Third Party & Independents: Archives

Sorry, David, but I think this is the kind of logic that makes sure program like this get short changed. We worry about little programs like this that do a lot of good (ala NASA) then let the big honking steamrollers of the Defense Department and the unnecessary pork spending off the hook. Besides, we should let him do this for now. It’s destroying his image among conservatives.

I used to think Bill Clinton made obvious moves for political gain, President Bush has him beat hands down. When the twins show up it will be a sign that the boys are worried. And they will be trotted out because of the paranoia of the Republican Right. Reemember The Nixon Gang? They would have won easily in 1972 but were so insecure and neurotic that they lost their sanity. The way the GOP is attacking Kerry lately is a sign that the same mentality is in play. Watch out for the dirty tricks.

Sadly, President Bush will do the same to the NEA as he is doing with sex education.

With sex-ed, he is pushing funding to abstinence only programs, and cutting the funding of any programs that even think of mentioning birth-control or abortion as alternatives to teen pregnancy. Now given, abstinence is a great way to prevent STD’s and unwanted pregnancy, but to only promote it under the delusion that teenagers are going to listen to you…well that’s just foolish.

But I digress, Bush has already stated that the funding for the NEA will go to specific qualified programs, such as inspirational art, or a tour of classics around the country. What he is essentially doing is telling the NEA, “I’m tired of you giving money to artists who say things I don’t like, so I am gonna give you some much needed funding, but it’s gonna cost ya.”

When GW can tell me what kind of art I can appreciate, or (as a sculptor myself) what kind of art I can make, under his guidelines, then we have a serious problem…it is art and is bound to be expressive, even if that expression is unpopular.

GW is aware of this and is putting the noose around the neck of the NEA.

Stephen, President Bush is not observing any principle’s of any party in his decision making. He is following only one principle - reelection at any cost (to himself and the public). The NEA funding is vote pandering just as the medicare bill was vote pandering, just as the immigration bill was vote pandering just as the NASA goal reorientation was vote pandering.

For those who would not give him their vote anyway, these programs are sure to strike a cord with some of them too and pull them into a position of stating the President does have some good programs. I say none of the programs are good because they are being developed atop a house of cards called the national debt in the context of losing our economic leadership in the world. No program is good if it is not part of a short and long range plan to zero out the deficits and bring down the national debt or zero it out as well.

I realize zeroing out the national debt while trying to insure a safety net for our population through the peak of the baby boom is not realistic, but it can and must be lowered in the short run to accomodate that safety net at the peak of demand.

At least that is my opinion, your mileage may vary. : )

rob, quite right. In addition, he is only proposing to return funding to the NEA which the Republicans have cut progressively since 1992. And then as you say, targeted funding for artists who uphold the accepted classics or produce non-controversial subject matter which will appeal to the Christian masses. It is indeed a form of institutionalized censorship, and western cultural history has proven that patronage of the acceptable never seems able to quiet the voices of discontent.

However, this all pales to what is really going on. Bush’s polls among women are dropping. By having Laura Bush come out with an announcement of support for the arts, Bush is both trying to capitalize on women’s empathy for Laura, and appeal to culturally left leaning independents. In other words, he doesn’t give one iota for the Arts (perhaps Remington would be an exception): he is pandering votes, pure and simple. He gets another 4 years, I guarantee that funding will dry up quicker than spit on a red hot skillet.

John, no amount of dirty tricks will matter if Kerry can provide a charted course to the public which they can understand and or believe in, which gets us safely to the other side of terrorism, the baby boom peak demand on tax payers, and the economic globalization process which threatens the U.S.’s previous standing. Security and the economy. Kerry must provide a credible vision of his own on these issues which charts new avenues, and taps into the people’s desire and willingness to do their part to keep our future strong, hopeful and confident.

It is a tall order for any of challenger to Bush. I have not seen such a saleable plan arise from any of the Democratic candidates yet, though bits and pieces from different candidates have potential.

President Bush has lost my vote

David, I look at what he’s doing, and I think it’s costing him more than it’s gaining him. I think when his supporters start having to actually argue with democrats, and even among themselves, the desperation of all his widely-flung initiatives will beg the question Why else is he doing this, but to gain votes?

When Bush increased NASA funding, you know what my response was. I wasn’t going to become critical of NASA spending because it was increased by Bush. Observing the proportion of the spending increase, I wasn’t going to criticize it on the basis of the Budget problems as whole, since it will contribute so little to that problem. But It wasn’t going to win any points from me for Bush. One, Bush was never a intellectual Science and Technology president, so it didn’t seem a spontaneous, original act on his part. Two, Bush’s other screw-ups far outweigh his contributions for me, the way Nixon’s outweighed his contributions at the height of the Apollo program.

And finally, I’d like to think that I wasn’t an easy person to bribe, that I wouldn’t give Bush my vote, just to preserve my special interest. I’d like to think I have more freedom and dignity than that.

Platforms and electoral gimmee’s are traps, meant to encourage voters to consider the abstract character of a candidate over their overall feel. If we want real candidates, we have to vote on real candidates, and not platforms.

Stephen, it would appear from polls that a great many Americans are thinking in parallel to yourself. For the first time, polls show Kerry beating Bush by a margin greater than the statistical margin of error.