Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: freedomcrusader
You are correct. However, he got all those conservative things done, even when for two years he did not have a majority in the Senate, and even last year got a very thin majority.

Yet, did the far right stop to appreciate what he had accomplished? No. On this forum I have seen complaints that the Partial Birth Abortion bill was a sham and he should do more, that the tax increases weren't good enough, that he was weak when dealing with China, that he should have vetoed the farm bill, etc. etc....all the while telling us that they won't vote for him again.

Now, as far as the NEA, it seems to me that there was a change in its direction a couple of years ago, and a new director appointed. The really insulting stuff from the NEA was several years ago, and I haven't read anything lately that got me riled. Perhaps without our knowing the NEA has gone back to what was originally intended...a funding of arts programs for areas that don't have those types of opportunities. I can't say that I know, and perhaps this merits some investigation on my part.

Let's wait and see what's actually going on. It could be far different from what many are assuming.

703 posted on 01/29/2004 8:43:29 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies ]


To: Miss Marple
Yet, did the far right stop to appreciate what he had accomplished? No. On this forum I have seen complaints that the Partial Birth Abortion bill was a sham and he should do more, that the tax increases weren't good enough, that he was weak when dealing with China, that he should have vetoed the farm bill, etc. etc....all the while telling us that they won't vote for him again.

Many ardent Bush supporters on this forum are the "far right". Like Dane said, FR ain't the entire (or even center) of the conservative universe.

My point is simply that a significant part of Bush's base, one that he arguably cannot win without, has nothing but ill will towards the NEA (whether it is because they do not like being taxed so others may enjoy art or because the NEA has a long history of funding anti-Christian art).

The great "middle" that is also important to re-election, hasn't put NEA funding anywhere on their top-ten list of issues with which they are most concerned.

Politically, it is either stupid, naive, suicidal, etc. I just don't see how it wins Bush more votes than it potentially loses.

730 posted on 01/29/2004 8:54:05 AM PST by freedomcrusader (Proudly wearing the politically incorrect label "crusader" since 1/29/2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson