Just because it's funny

Leftist versus Hitler, what would happen:

The Liz Cheney firing squad lie

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

The Nazis used this tactic during World War II.  Now the man the media accuse of being Hitler is having this tactic used against him, repeatedly. Thankfully, ineffectively. The mainstream media claimed yesterday Trump wanted to put Liz Cheney in front of a firing squad, which is demonstrably false. Megyn Kelly takes the time to disprove the despicable lie. When you hear the full quote, it's obvious how big the lie is.

These are the same people who lied about Let's Go Brandon not calling 70 million+ Americans garbage. So ask yourself, "Who are closest to the Nazis in reality"? 

Hillary Clinton's Trump is Hitler moment

Okay these comparisons are way beyond ridiculous. Hillary Clinton, not at all surprisingly, has hopped on the Trump is Hitler train. Why?  Because of 1939. Wait, 1939????

It's an absolutely absurd linkage but it's happening because Democrats are desperate.  They have nothing; no plans to discuss, not even joy. All they have is "NOT Trump!". So they have to amp that up with Trump is Hitler.  While Donald Trump is floating 'No income tax', all they can float is 'No Trump'. Pathetic and not worthy of leading the country.

This is the woman who compares Trump to Hitler

Kamala Harris is ridiculous, but also perhaps, evil. RFK Jr. shares some shocking details about the real Kamala Harris:

We're back to calling the opponent Hitler? Really?

Democrats cannot comport themselves like adults.  They can't seem to help it either.

More Trump = Hitler garbage

The left long ago lost touch with reality, but this garbage line of 'argument' is just getting started:

The Hitler 'argument' again? Really?

Three different sources I've read/heard today are saying that the Democrats' attack line for the 2024 presidential election will be Trump = Hitler.  Just like Bush = Hitler was used. It's as brain-dead as it is baseless. They have no playbook anymore; You're racist.  You're sexist.  You are a homophobe.  You are transphobe.  You're a fascist. You're Hitler. If you don't agree, if you are their political adversary, that's their go to argument. That is their playbook. It's all they've got because they certainly don't have reason or sense or facts on their side. Nevertheless, be ready for it:

Correlation Between Prevalence of Infectious Diseases & Authoritarian Belief

Jordan Peterson talks about Hitler and how he managed tuberculosis with some frightening implications for governments today in relation to how they have dealt with COVID.

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 6b - the Hitler sidebar)

Continuing our sidebar on Nazism being socialism and expounding on the fallout that remains to this day of the lie that Nazism is a right wing ideology.  As a sidebar to the sidebar, it dovetails precisely with Democrats trying to (and succeeding) convince African Americans of the lie that the Republicans are the party of slavery and racism.  The left lies and it lies often enough to make the lie seem like it is the truth.  The purpose of this series is to share the truth, and the truth is that Nazis were socialists.

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian

Jordan Peterson explains the pathology and dangers of national socialism (Nazism):

Nazism is socialism, and socialism is evil. But don't you dare confront them or you will be met with righteous indignation despite the truth:

Clearly the truth hurts their feelings and the EU parliament is supposed to be a safe space for socialists. Isn't it?  Kamall should not have apologized, he was right.

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 6a - the Hitler sidebar)

A brief sidebar in our defense of capitalism, to point out to the socialist Utopians who need to be educated, that Hitler was a socialist and that fascism is rooted in socialism.

Here are some explainers to share with your socialist-craving friends:

1.  Steven Crowder:

2. PJ Media:


3. Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr:


4. Tom Woods:

Thursday Hillary Bash - In pictures 3

Yep. I'm going there. But only because Hillary did.

Crowder - Hitler was a socialist

On the right we've all pointed this out countless times: Hitler was a socialist. The truth doesn't seem to be sinking in fast enough. Steven Crowder however does it especially well, and provides evidence along the way. So it's worth sharing.

Clinton, here's a campaign theme for you

From the "we're too complex for you to understand" file, the Hillary Clinton camp is searching for their catch phrase or slogan.  Isn't that confidence inspiring? They need to dumb it down for you. Alas, they can't.

At Hillary Clinton’s campaign headquarters in Brooklyn, staffers are invited to complete a phrase that is written on a wall: “Hillary for ...”

Beside it, staffers have plastered dozens of sticky notes with various words and phrases.

While the wall could be seen as a freewheeling experiment in the manner of a tech startup, it could also be regarded as symptomatic of a nagging problem for Clinton in the 2016 race: namely, the difficulty she has had in explaining why she’s running for president. “The wall of stickies makes me nervous, because she should be for one vision for America and then maybe she achieves that vision with a bunch of policies,” said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. “I’m probably for most of the things on the stickies, but voters will have a tough time digesting a campaign with about a hundred policies.”

If I may be so bold as to suggest a singular slogan, I offer this, which seems to be their mantra anyway:

It is not truth that matters, but victory.

To be honest, it's not mine, it's Hitler's. But if the jackboot fits....

Che Guevara, car decal

This morning driving into work, I came across a BMW with one of those window decals that so many people seem to have these days.  You know the ones I'm talking about - the family members.  A father, mother, 2 daughters and a dog.  Except this one was different.  Instead of a white decal, it was a black silhouette of Che Guevara.  Have we really fallen this far?  A murderer's visage is appearing not only on t-shirts worn by hipster dufuses, who have no idea that they are sporting the face of a ruthless terrorist thug's face as part of their personal ensemble (or identity), but now some business guy in an expensive foreign car is tacitly supporting communist thuggery or else is too clued out to understand that is exactly what they are doing?

That's truly disappointing. Western society has lost touch with its sense. Che, for some reason is charismatic to many people.  How superficial. If Adolph Hitler had been a handsome dude, would current day hipsters thinks it was cool to sport Hitler t-shirts, or would his image be a window decal on a BMW now? That would be ironic since it's a German car. Nevertheless, the only difference between Che and Hitler, is that the latter was able to create a more monstrous volume of death. Both the far left socialists have blood on their hands, Hitler just had more. That aside, Che was more handsome.  That and a counter-culture reputation apparently makes him the more t-shirt-or-car-window-decal-worthy of the two monsters.  

Neither should be idolized or become a piece of fashion or a car decal. Sad.

Top 10 Worst Celebrity Dictator Endorsements (Part 2)

I promised this a few days ago and didn't get a chance to post it.  Here's the top 5 of the Top 10 Worst celebrity endorsements.  You can find #6 through #10 here.  As a bit of a spoiler, there are no endorsements of Obama in the Top 10 despite the fact that he's damaging America, perhaps in a permanent way; and despite the fact that a lot of celebrities have endorsed him and that their endorsements made a big impact.  In that regard, perhaps Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Obama would rate a Top 5 mention.

Unfortunately the full scope of president Obama's damaging policies has yet to be felt and he certainly doesn't rate the pure evil intentions of the sinister bunch below.  He's naive, Utopian, and progressive, but he's not committing genocide or thuggishly beating down his own countrymen.  He just allows it to go on selectively in other countries.  In other words, he's voting "Present" on doing something about brutal dictators around the world.

Another spoiler, there are no celebrity endorsements of losing candidates as that's more of a Most Ineffective Endorsement category, perhaps deserving of it's own post eventually.  No losing candidate however, can be regarded as a dictator simply because they lost.

And now, the Top 5 of the Top 10 Worst Celebrity Endorsements:

Best-est buddies.

5 Dennis Rodman parties with Kim Jong-un. Kim Jong-un is a not only the third communist dictator in a family string of crazy despots, he's also a basketball fan.  By day he starves his people and threatens to start a nuclear war, by night he parties with his idols.  He'd probably invite Michael Jackson if he could.  But he also fancies basketball and apparently is a now a friend of Dennis Rodman.  Not only did Rodman party with the madman, he's going back to do it again.

The former U.S. basketball star said at a charity event in Miami Beach over the weekend that he's keeping plans to visit North Korea again in late summer to have "fun" with the country's dictator, the website "Gossip Extra" reported. 

"I’m going back August 1," he told the website. "We have no plans really, as far as what we’re going to do over there, but we’ll just hang and have some fun!" 

Rodman raised eyebrows when he became the first American to meet the reclusive young leader in a visit to Pyongyang in February. 

Weeks after the controversial visit, Rodman, 51, described Kim as a friend. 

"I don't condone what he does, but he's my friend," Rodman said in a March interview with North Dakota's KXJB. Rodman continued to say he will be "vacationing" with Kim in August.

I'm sure everyone is glad that Rodman doesn't condone what Jong-un has done.  That's a relief.  Back when Paul Simon created the album Graceland with South African musicians (1986) he was pilloried.  Dennis Rodman hasn't been embraced by either the left or the right over this because as it turns out, nobody is crazy enough to embrace Kim Jong-un.  Except Rodman.  It's a terrible endorsement - and yes it is an endorsement, his actions speak louder than his words - but it doesn't rank higher because despite the evilness and danger of Kim Jong-un, nobody is going to have a more favorable opinion of Jong-un as a result.

4 Sean Penn mourns Hugo Chavez.  Sean Penn makes his second appearance in the Top 10, the only celebrity to do so, marking him as an uber-leftist.  He visited the Castros and wrote about it.  Buth with Hugo Chavez, he embraced him, lionized him and went so far as to mourn his death by attending his funeral.  That's hero worship, not journalism (the guise Penn uses as his cover for his embrace of Chavez).

The mourners lamenting the death of late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez included the presidents of Iran and Cuba, a Spanish prince and a man that Chavez himself once floated as a possible American ambassador to Venezuela: Hollywood actor Sean Penn.

Penn flew to Caracas for the Friday funeral, where he was filmed among the mourning crowd. Earlier this week, he called Chavez “a great hero to the majority of his people.”

"Today the people of the United States lost a friend it never knew it had. And poor people around the world lost a champion," Penn wrote in a statement sent to the Hollywood Reporter on Tuesday.

That's an endorsement. Sean Penn has a lot of celebrity clout, but he's clearly a socialist.  It matters because he can still influence the vast swaths of low information voters in America and that makes a difference.  Making Chavez likable is not a good thing - he was a thug, he cheated his way into office forever (or at least until he died) and he was an enemy of the United States, cozying up to the likes of Iran and Russia, not exactly friends.  Penn couldn't be more wrong, or more blind.

Robson, left confused civil rights with communism.

3. Paul Robeson morally defects to the Soviet Union. Wait, who? Robeson was a multi-talented artist and athlete  having played football at Rutgers but he was also was a singer and actor;

At the height of his popularity in the 1930s, Robeson became a major box office attraction in British films such as Song of Freedom and The Proud Valley about Wales. Briefly returning to the US he reprised his title role in Dudley Murphy's film version of Eugene O'Neill's The Emperor Jones in 1933. 

The 1936 Universal Pictures film Show Boat was a box office hit for Robeson, and the most frequently shown and highly acclaimed of all his films. His performance of "Ol' Man River" for this film was particularly notable. He was also King Umbopa in the 1937 version of King Solomon's Mines.

Later he would become the grandfather of all celebrity dictator endorsements being the first high profile celebrity to do such a thing, and he did it on a grand scale, embracing Stalin and communism in a big way.

Robeson first visited the Soviet Union in 1934, during a genocide in which the Soviet government intentionally murdered some 14 million of its own citizens through deliberate starvation in an engineered famine. Upon his return, the official Communist Party organ The Daily Worker published an interview with Robeson, in which he gushed about the "workers' paradise": 

“I was not prepared for the happiness I see on every face in Moscow," said Robeson. "I was aware that there was no starvation here, but I was not prepared for the bounding life; the feeling of safety and abundance and freedom that I find here, wherever I turn. I was not prepared for the endless friendliness, which surrounded me from the moment I crossed the border. I had a technically irregular passport, but all this was brushed aside by the eager helpfulness of the border authorities. ” 

Robeson was asked about Stalin's then-ongoing bloody purges: 

“Commenting on the recent execution after court-martial of a number of counter-revolutionary terrorists, Robeson declared roundly: "From what I have already seen of the workings of the Soviet Government, I can only say that anybody who lifts his hand against it ought to be shot!

"It is the government's duty to put down any opposition to this really free society with a firm hand," he continued, "and I hope they will always do it ... It is obvious that there is no terror here..."

Robeson often exhorted African Americans to consider communism.  His impact overall was small, but it was high profile and the impact has the added weight of additional generations to its sphere of influence.  Stalin was not likable in any way.  But communism was something he could sew the seeds of belief in his community and he did so vigorously. He made it celebrity chic to bash democracy and capitalism in favor of a Utopian alternative.

2 Jane Fonda goes to Vietnam and becomes Hanoi Jane. During the Vietnam War, Jane Fonda, already a star, visited the North Vietnamese and betrayed her country, indelibly staining her stardom with the military community while cementing her image as a counter-culture hero for the liberal crowd.

Fonda visited Hanoi in July 1972. Among other statements, she said the United States had been intentionally targeting the dike system along the Red River. The columnist Joseph Kraft, who was also touring North Vietnam, said he believed the damage to the dikes was incidental and was being used as propaganda by Hanoi, and that, if the U.S. Air Force were "truly going after the dikes, it would do so in a methodical, not a harum-scarum way". 

In North Vietnam, Fonda was photographed seated on an anti-aircraft battery; the controversial photo outraged a number of Americans. In her 2005 autobiography, she writes that she was manipulated into sitting on the battery; she had been horrified at the implications of the pictures and regretted they were taken... 

During her trip, Fonda made ten radio broadcasts in which she denounced American political and military leaders as "war criminals". Fonda has defended her decision to travel to North Vietnam and her radio broadcasts. Also during the course of her visit, Fonda visited American prisoners of war (POWs), and brought back messages from them to their families. When cases of torture began to emerge among POWs returning to the United States, Fonda called the returning POWs "hypocrites and liars". She added, "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." Later, on the subject of torture used during the Vietnam War, Fonda told The New York Times in 1973, "I'm quite sure that there were incidents of torture ... but the pilots who were saying it was the policy of the Vietnamese and that it was systematic, I believe that's a lie."  Fonda said the POWs were "military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to the law"

She may have been duped, or she may have been a sympathizer, but her impact was more profound than she lets on.  Her decision reverberates to this day. 

Fonda has apologized numerous times and tried to explain her actions.

In 2005, Fonda published her autobiography in which she described in detail her decision to go to North Vietnam. She said it was primarily motivated by her desire to document the U.S. bombing of important dikes that, if destroyed, could kill tens of thousands of people and devastate the lives of millions.  The U.S. had denied the bombings. In the book, Fonda is unapologetic about the trip or her participation in broadcasts on radio Hanoi but regrets the pictures taken of her at the gun emplacement.  She said it made it appear as though she was celebrating armaments aimed at American planes, which was not how she felt and was not the context in which the pictures were taken.  She reminds readers that the U.S. investigated her trip and found no reason to bring any charges against her.  She also describes her longstanding support of, and interaction with, U.S. military personnel and says her only beef was with the U.S. government, not the troops.

But many do not believe the sincerity of those apologies,

Were Jane Fonda's actions treason, or were they the exercise of a private citizen's right to freedom of speech? At the time, the legal aspects of this question were moot: President Nixon was engaged in trying to wind down American involvement in Vietnam and had to face another election in a few months, so politically he had far more to lose than to gain by making a martyr out of a prominent anti-war activist. (No requirement in either the Constitution or federal law states that the U.S. must be engaged in a declared war -- or any war at all -- before charges of treason can be brought against an individual.)

On the one hand, Jane Fonda provided no tangible military assistance to the North Vietnamese: she divulged no military secrets, she gave them no money or material, and she did not interfere with the operations of the American forces. Her actions, offensive as they were to many, were primarily of propaganda value only. On the other hand, Iva Ikuko Toguri (also known as "Tokyo Rose") was convicted of treason for making propaganda broadcasts on behalf of the Japanese during World War II (although she claimed her betrayal was forced and was eventually pardoned many years later by President Gerald Ford), and Fonda's efforts could fall under the definition of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." It is also undeniable that some American soldiers came to harm as a direct result of Fonda's actions, an outcome she should reasonably have anticipated.

In 1988, sixteen years after denouncing American soldiers as war criminals and tortured POWs as possessed of overactive imaginations, Fonda met with Vietnam veterans to apologize for her actions. It's interesting to note that this nationally-televised apology (during which she attempted to minimize her actions by characterizing them as "thoughtless and careless") came at a time when New England vets were successfully disrupting a film project she was working on. It's also interesting that not only was this apology delivered sixteen years after the fact, but it has not been offered again since. More than a few have read a huge dollop of self-interest into Fonda's 1988 apology. (Finally, in an interview in 2000, almost thirty years after the fact, Fonda admitted: "I will go to my grave regretting the photograph of me in an anti-aircraft carrier, which looks like I was trying to shoot at American planes. It hurt so many soldiers. It galvanized such hostility. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done. It was just thoughtless.")

She clearly has not repaired her image because she really did some damage with her unjustifiable actions.

1. Charles Lindbergh supported Adolf Hitler.  It's hard to imagine topping some of the other celebrity stupidity on this list but when you endorse the policies of Adolf Hitler, it almost doesn't matter what your own star power is, or what impact it might have, it's about as close to endorsing Satan as a person can get.  It's hard to imagine blowing celebrity like Lindbergh had:

In May 1927, a shy, handsome 25-year-old suddenly sprang from obscurity to instant world fame when he flew a small single-seat, single-engine airplane, called the “Spirit of St. Louis,” from Long Island, New York, to an airfield in Paris. In a grueling 33-hour flight that covered 3,600 miles, Charles A. Lindbergh became the first person to fly the Atlantic ocean, alone and non-stop. His daring flight, and his aviation pioneering afterwards, made him, for some years, the most admired man in America, and the most admired American in the world.

There;s no denying his infatuation with the Nazi leader.  Lindbergh, a decade plus later, was not shy though about sharing his admiration of Adolf Hitler, and his achievements.  He went so far as to almost move to Nazi Germany.

“While I still have many reservations,” he wrote to a U.S. Army officer who was also a personal friend, “I have come away with a feeling of great admiration for the German people. The condition of the country, and the appearance of the average person whom I saw, leaves with me the impression that Hitler must have far more character and vision than I thought existed in the German leader who has been painted in so many different ways by the accounts of America and England.” 

In a letter to another American friend he wrote: “With all the things we criticize, he [Hitler] is undoubtedly a great man, and I believe has done much for the German people. He is fanatic in many ways, and any one can see that there is a certain amount of fanaticism in Germany today. It is less than I expected, but it is there. On the other hand, Hitler has accomplished results -- good in addition to bad -- which could hardly have been accomplished without some fanaticism.” 

Lindbergh’s wife was Anne Morrow Lindbergh, a remarkable woman who was, in her own right, an accomplished aviator and a successful author. In a 1936 letter to her mother, she wrote: 

“Hitler, I am beginning to feel, is a very great man, like an inspired religious leader -- and as such rather fanatical -- but not scheming, not selfish, not greedy for power, but a mystic, a visionary who really wants the best for his country and, on the whole, has a rather broad view.” 

Charles Lindbergh was so impressed with Hitler’s Germany that he seriously considered moving there with his family. “I did not feel real freedom until I came to Europe,” he remarked in 1939. “The strange thing is that of all the European countries, I found most personal freedom in Germany, with England next, and then France.” After a search for a suitable place to live, he found a property in a suburb of Berlin that he came close to buying. But as the threat of war grew in Europe, he abandoned those plans.

That;s admiration. It's also completely wrong-headed.  It may have been less obvious to some at the time than it is today, but many people knew even then about the dangers that Hitler represented.  

Today far too many people associate Nazism with right wing fascism but the Nazi Party in Germany were socialists.

There you have it.  The worst celebrity endorsements of all time.  The lesson it seems is that celebrities should keep their political beliefs to themselves but we all know that's not going to happen. In the coming decade there are bound to be new entrants into the Top 10.  Look forward to that.

Hitler = Evil, no?

Here's one everyone can agree on - Hitler was evil. Right?  Obama with a Hitler moustache or Bush being called Bushitler is, or was crossing a line. Hitler = Evil.  Even those philosophically National Socialists would be hard pressed to defend him.  So what's the deal with Oliver Stone?

The Bush Equals Hitler Meme One Senator Doesn't Remember

Hot Air is reporting that Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, doesn't recall Bush ever being compared to Hitler. Senator? You don't recall?  Did you miss all of this? A Google search on 'Bush Hitler' comes up with 9.7 million links. Bing also finds 6.9 million links. Yahoo found 23.5 million links.  Semiskimmed also has a great summary of much of the 'highlights' of the liberal left meme.  The point is that it's not an invisible issue.

So, Senator Whitehouse, you don't recall it?  From your comments, voters in Rhode Island, and observers across the country, ONLY one of the following three conclusions can be made;

A - You have forgotten because you are suffering from some sort of memory disorder.

B -  You are out of touch with the real world because you are completely insolated from news of the world.

C -  You are lying through your teeth.

Tell me, which of the above three explanations leaves you suited to elected office?

Saturday Learning Series: Fatal Attraction of Adolf Hitler

A bonus post today.

Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat its mistakes. Today's Saturday Learning Series looks at the BBC's documentary "Fatal Attraction of Adolph Hitler". The focus of the piece wanders somewhat but there is an important vein regarding how Hitler became so powerful politically and so adored.

The documentary, from 1989, mixes historical chronology with interviews. It's chilling how messianic Hitler was regarded by Germans. Some of the comments from those Germans who were there, in the context of today are eerily familiar. You'd think given the evil that came out of his leadership, given the deceptions he pulled on the people of Germany, that the lesson of the cult of personality would be learned. There would be no repeat of Hitler. Of course there have been equally evil men. The difference, is that none have had Hitler's powerful charisma AND his nation's relative power at the time. The Soviet leaders had military power, and they had fear. But they did not have the hero worship that propelled Hitler. Heaven forbid, this should ever happen in America.

Part 1: "This is a cautionary tale for every country and every generation..."




Part 2:




Part 3:




Part 4:




Part 5:




Part 6:




Part 7:




Part 8:




Part 9:




Part 10:




Part 11:




Part 12:

Try this at home - your political compass

If you've ever wanted to plot your political leanings, there's a website that allows you to answer a few questions in under 10 minutes and it will plot your political leaning between liberal and conservative, and between authoritarian and libertarian.

Try it out for fun. The link is HERE.

However, a word of caution. You are your own best political thermometer. I wouldn't take their results too seriously because the underlying weighting and result interpretation seems to be somewhat subjective. The reason I suspect that can be explained in the following two graphs.

Here's one for some Historical figures;

While Stalin and Hitler look about right, I'm quite sure they never actually took this quiz. Therefore, someone has mapped their positions via an analysis of their results. It might be good for comparative purposes for people, but to portray them as accurate mappings is not exactly reasonable. Furthermore, I'd like to see the scoring that put Margaret Thatcher where she is on that graph. It seems a bit heavy towards the authoritarian side.

The reason I question these is not to quibble with specific results but rather to question the political bent of the creator(s) and the methodologies of interpreting the results.

Here's an even better example;



According to the graph every Republican is to the right of every Democrat (Mike Gravel, being an odd outlier). There's no surprise there. But here's where I take issue with this scoring;

1. Every conservative seems to score as more authoritarian than their liberal counterparts. That's VERY odd considering conservatives argue for smaller government, more individual liberty and more personal responsibility. Further, looking at the politics of President Obama since coming into office, he certainly has run an interventionist, and heavy handed government. Yet by this graph we are supposed to believe not only that all Democrats are less authoritarian than all Republicans but that Obama was one of the least authoritarian-minded of the Democrats. Not credible.

2. Every Democrat candidate was to the right of center except for Kucinich? Also not credible. . Sure, they are less left than Stalin, but to the right of center? It just doesn't compute. Liberals are sure to look to something like this for validation that they really are centrist, but it doesn't work if the tool they are using has an inherent bias built into it. Which brings me back to the question of how Stalin was scored and how different is that from the Obama score.

You might be thinking I scored badly and am upset with my personal result. To the contrary, I'm almost okay with it and here it is for your consideration;

According to this I'm on par with Fred Thompson in terms of the left-right scale. I find that assessment somewhat plausible, but out of that list of candidates I would have chosen Newt Gingrich to represent me. As for the libertarian leaning, I'm sure I was on the right side of the line there, but I'd definitely have expected to be a little bit further towards the bottom of the chart. Still, it was fun to try.