bah, why am I not surprised to see you start this kind of thread?
I find myself in a strange political stance that, unfortunately, none of the current candidates match. In my view, a smaller, less invasive government is absolutely needed. This places me firmly in the libertarian/conservative camp. I don't want government involved in my life if it doesn't have to be. I don't want high taxes and (along with that) I don't want large spending.
Along with that, I don't think that the rich or large corporations should be disproportionately taxed for their apparent success. In my mind, a straight percentage for every individual taxpayer makes quite a bit of sense. This means that the richest people would still pay the most, but it would also mean that they are paying, proportionally, the same as others (instead of the current increased percentage).
But then foreign policy enters my mind. As crazy as it sounds in the current political landscape, I tend to agree with Bush-like policy here.
Now, stop before you jump on me about this. I said "Bush-like," not "rampage into war without evidence." I think that the idea of a preemptive attack should always be on the table. Does that mean it should be used? Goodness no - at least not without solid, indisputable reasons to do so. To remove such an option is essentially telling enemies (terrorists, rouge nations, crazy SciOly teams that have formed individual militias) that we will just sit around until hit. The idea of a threat is, while seemingly childish, important to me.
What does this mean for my views on Iraq? I think that we can't just leave there immediately, and I also think that, given what we were told, war "seemed" justified at the time. If we knew what we do now, it certainly wasn't, but that's all hindsight.
So, that leaves me at a strange vantage point. In terms of domestic policy, I certainly see Ron Paul as the prime choice. He looks at ideas of smaller government and returning to real constitutional ideals. I think that's pretty cool.
However, for foreign ideas, I can only toss Dr. Paul away. He doesn't match a thing I think.
Unfortunately, this means that I'm left with a bunch of big government followers (yes, both major candidates) and one person who I "slightly" agree with in terms of foreign policy. It would be really cool (for me) if some future candidate combined this idea of fiscal responsibility and security. However, I doubt that my particular view is widely held by others.
Now for something slightly different:
http://politicalcompass.org/
I encourage people to take this test - it's not too long, and it's fun to see where you actually stand.
My own compass bearings vary each time I take this (I try to follow it every few months), but in my latest version I was
Economic Left/Right: 5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.90
Try it out!
