More Huckabee love

Barack Obama for me. Agreement score of 60%

Ugh. These polls ALWAYS misrepresent Paul's positions. Why is that? I scored a 77% agreement score with Ron Paul, but it turns out it would actually be *higher* if they just represented him correctly.

For example, it says Ron Paul is for repealing the income tax and replacing it with a Fair Tax. While he's said he wouldn't veto that legislation if it passed his desk, he's also been very clear that he wants to eliminate the Income Tax and replace it with NOTHING. Income tax revenues account for a little more than a third of our federal spending. Reducing spending by a third would bring us down to the level of expenditures we had in 2000. Does anyone honestly believe we can't reduce spending back to year 2000 levels?

I've taken other polls that say Paul would put us back on the gold standard when he's been quite explicit that he simply wants to return gold and silver to their constitutional place as legal tender (by removing taxes and regulations governing their use) and allow them to compete with the dollar freely. That's very different than a cart-blanche return to the gold standard.

The same thing goes with his desire to eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank. He's said he doesn't like it and in a truly free market we wouldn't need it or want it, but he knows it's not realistic to dismantle the Fed in one night (or even one term as President).

Paul often talks about the ideal as something to strive for, but he always tempers it with practical, realistic talk about steps we can take in the right direction. A Paul presidency wouldn't accomplish much in terms of reaching his ideals (aside from perhaps restoring the openness of the executive branch and bringing the troops home), but it would certainly shift the debate enough that the political pendulum might just start swinging back in a smaller-government, freedom-loving direction as politicians wake up to the fact that they've lost their constituencies.

Oh, yes, and I'm also for not picking candidates by who you'd like to have a beer with. We have too much style over substance without having pundits encouraging it.

Of course I got Kucinich (70) -- sigh. (My actual candidate is Obama.)

The problem with these questions is that they are black-and-white. You're not allowed to say, "Yes, BUT ..."

Yes, I'm liberal, in fact quite liberal, but IMHO in a nuanced way that puts me in the middle of the free-fire zone between not only Republicans/conservatives but also DailyKos/MoveOn-type Dems.

Ron Paul at 67%.

Giuliani 77%

For some reason I'm not surprised. And I'm still convinced that a race between him and Hillary would be characterized by a loud screeching noise followed by a squish as he crushes her like a large, loud and obnoxious insect.

Huckabee compared the denial of public services for illegal aliens to the denial of voting rights for black citizens. He said the open approval of mass immigration was a second chance for Arkansans to prove they're not as racist as the civil rights era suggested. And he said flatly that restriction of public subsidy of illegals "inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there's a real problem. But there's not."

If he's seen the light on immigration, the change would be dramatic enough as to be unmissable. He clearly hasn't.

Guiliani. But I'm voting for Paul in the primary.

I'm sorry-Huckabee is lost on me. He shares more than a little with fellow Hopeful, Arkansasan Clinton. To say as he does that immigration opponents are racist is simply wrong. It's cavalier and unthinking. He really thinks he knows better. And if he cannot see as much on that issue, what other issues will he try to triangulate? Probably all of them.

What I like about Paul is that he really does cut through the haze. Huckabee's "honor" stupidity would have us In Iraq indefinitely.
And note-I refer to "honor" as Huckabee did, which is an open, indefinite and never-ending commitment in Iraq rather than it's common meaning. I would say so far Huckabee,Romney and Obama have all demmonstrated a scary dangerous propensity to pander and say anything.Hillary Clinton is an category all her own, sort of like being bronzed for the Hall of Fame, in this regard. Have we learned nothing in the last 16 years?

Dear God, I matched with John McCain - 60 percent. That was not a result that I expected. I'm for Huckabee.

Wow, I'm 80% Noam Chomsky...

I've been for Ron Paul, but I was surprised to find that we agreed 87%. I'll have to send a small donation. ..all I can afford is small.

Sheesh, I was 63% Ron Paul. Didn't see that one coming.

I try not to comment endlessly here about how wrong I think you are on the war, Rod, but sometimes your leanings just mystify me. You admit that Huckabee is "wrong" on Iraq, but you snipe at McCain:

"a President Huckabee would be a lot more sensible than, heaven help us, a President McCain. Huck is vague on policy, but big on character."

Where to begin? Is McCain "small on character"? Compared to who? As for "sensible" policies, here's a guy who served honorably in the military, and who now wants to lead us in a time of war. A guy who doesn't like pork spending (what a lack of character1; how un-crunchy-con!). A guy who doesn't like unfettered spending on political campaigns.

And you impugn him? What's with you?

If anyone is still reading this thread, Huckabee's character might be apparent here, where he reveals a crusader's zeal for immigration. He is quoted as follows:

"For decades, we treated our state's African-American population poorly. The Hispanic influx gives us a second chance to prove what kind of people we really are.

I think frankly the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before."

That's the kind of liberal-Christian PC blather you can come to expect from Huckabee. Coming from yet another pol who thinks the Lord speaks through him. Haven't we already had one too many of those lately?