask, don't tell would be relevant). The Defense of Marriage act already passed, which is about as far as the Prez & Congress can go with regards to this issue. (Actually farther, since it seems to abrogate the "full faith & credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution). This should be 100% a state issue. Everything else is up to the states and the courts - I guess the President can lend his prestige to suggest a Constitutional Amendment, but that didn't work with Bush, and the President is technically irrelevant to this anyway.
For what it's worth, policy-wise I suspect my candidate is Hillary. This is especially true if her recent swing to the left is the expected posturing for the primary (though WTF was up with her supporting the flag burning amendment 2 or so years back?). I like Obama, but he's the quintessential vice-presidential candidate, and he said himself that he'd like more time to learn the business of governing. He may well make a great president, but is it too early to tell? John Edwards is the one I agree with least of the Dems, but he's also easily the most electable. If the Republicans can't hold Southern-border states like Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia, their electoral math quite simply doesn't add up, and Edwards puts those states in play (which Obama & Hillary would have a much tougher time taking). If he'd won the primary in 2004, we'd have President Edwards right now. Three strong candidates, I think.
As for the Republicans... well, all I'll say is that if Giuliani gets the nod but doesn't win, the Republican party may well be stuck with pro-life candidates for a long time in the future. See, God didn't approve when you broke faith and nommed a pro-choice candidate. They can say "See, we tried, and it didn't work." Bah. (And I'm not even that fervently pro-choice, but I think diversity of opinion on that issue in both parties is healthy.)