I almost cried laughing when i read this. I was checking out 'on the issues' to see if they had any information on Herman Cain, and I checked out Dick Cheney for the lulz. And lulz it was indeed.
Scroll to the bottom and you'll see a little political compass, complete with this:
Dick Cheney is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative.
Hahahahaha! Well, that pretty much proves that compass useless.
They have a lot more nonsense; they really don't know how to think in terms of principles - it's all based on rhetoric and 'package deals'. Look at this gem on Ron Paul: Opposes Support and Expand Free Trade.
I feel like Walter Block did a good presentation on this, why those methods of categorization just fail.
I can't stand the nolan chart, and like you say, on the issues has package deals. They also say that Dr. Paul doesn't believe that the right to keep and bear is completely an individual right, simply because he voted against corporate welfare. They also don't rank him as a libertarian on health care.
As for Herman Cain, I would never vote for him, as he's another one of those phony libertarians; he was also president of the MO Fed. He supports the war in Afghanistan and he's a stand in for Hannity and Boortz and neither of them are libertarians. I can't stand Boortz or Hannity. Hannity's mentally retarded and Boortz isn't much smarter.
I can't stand the nolan chart
Nor can I. Political labels are worthless, and substantive philosophy can not be graphed - no matter how many dimensions you put on it. The difference is in the qualia, not the quanta.
"Deficits don't matter", aye?