According to the site, Kerry (among the viable candidates) seems to be my guy.

Kucinich 100%
Sharpton 96%
Kerry 89%
Dean 83%
Clark 81%
Edwards 76%
Bush 5%

How about that? I'm one-eleventh the Republican Moffatt is.

http://economics.about.com
How about that? I'm one-eleventh the Republican Moffatt is.

What can I say? I'm the last moderate left in North America. So when I'm in the States, I'm slightly on the left, and when I'm in Canada, I'm slightly on the right, since the political center is different in each place.

Are there *any* Republicans on the Box?

Cheers,

Mike

http://www.kenkosowan.fotopic.net
What an interesting website gents,

Thanks a bunch... this should make for some end-of-day hijinks around the office.

Bush only got 10% for me. My candidate appears to be Kucinich... I suppose I'll just have to wait for Jack Layton.

Looking forward to a great season. And even though this is the wrong place; thanks go to Leigh for her great research a few weeks ago. I've sent it along to all of my fellow Candy Maldanado and Jim Acker fan friends.

Cheerio,
Ken

1 Kucinich 100%
2 Kerry 95%
3 Sharpton 91%
4 Dean 87%
5 Clark 83%
6 Edwards 81%
7 Bush 18%

What the hell is this with Al Sharpton? That is not going to happen in this lifetime. And what's a Kucinich, anyway? Sounds like a summertime wilderness expedition for troubled teens.

I actually self-identify as a moderate Republican -- or at least I would, if that particular breed hadn't died out with Lacey Davenport. Fiscal conservative, social moderate, intellectual liberal -- you wouldn't think that would constitute the radical fringe, but there you go. I don't know who's running the Republican Party these days, but it's no one I'd want in my home. And the Democrats are just embarrassing.

In Canadian terms, I'd be a blue Tory (with red leanings), again if there were such things anymore. The one-trick ponies on the left and the right hold no interest for me, and in the centre is this huge, amorphous, corrupt blob of status quo. That's at least part of the reason I'm almost totally tuned out of the political process: there's nobody and nothing on the political landscape remotely close to my (not unreasonable) view of the world. You can either vote for one-note extremists or you can vote for fat-cat insiders; yeah, thanks, but I think I'll stay home and watch The Daily Show instead.

Kucinich, 100
Kerry(ack!), 90
Sharpton, 89
Dean, 85
Clark, 83
Edwards, 79

I don't know if I did something wrong, but Bush didn't even show up as a percentage. That makes me infinitely less of a Republican than everyone!

Even though I'm not old enough to vote....
1 Kerry Score: 100%
2 Edwards Score: 91%
3 Dean Score: 90%
4 Clark Score: 88%
5 Kucinich Score: 88%
6 Sharpton Score: 87%
7 Bush Score: 44%

http://economics.about.com
In Canadian terms, I'd be a blue Tory (with red leanings), again if there were such things anymore. The one-trick ponies on the left and the right hold no interest for me, and in the centre is this huge, amorphous, corrupt blob of status quo.

It's scary how much that sounds like me.

I consider myself to be an old school liberal out of the A.V. Dicey mold, which is pretty much an extinct species. I find social conservatism appaling, and socialism even more so, so I'm pretty much politically homeless. As a fan of democracy, I find the "amorphous, corrupt blob of status quo" quite scary.

I bought a Conservative membership, only so that I can vote in the leadership campaign. Actually, more accurately I bought one coz my girlfriend told me to stop bitching and actually do something about the problem. :)

Cheers,

Mike

Bought a membership? Mike, all you had to do was board a booze bus to the convention and you'd get one free! ;-)

Seriously, good for you. Cynical as I am, I'm glad there are still people who haven't given up on this thing entirely. I'd get involved myself, if it weren't for this bum knee....

Needless to say, I don't fit in the U.S., having no tangible skills to take advantage of the free-market and having different views of capitalism in general. I'd fit better in Canada, but I've been told by no less an authority than Kent Williams that I'd be even more at home in Sweden. My politial views are warped by different ideologies than the right, but all ideology reeks, so I'm just as guilty as the far right when you get right down to it. At any rate, both parties stink right now, and I don't even know if I'll vote for Kerry if/when he's nominated.

So Sweden it is! And Sweden, in addition to catering to my senseless views of Orwellian Socialism, has, well, you know.

Ace of Base?

Abba.

But I did see the sun.

http://economics.about.com
So Sweden it is! And Sweden, in addition to catering to my senseless views of Orwellian Socialism, has, well, you know.

I'd get there quick if I were you; it's not going to be left-socialist for too much longer. Socialism seems to only thrive well in racially homogeneous populations, and given the social tensions between "native" Germans, Danes, etc. and immigrant workers, I wouldn't be surprised if Denmark, Sweden, etc. turn toward nationalistic socialism the next time there's a major economic downturn.

Besides, Dutch politics are much more entertaining. Where else can you get an openly gay leader of a far-right party (Pim Fortuyn)? After he was assassinated the political scene in the Netherlands has been a lot less interesting.

Seriously, good for you. Cynical as I am, I'm glad there are still people who haven't given up on this thing entirely.

I pretty much have, but, well, it was only 10 bucks. That's just two less pints of beer, and I know my liver will thank me later.

Cheers,

Mike

The only surprise here is I have 4% of my politics in common with Bush...Mike D, you're 20% more Republic than me ;-)

1 Kucinich 100%
2 Sharpton 94%
3 Kerry 83%
4 Dean 79%
5 Edwards 72%
6 Bush 4%

Oh, and I had a nice laugh over over Bush being listed as having served in the military given all the debate in the past few days.

Are there *any* Republicans on the Box?


*timidly raises hand*

(I feel like a geek in a bar full of bikers)

Actually, I'm NOT a Republican...I'm to the Right of the GOP. Oh, I agree with most of what they SAY, they just don't really believe most of what they say.

Bush: 100%
Edwards: 43%
Kerry: 40%
Dean: 37%
Sharpton: 33%
Kucinich: 20%

Off Topic:
Mike, didn't you do the economics column about the Jays Free agency last year and opportunity costs?

I used that (before I knew about Da Box) in an economics class for a project last year (find an article, discuss it before the class) and the Prof was throughly impressed. Nice departure from the dry stuff about stock prices and what not that everyone else had.

(of course, if your specialty is economics, I guess none of it is dry to you...)

I paid less than $3.25 for my NDP membership...they were willing to take whatever I had in my pocket at the time.

...I too will have to make up my mind over what to do with my ballot in the Presidential election. Even if Kucinich was the Demcratic candidate, I don't think I could vote for him because I have zero confidence in the institution of American government. This will likely leave me to spoiling a ballot. That or Pat Buchanon ;-)

It's OK, Will. All views are welcome here. Except yours, of course. :)

And don't encourage Moffatt to talk about economics! It's bad enough having no baseball to talk about; let's not make it worse.

http://www.scottlucas.com
1. Kucinich (100%)
2. Sharpton(!) (93%)
3. Kerry (92%)
...
6. Bush (4%)

I've never considered myself a member of either party, though I've voted Democrat more often than not.

I'll be voting "A.B.B." this time.

There are scads of reasons why this questionnaire is bunk, but here are my two favorite:

1) It's done by AOL, so it can't be good.
2) This is what happens to the outliers:

If you're in favour of everything (click on 'favor' for every question) and can talk out both sides of your mouth, you match perfectly with Al Sharpton (100%).

If you oppose everything, and think no one is right, including yourself, you match with John Edwards (100)%

If you don't care, and have no opinion about anything, Howard Dean is your man (100%).

http://economics.about.com
I used that (before I knew about Da Box) in an economics class for a project last year (find an article, discuss it before the class) and the Prof was throughly impressed. Nice departure from the dry stuff about stock prices and what not that everyone else had.

(of course, if your specialty is economics, I guess none of it is dry to you...)

Yep, that was my article. Thanks! That article is being included in the Grade 12 economics curriculum in some country in Georgia. I get a big kick out of that.

I love the stuff I do research on, but I too find a lot of economics really, really boring. I need a lot of coffee not to fall asleep during most seminars.

Gitz need not worry. I can't talk about Economics too much on here, otherwise I'd violate my non-compete. :)

If you're in favour of everything (click on 'favor' for every question) and can talk out both sides of your mouth, you match perfectly with Al Sharpton (100%).

Keep in mind the 100% doesn't mean you match perfectly with Sharpton. It always ranks your "top" choice at 100%, and scales the rest from there.

There's an area where you can see how the different candidates rate the issues. It seemed pretty accurate to me.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike D, you're 20% more Republic than me ;-)

Damn you, Adam! If only the Terminator movies didn't linger in my subconscious...

1.Kerry (100%)
2.Kucinich (94%)
3.Dean (94%)
4.Sharpton (90% ??? didnt really expect this one)
...
6.Bush (21%)

Good news is I was planning on voting Kerry anyways (mainly because he's from my parents home town =p). Bad news is I seem to be more Republican than most people here. I knew I was a right-wing democrat (is there such a thing?) but I didn't know this much

I got %100 Kucinich; 0% Bush.

I agree with Spicol; after all, the poll asks me to rate the following:

Crime/Education
Economy/Environment

Apparently, my views on crime are the same as those I hold for education. Nice way to skew results, huh?

For the record:

1 Sharpton (100%)
2 Kucinich (93%)
3 Kerry (85%)
4 Dean (84%)
5 Edwards (81%)
6 Bush (73%)

That can't be accurate., though friends do describe me as overly-diplomatic!

*timidly raises hand*

WillRain, we obviously disagree, but I'm sincerely glad you represented. It's really a testament to how vituperative the American Centre-Left has become that someone who supports the party that controls all three branches of the federal government, and most state governments, of the West's leading power can be rendered "timid." The anti-Bush anger was presented incoherently, and disastrously, in the 2002 mid-term elections. Let's see if the Democrats can channel their energy constructively for the Kerry '04 campaign.

The amazing thing about the current administration is how off-putting many of their actions have been to independent-thinking rightists. I was in a Bush-Kerry debate, and the Bush supporter admitted that incident after incident was "totally unacceptable": concealing notes from the Energy hearings, exposing Valerie Plame, inserting the Niger claim into the State of the Union, Cheney's "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," pork-barrelling in airport security, "Total Information Awareness" and the Patriot Act, stealing Judiciary Committee information, Halliburton overcharging...

All of these posed serious ethical and political problems for my right-wing friend, but he insisted that it was vital to re-elect the President because the "Bush Doctrine" was so important for national and international security. Meanwhile, despite all this, it seems like the Democratic attack dogs are trained on the silly 1972 National Guard controversy. I hope the Dems realize that it's both feasible and way more appropriate to focus their attacks on the administration's record, and nothing more.

Finally, my buddy said that his pro-Bush foreign policy views reminded him of Barry Goldwater's campaign slogan: "In Your Heart, You Know He's Right."

Of course, I responded with the famous rejoinder from an LBJ campaign official: "In Your Guts, You Know He's Nuts."

I believe there also was an LBJ political ad mocking the Goldwater slogan by showing an exploding atomic bomb with the caption "In your heart, you know he might..."

Mike D, replace Republican incidents with Liberal incidents in Canada and you are talking about Canada and I'd be interested to know what all the ant-Bush crowd think of the left in Canada. The Liberals occupy the Democrat spectrum here in Canada.

Wow, are there any Canadians on this board? :)
I don't really pay much attention to US politics. If it's just going to upset me, why bother? Plus, I find Canadian polictics interesting enough.

I'd be interested to know what all the ant-Bush crowd think of the left in Canada.

Dean, I think the Liberals are guilty of far-too-frequent cronyism and a lack of imagination that no opposition party has been strong enough nationally to expose.

Respectfully, though, it's chump change compared to the types of transgressions I referenced above -- which is why I disagree that it's a good comparison.

First, there's the problem of scale; Canada is a smaller fish -- and obviously, far less assertive -- on the world scene, so the scrutiny shouldn't be as great.

Second, Canadian federal politics have stagnated, while the Bush administration -- love 'em or hate 'em -- is engaging in radical redefinition of federal responsibilities. There's more reason to be concerned when it's not done on the level, or even in public at all.

http://economics.about.com
Wow, are there any Canadians on this board? :)

I think most of us here are. Keep in mind there are a fair number of Canadian expats living in the States, some of whom are regulars on the board.

I don't really pay much attention to US politics. If it's just going to upset me, why bother? Plus, I find Canadian polictics interesting enough.

Well, for better or for worse, what happens in the States has a huge impact on what happens here, so it's natural that many Canadians would pay attention to it. But hey, there's no law saying you have to be interested. That is unless Proposition 224 passes, and we all hope it won't. :)

Cheers,

Mike

http://www.immune26.tv
I musta done som'thin wrong...

I got:

Janet Jackson 100%
Celine Dion 46.24%
John Diefenbaker 18.6%
Pierre Trudeau 11.2%
Carlos Delgado 227%
Bush -82.987%

I got to learn to follow instructions better....

Top 3: Kucinich 100, Sharpton 94, Kerry 89. Seeing as how I am underage and a Canadian, that means less to me than the Belinda/Harper/Clement "debates" (Sorry Moffatt)

Oh, and Roger: shouldn't Janet Jackson be only 50%? I know, bad joke.

http://economics.about.com
Top 3: Kucinich 100, Sharpton 94, Kerry 89. Seeing as how I am underage and a Canadian, that means less to me than the Belinda/Harper/Clement "debates" (Sorry Moffatt)

Why are you apologizing to me? I'm the one who just bought a Conservative membership! :)

Cheers,

Mike

Kerry - 100
Edwards - 98
Kucinich - 90
Dean - 88
Bush - 70

The funny thing is that I have always voted Republican.

I consider myself to be in the middle, but I lean towards the Republicans on the economy and spending, which is ultimately what I care most about.

In terms of social issues, however, I'm more to the left. I'm for gay rights, abortions, etc..

Basically, I want people to be able to do anything they want and to be able to spend their money anyway them want.

Iraq is just a big mess that I'm embarassed that more Americans aren't more embarrassed about. Hell, you hear more outrage over Janet Jackson's boob.

So I'm torn on who I'm voting for this fall. I don't really want Bush, but I'm not crazy about Democrats. I always cringe anytime Democrats want to spend more or raise taxes only on the rich (who are the ones paying most of the taxes as it is now). Maybe Kerry is more in the middle than I think he is.

Who I really wanted 4 years ago was John McCain but Bush went to the far right to beat him, and then shifted back to the center after the primaries. McCain would have won the election easily - he would have received all the Republican votes and a lot more of the independant votes.

I got Kucinich 100%, which I find a bit bizarre, but oh well. And Sharpton 95%, which is laughable as I would no more vote for Al Sharpton than I would vote for Kang or Kodos.

Kerry also 95% (that's more like it!), Dean 85, Edwards 80, Bush 12.

The funny thing is, I would not in any way be a Democrat in the U.S. (Though definitely not a Republican either). I am the classic independent; I have voted for four different parties in elections so far, and my only party membership I have held I gave up in despair after about 18 months.

I don't know how I get 100% with Kucinich; we disagree on vouchers, involving the UN in Iraq, NAFTA,

Oops! Cut myself off... we also disagree on the raising the retirement age, and tax cuts.

That's a lot of disagreement for "100%".

http://economics.about.com
Oops! Cut myself off... we also disagree on the raising the retirement age, and tax cuts.

That's a lot of disagreement for "100%".

It's a relative, not absolute measure. All the 100% indicates is that your preferences are most like Kucinich's, not that you agree with his entire policy platform.

Pistol: I too liked McCain in 2000. I'd love to see him run as a Democrat. :)

Cheers,

Mike

I always cringe anytime Democrats want to spend more or raise taxes only on the rich (who are the ones paying most of the taxes as it is now)

Pistol, I don't want to get into a political flamewar, but as a pretty hardcore tax policy analyst I think I should point out that in any tax system the rich are going to pay most of the taxes, as they have most of the money. This is well understood in tax policy circles and while the the extent to which the rich are preferentially or punitively taxed to take this into account is up for debate, that they will end up paying most is always agreed upon.

"Ability to pay" is a very important consideration in designing a tax system. If you attempt to collect a tax which people are unable (within reason) to pay, you will largely fail to collect it.

In a country like Canada or the U.S., we punitively tax the rich by having a bracketed income tax system (which means that the wealthy generally pay a larger portion of their income in taxes), while we preferentially tax them in other ways, such as having no wealth taxes to speak of, levying high taxes on real estate, funding "benefit" programs through payroll taxes, and having substantial levels of commodity taxes (sales taxes, excise taxes, value-added taxes) which non-wealthy people pay a proportionally greater share of.

Income tax is the largest factor, but the others are significant.

Yues, that was fun.
Kucinich 100
Sharpton 85
Kerry 80
Dean 77
Edwards 74
Bush 4

I think like most Canadians I have had a passing interest in US politics over the yrs. This yr. however I am virtually glued to the primaries. It gets to be a bit cliche I suppose but I think this is the most important national election in the last half century.

In my work I get around the world a fair bit, two weeks ago in NYC, last week in Japan, I was in Cyprus just as the gulf war was starting. Wherever I am with people from around the world including America. No where have I found anyone with anything remotely nice to say about the current administration. But more importantly there is huge fallout in terms of respect for what are very decent american colleagues.

I guess I kinda fell sorry for America right now and hope that they get it right by getting out and vote. If they do get out and vote Bush is gone. Talking with an Ozie pal last week he tells me that there is a small fine for those citizens who don't excercise their democratic obligation. As well speaking with another friend from Seattle he suggests that as Canada is so effected by the election in November, that Canadians sponsor an American to vote.;) Send someone ten bucks to get off their butt. I kind of liked that idea but maybe I'll send a campaign contribution to the Democrat Candidate.

Gitz, I think you didn't get a bush % because you chose the Democratic party option. And please do us Canucks a favor and get out and vote and please not for Nadar, that was one of the problems with the last supreme court election;)

I've been telling people for months to vote Kucinich....the media just doesn't give him a fair shake, so everyone thinks he's an also-ran, regardless of how much they may actually agree with what he says.

Regardless, I've taken that before and he won, followed by Sharpton, Dean, Edwards, Kerry and then Bush. I don't remember the percentages, but Bush was way in the basement.

I don't really think it matters who the Democrats run, they'll either beat Bush or they won't, but I don't forsee the number of people who might vote for Kerry, and not for Kucinich or Dean being enough to sway the election results.

http://economics.about.com
Fun Stat: Google rates the Batter's Box and The Conservative Party of Canada homepage as being of equal importance (5/10).

Cheers,

Mike

Please. We are infinitely more relevant than A Conservative Party In Canada, or whatever the hell they are this week. Is that little girl still running for leader? What about that creepy smirky guy, you know, the Alberta separatist?

http://economics.about.com
Please. We are infinitely more relevant than A Conservative Party In Canada, or whatever the hell they are this week. Is that little girl still running for leader? What about that creepy smirky guy, you know, the Alberta separatist?

Don't forget that guy.. you know.. the one who always wears a shirt. He's in the race too.

Cheers,

Mike

I consider myself to be in the middle, but I lean towards the Republicans on the economy and spending, which is ultimately what I care most about.

Pistol:

Which Republicans would they be? The old "cut taxes so we can cut spending" republicans or the new style "cut taxes and spend like drunken sailors" republicans.

What do republicans stand for anymore on the economy?

Or the guy who's always standing on his hind legs...

Rory Calhoun?

Yes! That's the fellow.

Craig, being the tax policy analyst you are, any thoughts on how ridding the world of property tax and working with sin taxes as a means of generating revenue would work? That's what Winnipeg's trying to convince their provincial gov't to do and it seems to make a whole lot of sense to me.

I knew I was a right-wing democrat (is there such a thing?) but I didn't know this much
In the States its more like a right-wing party and righter-wing party...In Canada we stretch from centerist to right-wing.

Are there any Canadians here?
I have dual citizenship but I've never lived in the US.

Apparently, my views on crime are the same as those I hold for education. Nice way to skew results, huh?
Exactly my sentiments. I don't even see where the relevant link is between crime and education for these purposes. At all. Dido for the economy/environement.

Hey whats this about drunken sailors. We seafarers are starting to get a little miffed.%(

http://economics.about.com
In the States its more like a right-wing party and righter-wing party...In Canada we stretch from centerist to right-wing.

I don't want to know what your idea of a left-wing party would be. It'd probably make Lenin look like Brian Mulroney. :)

Cheers,

Mike

Oh common, the NDP is just Liberal-lite...They were prepared to take on Sheila Copps and it still could happen (they had gone so far as to plan the press conference but for whatever reason the deal broke down). Point being, the NDP has taken more of the center than the Liberals because of Paul Martin's center-right image. I distaste the NDP's shift to the center because I'd like a socialist alternative to vote for but if we're looking at success in terms of seats, it makes them more "electable".

Mike, you might prefer Don Cherry in this case: "The Alliance have it right, but the Tories are like Liberals, the Liberals are socialists and I don't even want to know what the NDP are." Only if the NDP were actually that left, then I would be happy.

Mike D, chump change compared to what? What the Fiberals have just tried to pull off ranks right up there with anything any American SNAFU.

http://economics.about.com
I distaste the NDP's shift to the center because I'd like a socialist alternative to vote for but if we're looking at success in terms of seats, it makes them more "electable".

I don't even know where the NDP stands on anything, so I'll have to take your word for it. I know they're against, well, pretty much everything. Wait, I think they liked Kyoto.

I guess my point was that how you divide things as being "left" and "right" generally depends on where you're standing. A more useful measure might be comparing parties relative to the median ideology of voters. It that sense, it seems strange to label all parties as being right wing.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike D.

I said "timidly" not because I'm ashamed to be on the right, but because i seem to be the only one and I didn't want to be the lone defender of conservitive views. As to my opinion of Bush (and I know you guys have a thosands reason why what I'm about to say is wrong but we really don't want to debate that HERE do we? Anyway...):

I think he is a good guy and sincerly believes what he claims to, especially the religious stuff;

I think he has some questionable advisors but I don't think Cheney is one of those I would question;

I think the GOP as a party does not have the courage of it's convictions. In principle, if you believe in tax cuts you also believe in smaller government but the GOP doesn't have the gonads to cut back on pork and so betray their claimed position. I don't blame Bush & Co for the spending that arisese out of 9-11 or even the war, but the discretionary speniding is obscene;

I do believe that both side of the political spectrum demonstrate a weajness for believing the "news" which confirms what they already believe, and in that context, a LOT of what Bush gets ragged about really either isn't verified as true, or has nothing to do with him.

Case in point: Hallaburton overbilling- Halliburton got their contracts under Clinton, not Bush, and the fraud was self discovered and self reported and was the actions of employees acting on their own. None of that can be laid at the feet of GWB, but because Cheney was connected with them, the lazy (biased) press and their gullable readership fail to care that it's not really anything to do with Bush.

I'm not pointing fingers, the right does it too. Just saying that all this "Bush is the anti-christ" rhetoric (not here, but just in general)is too much. I'll admit that I'm far politically from any of the Dem candidates and won't lose too much sleep voting for Bush, but he's not my hero.

I sort of wonder about American politics. The right (my side) had an unreasonable hatred for Bill Clinton and the left has as much or more hatred of Bush. I don't recall it being so bad before....but I could be wrong about that.

Of course Mike, everything's relative, after all...I'm actually slightly more moderate than I used to be but living with an anarchist keeps me on my toes (in a good way :-p).

http://economics.about.com
Of course Mike, everything's relative, after all...I'm actually slightly more moderate than I used to be but living with an anarchist keeps me on my toes (in a good way :-p)

It's funny how your environment can change your views. I know having a Scandinavian social-democrat as a girlfriend has influenced mine a great deal.

If you want to hear some fun views, move in with an anarcho-capitalist. :)

Cheers,

Mike

For what it's worth, since I'm a proud Canuck

Kucinich 100%
Sharpton 91%
Kerry 85%
Dean 83%
Edwards 78%
Bush 11%

I sort of wonder about American politics. The right (my side) had an unreasonable hatred for Bill Clinton and the left has as much or more hatred of Bush. I don't recall it being so bad before....but I could be wrong about that.

The only error I see in this statement is, it isn't "the left" that has so much hatred of Bush, but the majority of global citizens. President Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to America. If only America could see that.

Tuning in late...

Sharpton - 100%
Kucinich - 100%
Kerry - 95%
Edwards - 93%
Dean - 87%
Bush - 71%

I'm stunned Bush's percentage was that high since I disagree with him on most things and think he's a bumbling idiot in general.

I've voted for the Tories in the past two federal elections, but I would have quite a bit of difficulty voting for the new Conservative Party (if Harper wins, I fear it will just be the old Reform party with a second name change). Since Martin seems to be less corrupt than Chretien, I'm almost guaranteed to be voting for the Liberals next time around, even though I think they're generally lacking originality (their money laundering schemes notwithstanding).

http://economics.about.com
President Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to America.

Slavery called. It'd like its title back.

Cheers,

Mike

Martin, less corrupt? Cripes! He's an FoC ship owner. There is no such thing as a totally sound honest ship owner. It goes against natural law. Honestly. That takes the biscuit.

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1860
Creepy, smirky guy, you know, the Alberta separatist

You wouldn't be talking about me now, would you? I know I haven't been posting on the boards as often as before but I still read everything. I'm not going to bother posting my AOL voting results because they are no different than the Bauxite consensus. COMN for the best site I've found that differentiates the candidates. Personally I'm looking forward to hearing Nobby Treecobbler's platform.

Martin and crew are the same bunch of trough feeders that have been in power the past ten years filled with scandal after scandal. They say now they knew nothing when a fellow cabinet minister was bundled off to Denmark in the middle of the original Public Works fiasco.Five crown corporations, two headed by former Fiberal cabinet ministers, and the RCMP were involved. But they knew nothing. I will take Harper over that rot any time.

Which Republicans would they be? The old "cut taxes so we can cut spending" republicans or the new style "cut taxes and spend like drunken sailors" republicans.

Well, preferably cutting taxes & cutting spending, but there's some unusual circumstances these days (plus a lot of wasteful spending too).

Of course going to Mars would be really cool!!!

Mike, you're right that what happens in the US has a large effect on Canada. That doesn't mean I'm going to pay attention to the primaries, as I have no influence on them. I did watch in 2000, and loved John McCain. I liked almost everything he had to say (except for on gay rights). Seems as though he would have left except that he had too large an appeal, which upset the Republicans. He would have crushed Gore. Suprisingly, this appears to put me in the minority.

What I find interesting about Canadian politics right now is that poll after poll has the Liberals at about 45-50%. Whenever this comes out, it's a scene that our corupt central etc government just has no opposition, the left is weak, the right is going to estremists, etc. Isn't it possible that they get that percentage because people like them? This is never even mentioned as a possibility.

The NDP is about as left as you can get in Canada without being totally marginalized (and by that I mean getting less than 1% of the vote).

I think there are large policy differences between the NDP and the Liberals (at the federal level). One of the big ones would be the attitude towards deficits. Fiscal conservatism dominates the present-day federal Liberals, and the Martin government seems to want to hand out money to as many "constituents/lobbyists" in the form of spending or tax breaks as they can without going into deficit - they are trying to be all things to all people.

The NDP would pour money into healtcare, education, public transportation (via transfers to the provincial governments) and they wouldn't be shy about running deficits.

The Conservatives, in the event they came to power, would go for a Harris-style slashing of taxes and spending. They'd be careful about going after healtcare, since cutting too much of that would be a one-way ticket to political oblivion, but otherwise would go for the throat. My personal opinion is that the CP's agenda is to adopt (wherever possible) US Republican policies.

Robert, Jack Layton is preeching balanced budgets. It's really all the same rhetoric as the Liberals but the NDP isn't shy about their intentions with taxes. The foreign policy is possibly where they differ most but the NDP hasn't even committed in full to pulling out of NAFTA or the other grotesque 'free' trade agreements.

A,

Perhaps, but what I was doing was trying to look at how a potential NDP government would behave. I think it would be nearly impossible to raise income tax significantly - there would be so much outrage that Layton and his cabinet would be risking their lives by doing so.

User fees on certain things would be a possibility, but there wouldn't be enough of that to cover the massive spending increases that would surely come from an NDP government. Deficits are something that the public doesn't feel on their hides immediately - the trouble comes over the long-term.

A Layton government might have similar policies to the Trudeau liberals. As such, an odd generational shift has occured: the Liberals are the present day red Tories of Joe Clark vintage; the NDP has moved even more firmly into the infrastructure and cultural spending theatre (and a little away from the union-based agendy they once had) that Trudeau occupied for most of his time in office. The PC party, first split in half, then shoved by the rightward-moving Chretien/Martin Liberals, decided on hara kiri. They've been replaced by a Harris-esque anti-federalist conservative party.

Umm... I think this test is bogus. Anyway, here are my results.

Kerry 100%
Bush 96%
Dean 93%
Edwards 86%
Sharpton 84%
Kucinich 75%

I think it's because I'm so far away from all of them that this test makes little sense for me. I'm mostly a right-leaning libertarian type, although I tend to agree with the left on most social issues (unless they cost a lot of money...). Seems like there's a few other Bauxites with similar thoughts on matters...

I'm Canadian, but I probably would generally vote Republican if I was American, although I wouldn't in the upcoming election. The Republicans have gotten too big-brothery for my likings. I have honestly no idea who I'm voting for in the upcoming election. Maybe Conservative but I'll wait to hear their platform.

Oh, and as a followup to the Google PageRank thing, according to Alexa, the PC Party site is the 238,840 th most-visited site on the internet, while the Liberals are in 132,552nd place and the NDP check in at 144,451st.

And Battersbox.ca checks in at 182,847.

(Note, rankings below 100,000 are not considered to be all that accurate.)

Wow, this is so ridiculously offtopic, but it's late, so I'll waste a few more bytes by noting that if you have Mozilla Firefox (formerly Mozilla Firebird) you can set up a little Alexa quick search to easily check how popular sites are (drag that last link to your list and then right-click in the bookmarks list and type in keyword alexa. Now in your address bar you can type "alexa yahoo.com" (substituting the appropriate URL in place of yahoo.com, of course), to find out how popular a given site is.

http://economics.about.com
They'd be careful about going after healtcare, since cutting too much of that would be a one-way ticket to political oblivion, but otherwise would go for the throat.

And this would be different than the first term of Chretien's adminstration in what way?

You can see why the Conservatives would think it's a good plan, seeing how many majority governments the Libs have gotten since then.

Cheers,

Mike

any thoughts on how ridding the world of property tax and working with sin taxes as a means of generating revenue would work?

You mean property tax like municipal property tax? I don't like it. Property taxes are essentially the ONLY tax administered by municipalities, which means that it's their only control over tax policy. I'd like to see municipalities get more of a say in other types of levies, but for now it ain't happening.

Sin taxes are a lousy way to generate revenue; in order to get anything significant from them, you have to set the tax levies ridiculously high. Once you do that, people will just find a way to avoid paying. It's the "Ability-to-pay" thing I talked about earlier. Sin taxes are essentially about policy, not about tax, and that's a lousy way to tax.

You wouldn't be talking about me now, would you? I know I haven't been posting on the boards as often as before but I still read everything.

Haha, no, I was talking about Stephen Harper. He often threatens to break up Confederation when he doesn't get his way about something.

A Layton government might have similar policies to the Trudeau liberals.

This is generally true; except that the wily old pragmatist Trudeau tended to have a whole raft "policies" that never found their way into implementation.

A Layton government [stop snickering] would, like the Rae government did, probably try to avoid implementing as much of that "policy" as was reasonably possible, but it would still wind up dragging the country through some rather convulsive changes.

As such, an odd generational shift has occured: the Liberals are the present day red Tories of Joe Clark vintage; the NDP has moved even more firmly into the infrastructure and cultural spending theatre (and a little away from the union-based agendy they once had) that Trudeau occupied for most of his time in office.

They had to; there are no industrial workers in this country anymore to build a political base on. But the NDP has failed to cultivate friends in high places as well, so they are incresingly irrelevant to a political discussion that is (like in a lot of the West) between two wings of the Business Party.

I don't think that's necessarily bad, though it is symptomatic of a lack of real engagement with issues (Parliament letting the courts basically set 90% of social policy is an example).

The PC party, first split in half, then shoved by the rightward-moving Chretien/Martin Liberals, decided on hara kiri. They've been replaced by a Harris-esque anti-federalist conservative party.

The influence of the U.S. looms large, though. In keeping with its southward outlook, the Conservative/Reform axis is now dominated almost totally by U.S. ideas and approaches which they hope to adapt to Canadian conditions.

Traditionally, the Dief/Stanfield/Clark Tories were a Canada-first party (the party of MacDonald's National Policy and all that). The Mulroneyites changed all that in what is, historically, an eyeblink. It's their greatest legacy, and the party might still be an electable force today if it hadn't gambled and lost on Lucien Bouchard, which produced ripe ground for the Reform movement and sunk the Tories.

Mulroney's branch-plant, satellite-state mentality has become the dominant political paradigm of the Canadian right, and it's been a complete disaster almost everywhere and especially federally, because they have not yet been able to overcome Canadians' inherent mistrust of the U.S.

http://economics.about.com
The influence of the U.S. looms large, though. In keeping with its southward outlook, the Conservative/Reform axis is now dominated almost totally by U.S. ideas and approaches which they hope to adapt to Canadian conditions.

Traditionally, the Dief/Stanfield/Clark Tories were a Canada-first party (the party of MacDonald's National Policy and all that). The Mulroneyites changed all that in what is, historically, an eyeblink. It's their greatest legacy, and the party might still be an electable force today if it hadn't gambled and lost on Lucien Bouchard, which produced ripe ground for the Reform movement and sunk the Tories.

Mulroney's branch-plant, satellite-state mentality has become the dominant political paradigm of the Canadian right, and it's been a complete disaster almost everywhere and especially federally, because they have not yet been able to overcome Canadians' inherent mistrust of the U.S.

This is probably the most intelligent analysis on the Conservatives I've ever read. Thanks Craig!

Cheers,

Mike

Kucinich 100%, Bush 5%. What did I answer wrong? Funny, there weren't any questions about drug testing in baseball, which is about the only thing I agree with Dubya on.

A globeandmail.com poll asked for support for Kerry and Bush. Kerry had 80% of site visitors. I'm guessing that Clinton would have had the support of about 60% of Canadians at the end of his first term.

Craig B, actually, the comp for today's NDP would be the Pearson-era Liberals although absent some of Lester's guts. If they can find some of the missing guts, they might not end up as irrelevant and the scowl on the portrait of Tommy Douglas in Layton's office might disappear.

Back to baseball.

President Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to America.

Slavery called. It'd like its title back.


And Jimmy Carter thinks he should be a contender in the recent history category.

By definition there are no worthwhile politicians. Their only true goal is to build greater power for themselves by taking it from our earnings and freedom.

I wouldn't be so quick to write off the NDP. It seems to me that the younger the voter, the more left-leaning (in Canada, anyway). Layton might be the kind of leader to galvanize some of those who have never voted and feel completely marginalized. With the rightward shift of the liberals, the left of the political spectrum is completely open.

If the NDP can bump their popular vote up to 18% or so, that will create closely contested three-way races in many ridings, which could result in a minority government (with the NDP holding the balance of power) down the road. I think the Maritimes, where currently the Liberals reign supreme, is ground where the NDP can make inroads.

The only error I see in this statement is, it isn't "the left" that has so much hatred of Bush, but the majority of global citizens. President Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to America. If only America could see that.

Generally speaking, two things are true (for better or worse):

The rest of the western world is considerably left of the U.S.

The majority of Americans really don't lie awake at night wondering what the rest of the world thinks of our president

Dr., do you have any evidence that Rooney actually said?
It looks like the kind of crap that someone says Rooney said, even though CBS and Rooner are too smart to say something as mind boggling stupid as that forward.

Dr. Zarco,

Excellent post! It reminds me again how glad I am to live in Canada, where those sentiments are held only by the lunatic fringe.

http://economics.about.com
It looks like the kind of crap that someone says Rooney said, even though CBS and Rooner are too smart to say something as mind boggling stupid as that forward.

Rooney didn't say it. The language isn't his style, nor the ideas. In fact, Rooney has been pretty pissed off about the whole thing. See Snopes.com.

The whole thing speaks more to our stereotypes of the right then the actual views members of the right hold, IMHO.

Having lived in the United States, I'd say that those views *are* only held by the lunatic fringe there. Well, I can only vouch for Rochester.

Cheers,

Mike

I'm debating whether this belongs here or in hijack central thread. It looks like Kerry's non-stop train to the Democratic nomination may have been derailed. Apparently Kerry suffers from an accute case of internitis: the same malady that ruined Clinton's second term. I couldn't be more happy since I don't like Kerry very much. To me he's not a Democrat but a bland, slightly more moderate Republican whose only positive attribute is that he may be more palpable to swing voters. Despite AOL telling me I have Kucinich leanings I'd like to see Dean win the nomination. His fire and rage may not win him an election but it would make for an interesting election year. One where the two candidates actually disagree on most issues and really don't like each other.

P.S. I debated whether or not to link a Drudge Report article but in the end I figure it can't be any less accurate than every Gammons rumour that we've spent threads discussing.

Here comes the far-right smear machine. Never mind corporate fraud or political malfeasance; this is the stuff that really matters. Completely unsubstantiated? Well, prove it didn't happen, then!

I'm not going to post on this thread anymore. That, and the fact that there are certainly those who secretly (or openly, if on the fringe) agree with the post submitted by Dr. Zarco, risks making me too emotional...

I'm not referring to any Bauxites (except Dr. Zarco's admitted partial agreement) in that last paragraph.

OK, now I'll shut up.

Moffatt, those lunatics don't tend to live on the coasts; they tend to be in Colorado, Texas, Kansas, etc.

I don't lie awake wondering what the rest of the world thinks of the U.S. president, either. I lie awake wondering how to start a new life in another country, because I don't fit in here -- due to my own weaknesses and character flaws, not to George W. Bush, though the path he is taking the country doesn't help things. I'm not going to launch an Internet confession on anyone, and I'm not going to try to debate gun control and abortion and gay marriage and the Bush Doctrine, etc. But I would like to live in a country where the people hold views at least closer to mine. Not exactly mine, but closer. Those people are in this country, too, but harder to find it seems, and even on the coasts, where I've always lived (and increasingly amongst my friends), a gathering sense of alienation occurs to me, a real perception that I'm an outcast, that I have nothing in common with these people. But that is my problem, not theirs; they've done nothing differently, and they're still my friends. And I know I'm a wacko, so I don't try to spread my outdated, unwanted opinions. I'll share them sometimes, too often for some people, but I'm not out to win any converts, and at any rate I've become more introverted with my opinions when I realized how marginalized I was. Yes, I have it better than a disturbingly high number of people in the world. Whether I should or not, I do feel guilty for being born in the West and for finding anything to question. And I also know chances are high, if not 100 percent, that if I ever get to Canada, or New Zealand, or anywhere, I'll discover that life is not elsewhere -- it is where you are, and wishing it was different won't make it different -- and that I'll still be restless, unsettled, and generally useless in job markets. Recognizing that is one thing; changing it, or even accepting it, is another.

Yikes, sorry to have started an uproar. I kind of figured they weren't comments by Rooney himself, but thanks for the confimation Mike (Rochester's my hometown by the way, I can only vouch for Roch and Chicago). As for the content, I realize much is stereotypical far far right wing, but as a middle right winger myself I am going to anger some more people I would guess, and say I don't think it's all "lunatic fringe."

Interesting stuff though, it's always fun to see the wide array of responses to something controversial. After sending this thread down too touchy a road I shall leave it be return to happier threads like Tosca expecting playoffs!

Well...I'll almost leave. Looks like I finished 2nd to Mark in the who has the highest % Bush comparison (although I do agree it's rather a bunk system). Our #'s are startlingly similar Mark...

Jordan, just so you know, Kucinich is the furthest left of all the Democratic leadership aspirants, never had any chance of winning, and would be comfortable in the NDP here. Yesterday's Blue Tory (with red leanings) is today's closet NDPer. Don't worry, I won't tell anyone...

As a frequent lurker on this site, I'd like to compliment you on its high quality. I'm a lifelong baseball fan and long-term Blue Jays fan and season ticket holder. Batters Box has become my #1 source for Blue Jays news and analysis. Congrats to everyone involved, especially those running the site but also the community of posters.

The Box's general baseball content is strong but naturally not as deep as a site like Baseball Primer, so I occasionally go over there. That brings me to the point of this post. FWIW I suggest that the Box should avoid politics completely. It's a slippery slope towards the crap that gets posted on Primer.

Lurker, don't worry, we are sensitive to this. The people who run this site, and our whole roster of authors, are keenly aware of the issue of maintaining the quality of discussion here.

This was an interesting topic, discussed (mostly) with polite respect on all sides. We can do this here. We don't want to do it too often.

Dr. Zarco, your post has been deleted due to copyright concerns. My apologies. Feel free to click on my name and send me an e-mail if you want to discuss it.

http://economics.about.com
I gotta admit, I somewhat regret starting this thread. I don't think I'll do it again in the future. The conversation has been almost completely civil, which wouldn't have happened on Primer, so I think we ought to be proud of ourselves.

IMHO, with any of these discussions it's key to remember that someone can disagree with you and not be stupid and/or evil. The fact that we all have different opinions and viewpoints makes the world a better place. It'd be awful if every guy had the same preferences as I do; they'd be hitting on my girlfriend almost non-stop. :)

Cheers,

Mike

IMHO, with any of these discussions it's key to remember that someone can disagree with you and not be stupid and/or evil. The fact that we all have different opinions and viewpoints makes the world a better place

Awwww, Mike, underneath it all you're just as soft as the next liberal ;-)

Craig B,
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
BTW I would do more than lurk here, but every time I have something to say, another poster has said it first and better!
Great site, keep it up.

A, if you keep insulting people like that I'm going to have to take drastic measures :)

WOW! I know this is a baseball sight and that is the main reason I enjoy this site so very much. But this has been a truly insightful, level-headed, urbane and civil dicussion a very touchy subject which all too often ends in shouts and invective. Congratulations to you all. As to weather to post another thread like this, it mat not be right but it is fun.
Thanks,
jason

No problem Craig, sorry for putting you in that position. I think the discussion has gone quite far enough.

I had something ready to go but my computer shut itself down for no reason. Grr. Here's basically what I was going to say:

This site is good for any form of discussion, from baseball to politics to nerdiest pastimes. As much as I enjoy Da Box, I think we should stick to baseball.

This post sounded a lot better and more intelligent before Windows XP ate it.