Ultimate 2008 Presidential Candidate Matcher Result
It says I'm a McCainiac!?
This clearly can't be correct, as I am still not over his stances on immigration amnesty, McCain-Feingold, etc. I would have thought that of the four Republicans on the list, I would come out closer to Guiliani, but I guess I hedged to close to the conservative line on social issues for that. But why didn't they include Fred as a possibility?
Also, check out Mark Steyn's latest column for a discussion of the general problems with the GOP field. Why did he also fail to consider Thompson? Is he so far back that he's now irrelevant?
Anyway, go take the quiz yourselves, and see what it says...
UPDATE:
Well, I changed one response (on Civil Unions), and it came out in favor of Guiliani:
On the Roe v. Wade question, I punted both times--I responded that I didn't know whether it should be overturned. I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly reasoned, and I resent the Supreme Court acting like a super-legislature, which is what it did in Roe. But is the decision worth overturning based on the result and its history? On the merits of whether early-term abortions can be morally justified, or at least excused, in some circumstances, I generally think that they could be. So how would I feel about a state that outright banned the procedure? Well, I wouldn't support it, but wouldn't have much say over the matter, as I live in D.C. I couldn't even vote against the state representative that implemented the ban. I also think I would feel sympathetic to the rape or incest victim that lived in such a state. At the same time, however, I don't see how an outright ban offends the constitution as it was written (but for the Supreme Court so "discovering" that fact in 1973).
As for gay marriage: I don't think it's the law's place to even define what a marriage is. Marriage is a social and religious institution, and is defined by social forces and religious beliefs. In some areas, however, the Government has an obvious legitimate need to regulate or make rules regarding couples--such as with respect to child custody. Carrying this thinking to the logical conclusion, I would be aligned with Instapundit, who thinks that all couples--gay or straight--could apply to have a "civil union" recognized by the State, but that the State would get out of the business of issuing "marriage licenses" altogether.
My feelings on this matter, however, are not strong enough to influence my vote for President. Contrary to how many liberals feel, I do not think that extending marriage or civil unions to homosexual couples is somehow akin to overturning Jim Crow-era race restrictions on voting. In fact, I don't even think they are close. The former seeks to re-define the right at issue; the latter sought to extend the right at issue to a protected class. The rule that a person can marry exactly one other person of the opposite sex is facially non-discriminatory. It applies to all people the same. What the gay-marriage lobby wants to do is change the rule so that it would then provide that a person can marry exactly one other person, period. (But why not change the rule so that it's not limited to marrying just one other person? Why not let Hugh Hefner marry each of his three girlfriends? I'll leave that for a different post.) Anyway, whether one agrees with the change or not, one must recognize that its a different kind of change than prohibiting the extension of certain rights based on certain protected classes. So I don't see that modifying the rules on marriage in order to accomodate homosexuals rises to a moral imperative, even if I would support (or at least not oppose) a change in the policy.
Thus, my thinking on gay marriage is probably not going to sway who I back for President in 2008. There are too many other far more important issues. Thus, my waffling on the matter shouldn't be the deciding factor between backing McCain versus Guiliani. My thinking on immigration and campaign financing practically disqualifies McCain, though. I wish the matcher had recognized that...
| Ultimate 2008 Presidential Candidate Matcher Your Result: John McCain John McCain would continue Bush's foreign policy with little change, as he supports the war in Iraq and the larger war on terrorism. However, he is opposed to the use of torture. McCain is conservative on social issues, opposing civil unions for gays and abortion rights. He believes we must address the issue of global warming, and favors a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. | |
| Mitt Romney | |
| Rudy Guiliani | |
| Ron Paul | |
| John Edwards | |
| Barack Obama | |
| Hillary Clinton | |
| Dennis Kucinich | |
| Ultimate 2008 Presidential Candidate Matcher Take More Quizzes | |
This clearly can't be correct, as I am still not over his stances on immigration amnesty, McCain-Feingold, etc. I would have thought that of the four Republicans on the list, I would come out closer to Guiliani, but I guess I hedged to close to the conservative line on social issues for that. But why didn't they include Fred as a possibility?
Also, check out Mark Steyn's latest column for a discussion of the general problems with the GOP field. Why did he also fail to consider Thompson? Is he so far back that he's now irrelevant?
Anyway, go take the quiz yourselves, and see what it says...
UPDATE:
Well, I changed one response (on Civil Unions), and it came out in favor of Guiliani:
| Ultimate 2008 Presidential Candidate Matcher Your Result: Rudy Guiliani The former New York City mayor emphasizes his tough foreign policy stance. His primary issue is national security, and would continue to pursue Bush's war on terrorism. Guiliani is liberal on social issues, favoring civil unions for gays and abortion rights. He is more conservative on tax policy, healthcare, and social security. He wants to expand nuclear energy to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. | |
| John McCain | |
| Mitt Romney | |
| Ron Paul | |
| Hillary Clinton | |
| Barack Obama | |
| John Edwards | |
| Dennis Kucinich | |
| Ultimate 2008 Presidential Candidate Matcher Take More Quizzes | |
On the Roe v. Wade question, I punted both times--I responded that I didn't know whether it should be overturned. I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly reasoned, and I resent the Supreme Court acting like a super-legislature, which is what it did in Roe. But is the decision worth overturning based on the result and its history? On the merits of whether early-term abortions can be morally justified, or at least excused, in some circumstances, I generally think that they could be. So how would I feel about a state that outright banned the procedure? Well, I wouldn't support it, but wouldn't have much say over the matter, as I live in D.C. I couldn't even vote against the state representative that implemented the ban. I also think I would feel sympathetic to the rape or incest victim that lived in such a state. At the same time, however, I don't see how an outright ban offends the constitution as it was written (but for the Supreme Court so "discovering" that fact in 1973).
As for gay marriage: I don't think it's the law's place to even define what a marriage is. Marriage is a social and religious institution, and is defined by social forces and religious beliefs. In some areas, however, the Government has an obvious legitimate need to regulate or make rules regarding couples--such as with respect to child custody. Carrying this thinking to the logical conclusion, I would be aligned with Instapundit, who thinks that all couples--gay or straight--could apply to have a "civil union" recognized by the State, but that the State would get out of the business of issuing "marriage licenses" altogether.
My feelings on this matter, however, are not strong enough to influence my vote for President. Contrary to how many liberals feel, I do not think that extending marriage or civil unions to homosexual couples is somehow akin to overturning Jim Crow-era race restrictions on voting. In fact, I don't even think they are close. The former seeks to re-define the right at issue; the latter sought to extend the right at issue to a protected class. The rule that a person can marry exactly one other person of the opposite sex is facially non-discriminatory. It applies to all people the same. What the gay-marriage lobby wants to do is change the rule so that it would then provide that a person can marry exactly one other person, period. (But why not change the rule so that it's not limited to marrying just one other person? Why not let Hugh Hefner marry each of his three girlfriends? I'll leave that for a different post.) Anyway, whether one agrees with the change or not, one must recognize that its a different kind of change than prohibiting the extension of certain rights based on certain protected classes. So I don't see that modifying the rules on marriage in order to accomodate homosexuals rises to a moral imperative, even if I would support (or at least not oppose) a change in the policy.
Thus, my thinking on gay marriage is probably not going to sway who I back for President in 2008. There are too many other far more important issues. Thus, my waffling on the matter shouldn't be the deciding factor between backing McCain versus Guiliani. My thinking on immigration and campaign financing practically disqualifies McCain, though. I wish the matcher had recognized that...
posted by Tanker J.D. at 1:11 PM
1 Comments:
People should read this.
Post a Comment
<< Home