Art by fiat

bird.jpgThe leader of the party of small government is proposing an increase in the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts of $15 - $20 million, the largest increase in two decades.

A quote from near the end of the article caught my eye:

"There's nothing in the world that helps economic development more than arts programs," Ms. Slaughter said.

In my best Dr. Evil voice: "Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight"

Share this

Bush has it pretty good. As

Bush has it pretty good. As an incumbent president, he knows he has the Republican vote (since I doubt smaller conservative parties will take much of his bloc), so he can throw a few bones to Democrats and independents. The people he seems least intent on pleasing are the L/libertarians.

I dunno, though; Bush has

I dunno, though; Bush has *really* pissed off a lot of the Republican faithful that actually have principles (aside from keeping and maintaining power), whom might decide to sit on their hands come election time. Its not like 2000, where the whole base mobilized to bring down the hated Clinton regime (and still was barely enough; any state switching = Gore victory). Lots of small-L libertarians vote, and they're wicked pissed at Bush for all sorts of post 9-11 shenanigans; the fact that you have sites like "Libertarians for Dean" suggest that still-political libertarians might switch if the alternative is not heinous (the only one that I can think of would be Edwards; I don't believe serious/political/principled libertarians could ever vote for Dean, at least with a clear conscience).

Bush is in more trouble than a lot of people realize, because all of his Rovian tactics to woo Democratic "constituencies" aren't winning him votes from the left, while its pissing off the right and the top (libertarians ^_^).

With Republicans like Bush,

With Republicans like Bush, who needs Democrats?