January 29, 2004

Two Birds

A member of my current affairs email list posted this morning about the President increasing funding for the NEA, and he wasn't happy about it. I figured my response was killing two birds with one stone if I made it the basis of a blog post:

So more money for the NEA. And here I didn't vote for John McCain because he was too liberal for me! I have to admit, I have not been happy with many of the President's domestic policies. If I wanted massive increases in social spending, I would have voted for Gore. I thought I was voting for a small government conservative. My bad.

That being said, for me, the most important thing is national security. All the prescription drugs and feces covered paintings won't matter if we have dirty nukes going off in our cities. So I'll still be voting for Bush because there really isn't any alternative I can see for me on this issue.

Of course, the other aspect of this is that by ticking off his base, people like me
will be voting, but may not be enthused enough to go get out the vote. That's not a good thing. I'm not ruling out volunteering here locally on the campaign, but it sure gets harder to be enthusiastic with every liberal policy he enacts, and every dollar he spends on things like the NEA.

Update: Connected? I wonder as I read this article. Now, bearing in mind that my brain isn't working on all cylinders this morning, this is what I'm pondering: I'm a lot more conservative than the average Californian, so trying to look at this from the perspective of the typical CA "moderate", could the very policies I'm annoyed with the President over be the very thing that's giving him a chance to win this state? Is it all in aid of getting the amount of electoral votes you just can't sneeze at? A devil's bargain: figure your base will hold their nose and vote for you anyway, and bring in people who wouldn't vote for you without the big spending government programs, thereby winning the election.

Does this make any sort of sense? Or am I being too convoluted and cynical?

Posted by Ithildin at January 29, 2004 7:55 AM | PROCURE FINE OLD WORLD ABSINTHE

It's a tough one. I'm voting for Bush regardless of the spending because the other side of the aisle would completely screw up foriegn affairs....

I wish Bush would keep his opinions on marriage to himself, and stop worrying about steroids in pro sports too.

The funny thing about Bush's spending is that the Democrats would spend even more, regardless of what they say.

Posted by: Easycure at January 29, 2004 11:04 AM

Welcome to, in Fred Barnes's phrase, "big-government conservatism." :-( The GOP in Washington has apparently lost all the revolutionary fervor of 1994 and basically become the establishment: I tend to believe that stuff like this is a symptom of that more than it is a calculated polical strategy (or "strategery").

As for the NEA: people should be perfectly free to do whatever their chocolate, urine or bullwhips, just as long as it's not with my tax money. Why the NEA even exists at all by now is beyond my capacity to fathom.

Posted by: Dave J at January 29, 2004 11:48 AM

I'm the stingiest bastard I know on government spending but still a Bush-baby... why? Okay, security, although the Dems wouldn't be as bad on that as their primary burps imply (I think) but on spending I see this as a softening of the left for the Big Daddy... SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM, hopefully along the lines of ISAs or some similar slow bleeding of The Beast. If he can crack that it won't matter what else has happened (outside large-scale violence). Unburdened of SS we will grow out of the remainder of our debts in short order.

Posted by: megapotamus at January 29, 2004 2:57 PM

When the base stays home, Republicans lose. This is a terrible gamble he is making, and I am liking it less every day. The "true blue" right is in an uproar, and even pragmatists like me are getting uneasy. Vox Day's "Christian Libertarian" party is looking more attractive all the time...

Posted by: Desert Cat at January 29, 2004 7:55 PM

I'm a conservative and the spending does not make me happy. The problem is-- who is proposing less? All the alternatives would spend more and then raise taxes to cover the deficit.

Posted by: craig henry at January 29, 2004 10:33 PM