> That's the problem, Matt. You've been "hammering" to advance a partisan > agenda, much of which has absolutely nothing to do with bicycling
I'd love to know how Mr. Hauda translated "message that does not resonate with Republicans" into "partisan agenda, much of which has absolutely nothing to do with bicycling". Here is what I am going to continue to hammer on: It is great that the Bike Fed is working to advance bicycling - if only they could produce a compelling argument for it that resonated with Republicans who control our state budget process. (I can't wait to see how that gets spun into a proof of another personal failing on my part.) By the way, I see the Bike Fed supports the Constitutional Amendment protecting a fund that our Republican leaders clearly intend to be spent exclusively on facilities for motorists. Any chance you could back off on that support until the state includes bicycling facilities in the projects receiving money from that fund? _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
