This Conservative Barely Agrees with the GOP

I am a staunch conservative. Not a crazy conservative, but an ideologically consistent one. And the GOP candidate I agree with most is Ron Paul. And I don’t really agree with him on foreign policy. That’s a problem.

I also agree with Barack Obama as much as I do with Michelle Bachmann. Awesome.

Take the quiz yourself at USATODAY and post your results below.


19 thoughts on “This Conservative Barely Agrees with the GOP

  1. Thanks for the quiz – very interesting. I had a three way tie with Bachmann, Paul, and Santorum at 60.1%. It seems at the bottom was Obama and Romney (tied). The middle tier had another tie between Perry and Gingrich.

    I gather from this I’m a conservative libertarian. It was very insightful on helping to understand how each candidate compares to my personal views.

  2. Ha-ha. I got Gingrich, Paul and Bachmann. No question about Iran or abortion? I guess that’s the kind of issues that don’t matter to Republican primary voters. This quiz says more about USA Today than about me.

  3. Well … It’s a cool idea, but I guess if it was this simple, we wouldn’t really need the process at all! lol Like you, I’m very Conservative and came up #1 Paul – NO WAY! lol I’m a Santorum supporter!

  4. 1)Romney
    Pretty good indicator of where I stand, but I would have a lot of trouble voting for Romney. I didn’t like him last time and don’t this time, but if it comes down to him or Obama, I would do it in a heartbeat!

  5. Ha ha! My #1 was also Ron Paul, and #2 is Rick Perry. This doesn’t surprise me in the least. I have that same problem with Ron Paul’s foreign policy statements, which seem unrealistically respectful of horrible regimes. But I’m almost to the point where I don’t care. Wouldn’t a stable economy be the first step towards a strong foreign policy and security anyway?

    And yeah, my agreement with Obama and ALL the rest came out equal, LOL. Not that agreeing with past statements of Obama means anything, since his statements have an expiration date of about 24 hours.

    thanks for the fun quiz!

    1. You’re welcome. I’ll try to find some more fun stuff for people to do from time to time, if I can.

      By the way, I hope people aren’t too disoriented by the change in theme. I test drove the other one and found some glitches in the functioning, so had to go to this one. I publish so often now, I need a way to truncate posts and feature the more in depth ones.

      Take care, Kyle

  6. I scored #1-Michelle Bachmann, #2 – Newt Gingrich, & #3 – RonPaul, liberty liberty constitution liberty constitution RonPaul, I win the debate.

    That is pretty much how I feel about the candidates. I like Ron – but his foreign policy is horrendous. Also, the optics – he’s way too old & looks like a crotchety old peepaw. So not gonna happen. I like Newt in the debates. I think he could square off against Obama & the media and look AWESOME. I really want him as press secretary. He would soooo own that room. Bachmann is my fav. I’m hoping she can stage a comeback, esp after throwing Newt for a loop in that last debate. I think she is the closest to a true conservative up on that platform. Santorum maybe a close second for that title, but there is no way he can ever overcome that Google Search result on a national level. Sorry dude.

    1. We’re in the same ballpark, looks like. Bachmann is pretty much right on most issues, but not sure she could overcome Obama during a long campaign. I would definitely vote for her, and support her to the fullest. TC, Kyle

  7. 1. Ron Paul 68.2% 6/11 issues
    2. Rick Perry 51.2% 4/11 issues
    3. John Huntsman 38.4% 2/11 issues

    I want to comment on the clothes they are all wearing. Tuxedos and ties have been around since the 20’s, I really think the “professional” look need to change. Is it ever going to be ok for a political candidate to not wear a tuxedo and tie?

    1. Looks like we match up 2/3, Jackson. As for what is “professional” style, maybe that will change in the near future. A lot of people work from home, and are going to college in environments where it’s not such a biggie. We’ll see.

  8. Also, I was appalled that Ron Paul thinks “defense spending should be cut significantly over the next few years”. Supporting the Thomas Paine theory, I would argue that defense (foreign and domestic) is the only legitimate reason for government to exist. This leads me to question why he thinks government is there.

      1. That’s pathetic. I think welfare should be removed completely, people who legitimately need help like disabled and mentally retarded/unstable people can get help from the myriad of existing charities. Some people think that charities couldn’t handle it, but I know they could and much more efficiently than the government. Then the people abusing the system, which I think is an overwhelming majority, will be forced to get jobs to survive like the rest of us. Maybe the removal of those hundreds of billions of dollars annually that the government wouldn’t be spending along with the major economic stimulus from millions of people joining the working-force would be enough to overcome the debt quickly.

      2. Jackson, I can only imagine about 2% of people not being able to take care of themselves, not able to be taken care of by families and charities, and not able to provide anything for their own retirement. Plus, if we stopped the Fed’s destruction of the currency, people could save more, and leave more for their children. There would also be fewer two-income families, and thus fewer people competing in the workplace. Women labor participation is up around 5% since 2000, while male participation is down about 9%. The lie that being a mother is worthless is kicking in culturally, while incentivization of divorce is causing rifts and even more competition in the workforce. It is a systematic and effective scheme to destroy capitalism and the United States as it was founded.

  9. I got 1) Perry 2) Eye Of Newt, 3) Ron Paul. Which is odd for me. I also think Newt would trounce the Bamster in a debate, but I think he is a career politician who has no real convictions about anything. I like Paul the best, even with his “isolationist” foreign policy. I don’t see a need for the U.S. to bankrupt itself trying to control politics in 3rd world countries. I can’t believe how many people want to go to war with Iran. I think that’s why RP has so many vets supporting him. I’ve been there and done that and saw that all we’ve done in the last ten years is waste American lives and flush billions down the nation-building toilet.

    Rick Perry was on the radio with our drive-time guy on the local AM station and he sounded coherent and almost intelligent. I actually started to like the guy on a personal level (not saying I forgive some of his more infamous political decisions). However, when he gets in front of a TV camera, he turns into GW Bush.

  10. Would suggest, respectfully, that everyone, please, should forget modern “conservatism.” It has, operationally, de facto, been Godless and thus irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God they are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

”[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”

    Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor,
    Recovering Republican
    Facebook, My Wall

    1. Present evidence of a deity, any deity, and I will rejoin the Christian Conservatives.

      Logic, reason, and empirical evidence speak louder to me and other heathens. I believe in personal liberty, capitalism, and limited government because those things make sense and work in the real world. I don’t need to add imaginary reasons for why they work and make sense.

      Secular liberalism can only be defeated by secular conservatism, not by religious nuts shouting at pinko commies about how their policies are “godless”. Pinkos don’t care about religion, but the ones who aren’t totally brainwashed *might* respond positively to a well-reasoned argument.

      I get really tired of being told that my views are invalid because I use logic to back them up instead of ancient mysticism. You are more than welcome to have a religion and be damned proud of it, but don’t toss people out of the party because they arrive at the same conclusions for different reasons.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s