http://www.dispatch.com/election/el.../election/questionaire.php&race=president2004 Funny...I agreed with Libertarians on just about everything I didn't find important. On the important things, I tended to disagree. The nice thing about this one for Ohio voters is that you can drill down to the Senate and Statehouse race level.
A much more election-specific survey than the other one which was more broadly arrayed to find your general political leanings. I did object to this question though: 21. The federal government should forbid the creation of new stem-cell lines for biomedical research. It is simply Democrat Party propaganda that this is an issue. The Bush administration has no objection to the creation of all the stem cell lines anybody could want. They have simply said that the US taxpayer is not going to fund it. Private R & D money is flowing into this research like water over Niagara Falls. As a result, the answer to this question tells them nothing about which candidate you agree with. To be relevant, the question needs to ask "Should the research-based creation of new stem cell lines be financed by the American taxpayer?" Bet you'd get a very different answer. Of course, as I said, this is exactly what Kerry wants everyone to THINK the question is. 300 Badnarik 1,750 Bush 50 Kerry 700 Peroutka The funny thing is that (and it's something that the PoliForum slobbering idiots couldn't possibly fathom) I am a very liberal Republican - a "Rockefeller Republican" if that phrase has any meaning left. And George Bush is a very Liberal Republican, something which Democrats simply don't have the political sophistication to understand. (To them, there are two kinds of politics: theirs, and satans'.) So I'm probably more of a Bush guy than most so-called "conservatives".
bush 1,100 kerry 150 badnarik 300 peroutka 700 but where was Nader? on kerry's positions listed, some of them are "disagree somewhat" so it isn't clear cut. also Bush has said there should be a palestinian state yet they have him disagreeing on this pol1. Also I can not converse with Bill Archer anymore since he is a liberal.
Good question as to where Nader was. I don't recall the exact scores, but mine was like: bush 1,200 kerry 400 badnarik 250 peroutka 200 What I really thought was interesting (and I never looked at the results of the questions) was Senate: Fingerhut 450 Voinovich 500 I have to go back and really look at that. But I was happy with my state rep in district 15, where Pryce got a score of 1800. After thinking about the answers to #21, I have to agree with Bill. The answers they provide is bunk.
bush 1,850 kerry 0 badnarik 400 peroutka 700 I thought that I leaned a little more to the left... however, I guess I was wrong! Looking at the positions, it appears that the school waivers, flat income tax rate, and the redirection of SS to privite retirment funds sunk me on Kerry's list. Maybe I am confused as to the Republican stance on stem cell research. It was my understanding that Bush, et al., severly placed restrictions onto the type of strains (or paths, or whatever) that can be used. In effect "banning" a lot of meaningful research. I just find it hard to beleive that private industry would not be chomping at the bit in order to expand knowledge in this direction.
I beleive that the message is getting screwed up by the left on this one. The people who are clamoring for the stem cells are in academics. Whenever you hear someone wanting them, it's academics. The left says Bush is banning it...no, he doesn't support the gov't getting involved in this. Would prefer it come from the private sector. The private sector isn't getting involved. Now why is that? That's the question everyone should be asking on this issue, but no one is. I have a personal ax to grind with this, because (as some of you know..read my blog or search further down on abortion for history), I had a loss earlier this year where we were never offered remains, or the ability to donate remains for scientific research. And we were at an academic facility. You would think that the academics would be eager to accept a donation...yet they didn't ask, didn't even give us a way to donate through private firms And that really, really bugs me. Because my wife and I were not in the state of mind to think clearly and do that kind of research. Anyway, that was way off topic...but for academics to complain and not take donations for research from willing parties is unacceptable.
Bush 1,650 Kerry -450 Badnarik 150 Peroutka 2,050 I'm a better Republican than all of you because I obviously hate Kerry the most!
It's my understanding, from certain medical professionals with whom I converse, that this entire stem cell deal is way, way, overblown. For one thing, the vast majority of the professionals are very skeptical about the whole "repair spinal injury" meme. It was one of the things that got tossed into the pot when academic types started demanding (they never ask anymore, do they?) that the government give them hundreds of millions of dollars. They put together a somewhat fantastic "laundry list" of stuff they felt could be cured, everything from cancer to leukemia to the heartbreak of psoriasis. Most of it was purely pie in the sky off the top of your head speculation with ABSOLUTELY NO basis in fact. When the Democrats decided it might be a good issue to tell lies about, they resurrected this list and proceeded to claim that the cure to every disease and affliction known to man was a few weeks away, except that George Bush and the Christians (GASP!!) were against it. It's all poppycock. Nobody outside of a few research labs has a clue about any of thiis. It's just Kedwards demagoguery, as if we neede dmore of that.
See, I disagree here. Just because the Democrats say that anybody who has any points of agreement with the President is a far-right automaton doesn't make it true. Bush is, and has been, a much more liberal President than they have stopped hating him long enough to notice. Hell, I can make a good case that he's been a LOT more liberal than Clinton was, except that Slick's rhetoric was obviously leftist. The left doesn't disagree with Bush on policy; they hate him personally. Oh, they make up stuff, but it's all just hindsight and nit picking and stupid sh!t. Between prescription drugs and NCLB, which the libs wrote (and which they now lie about and say that it isn't "funded" which is just not true and they know it) he's done more for their aganda than Clinton ever did. And they can whine about the Patriot Act, but they can't point to one damn thing which is abusive or one single person whose rights have been trampled.
Bush - 1350 Kerry - 100 Peroutka - 700 Badnarik - 200 However, they neglected to ask me a couple of questions that I rate in very high importance - 1 - it is very important to not reward failure (subtracts 700 points from Bush) 2 - it is very important for a woman to be adept at oral sex - Adds 750 to the personal choice party Marilyn Chambers - 750 and the write-in winner. Too bad Traci Lords isn't running, she has an even more impressive array of high-priority features.
President Bush - 1,450 Peroutka dude - 1,100 Senator Kerry - 650 Badnarik (not to be confused with Bednarik, the football player) - 50. I don't know how the Peroutka deals come up, didn't study his responses. The Bush-Kerry difference is about what I thought it would be. Kerry's response of "Strongly disagree" to the statement: "17. The United States should take military action only with the support of multinational organizations such as the United Nations," somewhat confused me. In that it's the same as mine and the same as President Bush's. Of note, I had a lot of "somewhats" either way, and a few issues that I didn't put much importance on, as well.