On second thought, that computer poll I raved about in the last post, though pretty accurately reflecting my presidential preferences, smells worse than the Jersey Turnpike's Elizabeth exit on a sweltering day. Computer gods, I, a mere human, do not wish to offend. Methinks men, not machines, corrupted this poll.

Of twenty-five questions asked, three are devoted to gay marriage but not one to taxes, government spending, or the war on terrorism (though a few indirectly relate to this last point). There are questions on non-starters such as the Kyoto Treaty, on such leftist punching bags as Guantanamo, Torture, and Wiretapping--Who, exactly, votes on these issues?--and on such locutions as "Abortion Rights" and "Citizenship Path for Illegals." In other words, the questions in this form generally reflect the liberal outlook of its crafter(s?) and are, in several instances, not in any way salient to large chunks of voters.

How would leftists, to offer a couple of examples, react to "Do You Support the U.S. Leaving the United Nations?" or "When Should the United States Resume Control of the Panama Canal?" There are at least as many people concerned about these questions as those concerned with "Torture," a so, so popular political position that undoubtedly, in the imaginations of the people at 2decide who determined the issues, gains the approval of so, so many right-wingers. Really now, how many people, without even so much as a qualifier listed, support torture, and would identify it as a "key" issue? Why not ask about "wife beating" next time? Furthermore, are there candidates for president on record endorsing torture?

Curious about this, I retook the test, leaving every question blank save "Torture." This time, I checked "support" on torture, listed it as a "key" issue, and discovered that my faux position alligned me with Duncan Hunter, Rudolph Giuliani, Tom Tancredo, and Mitt Romney, all, apparently, of the Marquis de Sade wing of the Republican Party. Do they really support torture? I found a web site that claims, "Duncan Hunter stands for torture and the destruction of our freedoms, through and through." But I haven't come across anything where Hunter (or Giuliani, or Romney, or Tancredo) have said that they support torture. Perhaps, through some action that betrays their words, they showed themselves as veiled sadists. I'm not familiar enough with their rhetoric or records to know one way or another, but I'm skeptical that these candidates support torture (save in some theoretical instances which are often the stuff of debates in ethics classes).

Thus, when I was asked late Friday evening who, of all the candidates, proved sympatico with the most respondents, I, reflecting on the bias underlying many of the positions listed, naturally answered: Dennis Kucinich. You are correct, sir. In fact, Kucinich, the candidate who least represented my stances on issues, got eight times more matches than his nearest competitor, Mike Gravel, the senator who time forgot time. The former boy mayor of Cleveland got more matches than all the other candidates combined. Admittedly, candidates on the extreme wings of the party have an advantage in such questionnaires in that the candidate's ability to win is a non-factor, and the candidate's ability to stake positions in line with party purists--who never prove so pure in the voting box--matters most. The candidate who wins your heart, and not necessarily your vote, does well here. And, perhaps, news of the test spread disproportionately to Kucinich supporters.

All that having been said, any poll whose results overwhelmingly suggest that the political positions of Dennis Kucinich--who, should he win, would be the first president from outerspace--are closest to the mainstream might need some fine tuning. Or, perhaps, the initial fine tuning--too contrived to be the work of machines--has already done much to humanize this computerized test.

Duncan Hunter:
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2006/10/30/duncan-hunter-prez1/

Giuliani:
http://edrington.blogspot.com/2007/05/rudy-giuliani-supports-torture-tactics.html

Tancredo (and Giuliani):
http://news.netscape.com/story/2007/05/15/giuliani-tancredo-endorse-waterboarding-torture/

Romney:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/121088.html
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/4796d he has a legitimate shot at winning.

Nice try but no dice. Those candidates do support torture, even if they try to veil the language when they talk about it, because coming out in favor of torture openly is kind of a big no-no when you are gunning for a national electoral victory.

The argument about electability makes zero sense whatsoever. So the survey should factor in who gets the most media coverage and dominates the headlines, who is given massive amounts of airtime and who is relegated to being the butt end of latenight talk show jokes? More people believe in the message of Kucinich than the other candidates because he's a human being, a real living person, which I guess seems like an alien to someone used to watching corporate zombies and crooks run their government.

If you aren't voting for the candidate who wins your heart who the hell are you voting for?

How can you doubt the bit about Giuliani, when it comes from such a level-headed site as to claim a picture of "Adolph Giuliani"?

Here's the type of thing that kind of loses a lot of you guys in that it isn't really a type of thing you'd scream, or stage a die-in for, or scrawl with blood on a protest sign. Would we have ever been held the Neurenburg trials if all the Nazis had ever done was "waterboarding"?

See it's all fun and stuff to giggle with girlish delight and put together Adolph + Giuliani and make an emotional statement (and thinking that somehow makes you clever or artistic). It's quite another to actually try to imagine where Giuliani falls on the Adolph scale.

See you have to admit that you are framing the view when you say no threat of death + no real pain + no lasting effects = torture. It's the type of stretch that liberals can make all the time (even without limbering up first) because they need need things to scrawl on protest signs or screech. But it no less frames the freaking debate. That's what Dan is saying.

He's not saying that Giuliani is not for something that somebody construes as torture. He's saying that Giuliani has never said "I want to be the Torture President."

See, it's stupid: Are you for torture? Yes or No? I'm not for shoving bamboo under fingernails, so no. I'm not for stretching people on racks, so no again. However, I don't feel better watching a block go up in flames simply because we didn't overstep anybody's tortuous definition of "torture" (or "tapping" for that matter) and we're more like Europe in "living with terrorism".

I'm all for torture in appropriate circumstances. Escpecially in the advent of technologies (http://www.slate.com/id/2159935/) that inflict significant pain without any lasting physical effects.

On a personal level, Kucinich certainly comes across as less crazy than the other genuine candidates (Gravel and Paul). Unfortunately for him, his (and Gravel's) policy positions are quite mad.

You should all join me in supporting the best candidate available: none of the above.

Torture? To obtain information that will help in securing the safety of our nation? Absolutely.

Funny how the same American hating crowd turns their heads when other governments torture and do it just for the sake of and fun of it or to keep their own population oppressed.

Remember: Saddam Hussein was just another misunderstood nice guy before we dethroned and help execute him.

Don't torture terrorists. Torture unborn babies, I say!

You're right Ralph, horrors when U.S. interrogators water board or deprive some subversive terrorist of sleep or heat but it’s ok to suck the live brains out of a near term human being. What a bunch of confused hypocrites.

See Dan, conservatives have no problem w/ torture and in fact consider it an important issue as demonstrated by the comments above. They see it as necessary for "national security" because it always works for Jack Bauer, and if it is good enough to work to avert disaster in a tv show it must be effective in real life, right?

Giuliani has little in common w/ Adolf, he is much more of a Benito Giuliani to be fair.

It is odd though Dan b/c despite the way the issues were framed on that site its read of my opinions of the candidates was dead on. I really do think that Guiliani is a complete phony a-hole, worse than Hillary based on their records. I think that part of the reason it seems accurate is that when one takes the quiz we naturally read the bias into the question and account for it. So that we all answered on the issue of torture understanding it to be asking about the use of torture as we currently know it in this so-called GWOT, w/ Abu Ghraib, secret prisons and whatnot. Also, most of the mainstream candidates are fine w/ torture, I think you know that. Few of them would end the practice of shipping off detainees to places where the Geneva code doesn't apply, and they certainly share the Dirty Harry/Jack Bauer fantasy about the efficacy of torture.

Here are my results (and btw, I still have no clue who Kucinich is, I have never even seen a picture of him as far as I know, don't know why he is in politics or in what form, nor do I give a crap):

Paul 78
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)
Brownback 34
Cox 27
Tancredo 23
Thompson 17
Romney 5
Huckabee 2
Hunter -1
Gravel -5
Biden -5
McCain -12
Obama -14
Kucinich -15
Dodd -20
Edwards -25
Clinton -25
Richardson -34
Giuliani -36