I think when people call the mainstream Republican party "anti-intellectual" they are referring to things like: the quite obvious skepticism of even the most mainstream scientific theories, constant rhetoric deriding intellectuals and artists, policies that are guided by puritan morality rather than a rational evidence-based approach aimed at a certain outcome (drug policy, abstinence-only sex ed., myriad other distracting culture-war issues), policies that place little value in the arts/education (Romney's recent proposed budget would slash the National Endowment for the Arts by half, saving something like $70 mil), etc.

Surely you're not suggesting that the Democrats are more accepting of "science". (They're not - they just accept different things and want to do different things in response to said science.)

As to grant-supported "artists", they've entered the political sphere. That has consequences.

And, very little of it is art, let alone deserving of tax money. (Cowboys can pay for their own poetry and so can rich people.)

> Cowboys can pay for their own poetry

No idea what you're talking about. I'm assuming an utterly insignificant amount of government money went to something that looks at least superficially wasteful and now the right is shrieking about it when they have better things to do.

Has the right done anything else since Obama came into office?

Objections to the National Endowment for the Arts predate Obama.

> Has the right done anything else since Obama came into office?

Yup, plenty.

Are you going to claim that everything Obama has done is peachy keen?

I note that the Dem senate hasn't bothered to pass an Obama budget. That takes 51 votes, which the Dems have. They all voted against the last one. They probably won't even bother to schedule a vote on this one.

Thank you. I often feel the term "anti-intellectual" is used on a person who simply disagrees with a notion thought up by someone that has been labeled "intellectual" by someone else or worse, themselves.