Bush: The Athletic Supporter Candidate

May 25, 2004 3:28 PM

Bush Will Win Because He's A Jock
(warning National Review filter)
Sorry, I had to post this because its about the dumbest article on why Bush will win the election that I have ever seen.

via Bush Must Go
posted by fenriq (104 comments total)

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!
posted by Stan Chin at 3:31 PM on May 25, 2004

Meanwhile, the Washington Post did its part to try to convince us that Kerry's a natural-born athlete...

where I stopped reading.
posted by callmejay at 3:35 PM on May 25, 2004

When Kerry fell while snowboarding a few months ago, he famously said, "I don't fall" before blaming a Secret Service agent for running into him.

Good god, are they still trying to get some play out of that nonevent? You got to give the right some credit; once they get hold of a soundbite, they never let it go. Whether it makes any sense at all or not.
posted by ook at 3:40 PM on May 25, 2004

I still hear about the pretzel from the left, ook.
posted by callmejay at 3:42 PM on May 25, 2004

yeah, as a joke!
posted by mcsweetie at 3:44 PM on May 25, 2004

dr mengele to thread
posted by mr.marx at 3:45 PM on May 25, 2004

Ok well, I don't think it's as stupid as you think. The idea is that Americans like the frat-jock better than the nerd. This is true. It permeates our media, is engrained since the days of t-ball.

Ok that said. The article is stupid. They could have made for a good case in what Americans like in leadership (broad shouldered, athletic, guy next door, easy to talk to vs short, skinny, anti-social, pedantic nerd). The points in the article are just really stupid:

"Unlike Kerry's, the president's workouts are actual periods of elevated heart rate and significant exertion, not orchestrated photo ops."

Ok what the fuck? I remember seeing pictures of Kerry looking really ripped in his earlier years. It also says Bush benches 200 lbs. I cannot find a fact for that anywhere and I highly doubt it. I know a friend who plays athletics at the college level (golf) and is around 5'11" or 5'10" and benches 194. I think this is comprabable to Bush from what I quickly searched for. This kid gets up and does 2 hours of weight lifting in the morning. I really, really doubt Bush can lift this much. Bush frankly is old and not ripped. I doubt he has stamina like that.

"We don't acturally know John Kerry's heart rate, because he won't release his full medical records. Search "John Kerry" and "medical records" on the Internet, and you get a statement from his campaign detailing his medical condition...in the 1960s."

Ok another round of facts given out about Bush's resting heart rate, yet when I googled "Bush" and "medical records" all I could find are Bush's Vietnam-era medical records. And who the hell votes on medical records?

Then she goes on to criticize Kerry on not admitting he fell? I mean what the hell? There has to be a logical fallacy here. A philosophy mefite please step in and tell me what she's violating because she could easily make the point that not admitting falls is the mark of a true athlete.

And whatever you think of Bush's policies, there's no arguing with 14.5-percent body fat.

14.5% is good, but nothing to be bragging about I think. I would assume true athletes have it somewhere around 10%.
posted by geoff. at 3:50 PM on May 25, 2004

Wow, they're really looking for reasons to believe, aren't they?

"But...but...Dubya's an athlete! Not like that poopypants Kerry!"
posted by Ty Webb at 3:54 PM on May 25, 2004

geoff, 14.5% is an excellent body fat percentage for a female athlete. Its decent for man. Certainly nothing to be lauded about. In my training days, I was down at around 5% and was benching over 300 lbs.

I don't see Bush pushing 200 lb bench presses.

And I'm sure there are some people out there who are single issue voters who go by medical records alone. Not many of them but they are out there. Just like the people who get sexual satisfaction from watching women step on bugs with bare feet.

As for Kerry not admitting he fell, maybe he really didn't and his secret service agent ran into him. Failure is as much a part of sports as winning.

On Preview: Ty, don't go giving them any ideas, next thing we'll have ads calling Kerry, Mr. Poopypants and accussing him of accidentally crapping himself once at Yale (Mr Bush crapped his pants on purpose though, so there!).
posted by fenriq at 3:59 PM on May 25, 2004

6 minute miles? george bush?

william hague mentions a 7 minute mile here. it's 7 here, too, and 7-8 here (noting it's gone up to 9 after a torn meniscus).
posted by andrew cooke at 4:00 PM on May 25, 2004

Andrew, maybe they're talking about him on his bike?
posted by fenriq at 4:07 PM on May 25, 2004

he can't ride a bike; he can't ride a segway; he can't eat a pretzel without fainting--this is a jock?
posted by amberglow at 4:09 PM on May 25, 2004

yeah, as a joke!

I seem to remember more than a few MeFites chiming in with all seriousness after the pretzel "incident":

d00d, bu$h was t0tally drunk. he's a cokehead and stuff. that's why he passed out, not the pretzel.

Good god, are they still trying to get some play out of that nonevent? You got to give the right some credit; once they get hold of a soundbite, they never let it go. Whether it makes any sense at all or not.

As callmejay implied: It cuts both ways. But only if you're willing to see both sides. See amberglow's comment from yesterday regarding Bush's bike accident: "Since when are they to be believed? A bicycle accident due to wet soil?!? as if." Sounds like these types of soundbite-driven theories are abound all over the political spectrum. It's silly to pretend it's partisan-specific.
posted by dhoyt at 4:18 PM on May 25, 2004

dhoyt: you're comparing a snide mefi comments to actual, published articles? That's the standard you hold journalists to? Also, saying Bush's spill on his bike was due to rain when it hadn't rained in 10 days was just indicative of the pattern of stupid, unimportant lies, Amberglow's pointing it out, again as a snide MeFi comment, is in a whole other ballpark from some reporter writing an allegedly worth-publishing piece about a presidential candidate.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:29 PM on May 25, 2004

He's no athlete but he is
former boy cheerleader:


posted by y2karl at 4:31 PM on May 25, 2004

I don't think it accounts to the election in any way, and I think the entire premise is silly, but I'm trying to figure out the universe in which George W. Bush is a jock. He remains the only president who I could confidently say I could kick his ass. Bush's father could probably kick the shit out of me, and I think I'd have a serious time with Jeb. But Dubya... damn. That one is Glass Joe, baby.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:40 PM on May 25, 2004

Bush vs. Kerry -- so it all comes down to who would you rather see in a military fighter plane, bravely destroying the Al-Queda motherbase while fighting insurmountable G-Forces?

awesome. this is better than schwarzenegger.
posted by sleslie at 4:46 PM on May 25, 2004

XQUZYPHYR:

What about Taft? Or FDR in his wheelchair bound days?
posted by delmoi at 4:49 PM on May 25, 2004

Taft would be a close call. I suffer a very low level of endurance necessary to pummel someone of his girth long enough to sustain long-term damage. Remember that Taft was not merely out of shape, but so overweight that his entire center of gravity would be lowered greatly, allowing greater defensive sustenance. Roosevelt, as will revealed in an upcoming book by novelist Dan Brown, was in fact magical.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:04 PM on May 25, 2004

d00d, bu$h was t0tally drunk. he's a cokehead and stuff. that's why he passed out, not the pretzel

You should find a real quote instead of making one up. If you make up quotes, it doesn't help your argument at all.
posted by Hildago at 5:08 PM on May 25, 2004

Yeah but Bush has got them pretty boy muscles from working out with them fancy weight machines. Me? Tossing around bales of hay and sacks of animal feed is all the workout I need.
posted by crank at 5:09 PM on May 25, 2004

Wow, they're really looking for reasons to believe, aren't they?

Odd comment in an FPP that came via a website called "georgemustgo". Curious how desperate the left seems to be to paint anyone that favors Bush over Kerry as "believers", who have to go to some sort of extremes to find reasons to vote for Bush.

It appears (even looking only at MeFi) that it is, in fact, the left that appears to be desperately trying to make Bush into something that is more than simply the opposition candidate that they are running against - but is indeed satan himself, capable of single-handedly destroying democracy in America (and the rest of the world).

I can see why there is so much focus of being anti-Bush - since almost no one is actually pro-Kerry (he's probably the weakest candidate in a national election since Mondale ... and even the democratic leadership is worried about that).

Certainly we live in a polarized nation right now - with each side having its essential core of folks who write articles and blog furiously ... to others in the respective cores. That National Review article was one-sided, mindless and vacuous, but was found on a blog every bit as one-sided, mindless and vacuous, and has provoked a discussion on MeFi that isn't much better.

What I find very interesting (speaking of "reasons to believe") is the curious silence on MeFi when it comes to Kerry. This board is fairly representative of a moderately left mentality (with a few far left folks that seem to post FPP's in excess of their numbers, and make MeFi appear a bit more extreme than its membership probably is) ... and the enormous fixation seems to be on bashing Bush, not on praising Kerry. For every dozen Bush=Evil FPPs, there is maybe one or two that mention Kerry in some oblique way.

It seems, in other words, to have been almost tacitly decided that the only way to win in November is to convince the few undecideds (that will determine the race) to vote against Bush ... not to vote for Kerry. That's working as well as it possibly can right now - since the last few weeks have seen trouble in the Iraq situation ... but if the turnover to the Iraqi governing council settles things down after a few months, and the economy keeps strengthening ...

The "reasons to believe" comment sparked my interest, because it made me realize what a peculiar election this has turned into ... it is people that are for Bush against people that are against Bush. Kerry, for whatever reason, appears to be sitting on the sidelines - almost marginalized, by even his own party's loyalists (who seem to talk far more about what they hate about Bush, than what they like about Kerry).

Tactically, this may turn out to be a huge mistake ... because it means that Nader may well again turn into a spoiler (most of those I've met that already know they'll vote for Kerry are doing so largely to vote against Bush, but the folks I know that are going to vote for Nader seem to really believe in Nader ... i.e., it is an affirmative vote, not an "ABB" vote). When a party's spolier actually inspires more genuine passion than the candidate himself ... trouble is brewing.

Just sayin' ...
posted by MidasMulligan at 5:12 PM on May 25, 2004

You should find a real quote instead of making one up. If you make up quotes, it doesn't help your argument at all.

Actually, I really like: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. But it also rocks absolutely."

However, that may or may not help my arguments (he he).
posted by MidasMulligan at 5:14 PM on May 25, 2004

It seems, in other words, to have been almost tacitly decided that the only way to win in November is to convince the few undecideds (that will determine the race) to vote against Bush ...

Good thing those republicans don't rely on negative ads...
posted by Space Coyote at 5:33 PM on May 25, 2004

I'm not trying to make a partisan dig here, but I think the fact that Midas could write a full screen of commentary without reflecting for one sentence about the actual article is a testament to how completely and utterly ridiculous the concept of anyone rationally discussing its validity would be.

Please, Midas, and other conservatives: despite the slant of MeFi, we accept the level-headed conservative viewpoints. However, the topic of the thread at hand: We appreciate analysis and encourage debate. But for the love of god, read that article. There is no shame, and no malice, and certainly no belief that you have lost your level of political leaning, in agreeing that this article is, with no hint of hyperbole, the god-damned stupidest fucking thing ever written about a presidential election.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:36 PM on May 25, 2004

It's probably less about tactics and more about people honestly loathing BushCo with every bone in their bodies.
I know I do.
posted by mr.marx at 5:39 PM on May 25, 2004

It seems, in other words, to have been almost tacitly decided that the only way to win in November is to convince the few undecideds (that will determine the race) to vote against Bush ... not to vote for Kerry.

That's pretty much what every presidential election is: a referendum on the incumbent's record. Reagan asked "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" not "Do you anticipate that you will be better off with me in the whitehouse?"

With Bush's approval rating at 41% and his reelect numbers comfortably below 50%, it looks like Bush himself has convinced plenty of people that it's time to try someone else...
posted by crank at 5:39 PM on May 25, 2004

Good thing those republicans don't rely on negative ads...

er, while I certainly appreciate your help in making my point, its really not necessary.
posted by MidasMulligan at 5:43 PM on May 25, 2004

It appears (even looking only at MeFi) that it is, in fact, the left that appears to be desperately trying to make Bush into something that is more than simply the opposition candidate that they are running against - but is indeed satan himself, capable of single-handedly destroying democracy in America (and the rest of the world).

Single handedly? No, no. no, no no. Ashcroft, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ridge, Tenet ...

Not singlehandedly, surely you realize that? Satan? Don't flatter the man. He's a fuck up, surrounded by fuck ups. Regardless of whether one wants to enthusiastically support Kerry, that's plenty of reason to get rid of the Bush legacy. And I seriously doubt that your screed, engineered strictly to foment doubt, will change that opinion.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:58 PM on May 25, 2004

Bush Will Win Because He's A Jock

Tell that to Bill Bradley.
posted by jonmc at 6:00 PM on May 25, 2004

And Jack Kemp.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 6:09 PM on May 25, 2004

er, while I certainly appreciate your help in making my point, its really not necessary.

If I told MM his fly is open he'd go on for five minutes explaining how it was actually _my_ fly that was open and smugly walk off.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:20 PM on May 25, 2004

Heh. I actually remember an interview where someone asked Bradley what was the bigger thrill, becoming Senator or winning the championship with the Knicks.

His answer: "Winning the championship, no contest."

I wanted to hug him.

Speaking of poltical jocks kids, I used to work with Jim Bunning's nephew back in my bookstore clerk days. Although Bunning's something of a right-winger these days, his nephew was one of the most liberal guys I ever met. And a cool guy with great taste in music to boot. Odd schism. Uncle Jim does win some cool points for his perfect game though. So I guess he's a repub I can forgive.
posted by jonmc at 6:21 PM on May 25, 2004

That article is utter shite. Kerry may have aches and pains simply because (like the rest of us that were) he was a true athlete in his younger years. I have an ACL injury (incurred varsity football 1984 and reinjured varsity lacrosse 1985) that haunts me to this day, and it's not like I have let myself go... I still play tennis at 5.5 NTRP level today.

By most accounts, Bush was a soft preppie playboy that lettered only in cheerleading at Andover (while his father was an All-American 1st baseman). Bush pickled himself from years 19-41, and because he jogs 45 minutes a day today, after never having taxed himself physically or mentally, we're supposed to believe he's a physical specimen?

Bush is neither jock, nor intellectual. He's a misshapen ball of clay brought to life by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
posted by psmealey at 6:30 PM on May 25, 2004

Jocks.

My Governor was an Olympic figure skater. She has an approval rating that floats between 20 and 22%. (That's lower than Grey Davis' at the time he was recalled.) It's actually gone up since she decided not to run for re-election. *Jocks.*
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:30 PM on May 25, 2004

Midas,

My motto is and has been, Anybody But Bush. That means that I would even vote for Chinless Joe Lieberman. I don't think I'd ever make it to Sharpton but at least he'd be genuinely funny. Bush is funny because he's such an idiot.

People don't laugh with Bush, they laugh at him.

John Kerry? You want some waxed poetry about him?

Okay. Everytime I've actually heard him speak on tv, he answers questions clearly and completely and, seemingly, honestly.

Everytime Bush answers questions, he looks like a kid in the principal's office, squirmy and not happy to be there at all.

In a time of war, John Kerry went to war and served his country enough to be decorated.

In that same time of war, George Bush used his connections to land a cush National Guard gig that was too tough for him to finish.

Where Bush is a demonstrated failure, John Kerry is a demonstrable success.

Did I know much about Kerry before he became a candidate? No. Why should I? Presidential politics are awful enough, why would I bother giving a damn about Senators, Congressman, Mayors, Sheriffs and Prefects?

Did I know much about Bush before this re-election? Hell yes, I've been watching him repeatedly lie, swindle, back room deal, nod, nod, wink, wink and lots and lots of smirking and posturing in between falling off a Segway, reading books upside down and looking through binoculars with the caps still on.

Bush is an unmitigated buffoon.

I think, given the option, I'll take an unknown possibility of a real leader over a known fool.

PS Unless you're unsure, the National Review is a GOP publication dedicated to GOP agendas. It was trying (ohhhh so hard) to spin this into a pro-Bush piece. The fact that it came from an anti-Bush site is irrelevant, the source is the GOP's own propoganda machine.

And that is the delicious irony.
posted by fenriq at 6:47 PM on May 25, 2004

Please, Midas, and other conservatives: despite the slant of MeFi, we accept the level-headed conservative viewpoints. However, the topic of the thread at hand: We appreciate analysis and encourage debate. But for the love of god, read that article.

I get into this debate all the time here ... left-leaning FPPs who's sole intent is to trash Bush, or conservatives in general, are posted ... and any conservative that happens to pop in and not focus solely on the article as it was posted (and set up by the poster comments) is encouraged to only focus narrowly on the issue at hand.

The lefties here have the full freedom to post endless anti-Bush screeds ... just as the conservatives have the full freedom to frame them differently than the poster intended. You are saying "for goodness sake, read the article" ... while I am saying "for goodness sake, look at the utter pettiness of this FPP itself discussing that article".

You apparently read that article, and what struck you was that it was "the god-damned stupidest fucking thing ever written about a presidential election". I read it, and read the "Bush must go" blog, and read the comments in this thread ... and what struck me - somewhat suddenly - was how obsessive the focus on Bush is ... not just by his supporters, but by the opposition as well.

I think the NRO article was mildly idiotic ... but it was written by a core conservative, for other core conservatives. It was simply a fluffy cheerleading piece ... no better, or worse, the enormous volumes of the same sort of stuff - produced for the same reasons - by the Democratic loyalists. If conservatives wanted to, they could pick apart almost every single self-congratulatory entry in the Kerry "blog" ... but my point was that they largely don't.

I was, in fact, attempting to interject a "level-headed conservative viewpoint" into this thread ... (simply because that seemed more interesting than continuing a discussion about the types of damn exercises the candidates do). And this conservative's viewpoint, about that post, was to notice that there appears to be such a fixation on bashing Bush and conservatives that the actual Democratic candidate for President seems to have nearly disappeared from discussions altogether.

Howard Dean, for instance, was an affirmative topic of discussion here ... not because he just wasn't Bush, but because he was something in and of himself. FPPs were posted about him. People talked at great length about what he stood for, or didn't stand for. People seemed to actually looking at him as hard - and obsessively - as they were looking at Bush. At the height of the early primaries, there were nearly daily posts not just against Bush (which is normal here), but also for Dean.

What struck me tonight is that a meaningless fluff piece by a conservative (that most conservatives will never see, and that they'd care little about if they did) not only has to be singled out, and discussed, but elevated to almost epic proportions ("the god-damned stupidest fucking thing ever written about a presidential election" ... good grief, way stupider stuff is written daily about presidential elections) ... but even further ... it occured to me that the representative lefties on this board are actually spending their time picking apart that ... and unlike Dean, I cannot even remember the last time Kerry ... your actual candidate ... was even brought up in an FPP. Looking at the MeFi homepage, with its seven days of history ... there is a single FPP today with Kerry in it (which isn't about Kerry as much as CNN/Drudge quotes about some bike-riding comment), the virtually daily anti-bush/conservative FPPs, but nothing about Kerry (on a board where I'd expect to see almost daily Kerry posts, as I did see daily Dean posts).

That, to me, seems like it is a pretty significant issue ... and it is the "conservative viewpoint" that you say is "accepted" here.
posted by MidasMulligan at 6:48 PM on May 25, 2004

Midas, you just did that page-long not caring about the point thing again.

It's okay, Midas. Really. "That's what the president does, and why his resting pulse rate is somewhere around 45 beats per minute... a lot closer to professional cyclist Lance Armstrong's resting pulse than that of the senator from Massachusetts." She actually wrote that. You can join us on this.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:56 PM on May 25, 2004

Bush is an unmitigated buffoon.

This is kind of why I'm amazed that more conservatives don't want to get rid of Bush. I'd figure they'd consider him something of an embarrassment.

Some are...
posted by jonmc at 6:59 PM on May 25, 2004

And I seriously doubt that your screed, engineered strictly to foment doubt, will change that opinion.

Really. So when two or three anti-conservative FPPs are posted daily ... they are just the earnest efforts of high-minded people to tell the "truth", while a single comment, in a single one of those anti-conservative "screeds" is something "engineered to foment doubt"? Interesting.

Guess what - I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion. I was merely (horror of horrors!) expressing my opinion on a discussion board. I thought I was particpating in a discussion. I guess, however, that this just confirms the nature of MeFi. If you agree with those bashing conservatives, you are not "fomenting doubt", you are just expressing opinions, and exchanging assumed truths with friends. If, however, you dare speak against the prevailing currents, you have ulterior motives, are trying to "foment doubt" ... and are warned that you won't succeed.

Do you think your screeds - on this preaching-to-the-choir filter, actually change anyone's opinion?
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:01 PM on May 25, 2004

I dunno about the scope of this debate, but I'm pretty sure I could take Thomas Jefferson.
posted by furiousthought at 7:02 PM on May 25, 2004

Midas, you just did that page-long not caring about the point thing again.

Correct. I don't care about the point you're trying to make. You obviously want to ignore the point I'm trying to make. Okey-dokey.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:03 PM on May 25, 2004

fenriq: reading books upside down and looking through binoculars with the caps still on.

I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but come on. Seriously.
posted by rafter at 7:06 PM on May 25, 2004

PS Unless you're unsure, the National Review is a GOP publication dedicated to GOP agendas. It was trying (ohhhh so hard) to spin this into a pro-Bush piece. The fact that it came from an anti-Bush site is irrelevant, the source is the GOP's own propoganda machine.

I know full well what the National Review is. And the Democrats also have their "propaganda machines". But I do think it relevant that a minor column that most conservatives wouldn't waste time examining in depth actually was siezed upon by an antibush blog, and then had an entire FPP devoted to it on MeFi ...
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:11 PM on May 25, 2004

Midas, chill. I wasn't questioning your opinion; simply stating its obvious form and likely result. Do you or do you not wish that others might question their dogma? It appears strongly that you do. And if reading my meanderings here on "preaching to the choir filter" should elucidate anything, it's that there is a huge difference between being anti-conservative and anti-Bush.
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:19 PM on May 25, 2004

rafter, "And another photograph of President Bush taken from the same sequence as the one above demonstrates that even if his binoculars did initially have their lens caps in place, they weren't there for long". Seems like there's a decent chance he did have them on.
Do note that they are two different pics. The upside book, okay. Bad on me.


Would you have preferred, sitting and reading books about goats to school children while New Yorkers jump to their death from the World Trade Center and he's completely out of touch with events?
posted by fenriq at 7:22 PM on May 25, 2004

Bush Will Win Because He's A Jock

*cough* Ford *cough*
posted by hob at 7:24 PM on May 25, 2004

He's a misshapen ball of clay brought to life by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

Bush: the anti-Golem?

and crank got it right--all elections are a referendum on the incumbent. People may still not go for Kerry, or be excited about him, but it's clear they've had enough of Bush.
posted by amberglow at 7:26 PM on May 25, 2004

Midas: Time to get off the sinking ship. This administration is a failure. Even if it might have once represented the core of what American conservatism is about, it certainly doesn't any more. I have no idea what the fuck it represents: these people seem completely ideologically adrift, and completely, blindly, committed to their lack of mooring.

What's with the Mr. Yucks?
posted by mr_roboto at 7:46 PM on May 25, 2004

dhoyt, callmejay, you just might have a point there. Thanks for the reality check.

you know, every once in a while the reality sinks in that we really do choose which people will be empowered to blow the world up based on anecdotes about pretzels and snowboards. Looks like I picked the wrong decade to stop sniffing glue.
posted by ook at 7:55 PM on May 25, 2004

Midas, you just did that page-long not caring about the point thing again.

By the way, despite wulfgars usual dig, and your insistance on focusing on that idiotic article, I actually was trying to bring up a relatively measured conservative viewpoint. For the record, while everything is black and white here on MeFi, and I'm a "conservative" ... in actual fact I look pretty objectively at most issues, and most elections. I want to see well-fought races between the best both parties have to offer. I don't like everything Bush stands for (I'm really a libertarian ... a fiscal conservative, but I'm strongly pro-choice, and have had firm conversations with people I know in the Bush administration about things like gay marriage). But at least I know what Bush stands for ... I can't for the life of me figure out what Kerry stands for.

The issue I was bringing up - believe it or not - is one of the most serious issues in senior Democratic circles. It is not just MeFi ... it is a widespread trend throughout the rank and file - and it is starting to scare the shit out of the tactical folks in the Democratic party. They have been successful in getting their loyalists to bash Bush ... as the Republican loyalists are bashing Kerry (that's just elections) ... but they can't seem to get any loyalists to really talk about Kerry. They are reading MeFi (believe it) and dozens of other blogs, and monitoring newspapers ... and doing all of those thing tacticians do to take the public pulse. But MeFi is a microcosm. You want want to fixate on talking about how stupid that conservative article is ... but the fact that you are doing that ... and in the past week no one (on an overwhelmingly liberal board) has posted a single FPP about a Kerry position or event ... that is worrisome.

Bush's numbers are down right now ... but if you are running the Democratic's strategy, you know damn well that they are down because of events in Iraq - not because of any positive gains Kerry has made.

In other words, I was trying to suggest that this discussion itself - examining a conservative article in greater depth than any conservatives will - at the same time as there is virtually no examination of Kerry on a board like MeFi (where Dean was examined and dicussed with depth and passion) ... is not only interesting to me - but is damn well an issue that senior Democratic strategists are trying to solve. You can dismiss it if you want ... but if you step back and think about it for a moment ... maybe you'll actually find it worth a bit of thought.

Understand that if you are a relatively strong and vehement anti-Bush man or woman, Democratic strategists are looking at you as potential tactical assets (just as Republican strategists see strong Bush supporters). And no matter what party I belong to ... if I'm a strategist, and my tactical assets are all fixated on the opponent, and not spending equal time talking up my candidate himself (which the Republicans are doing) ... you'd better believe that is considered a serious problem - because it means the race is Bush's to lose, not Kerry's to win.

BTW - for whatever its worth, if I had my choice of everyone that was involved in the primaries on all sides - I think the best of the lot ... the guy I would have voted for as the person I believe would have been the best for the country ... would not have been Bush, but Lieberman. Our political system is not in the greatest shape right now - simply because the choice we are going to have is between Bush and Kerry.

(Personally - I'd love to be wreslting with the choice between Joe Lieberman and Colin Powell ... that would take real thought and analysis ... and while I'd have a hard time chossing, I'd also have the sense of choosing between the greater of two goods, not the lessor of two evils).
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:58 PM on May 25, 2004

... and in the past week no one (on an overwhelmingly liberal board) has posted a single FPP about a Kerry position or event ... that is worrisome.

Bush's numbers are down right now ... but if you are running the Democratic's strategy, you know damn well that they are down because of events in Iraq - not because of any positive gains Kerry has made.

But Kerry is not making news--Bush is. Kerry's speeches aren't covered by the media to the extent Bush's are. Kerry's actions aren't examined the way Bush's are. Later this week, Kerry's going to be laying out his Iraq strategy--let's see the kind of play it gets. I'd like to see more Kerry on the news and here, but he's laying low now too--watching Bush fuck up more and more each week. (it's a very smart strategy, by the way)

Bush falls on his ass and it's front page news. That's reflected here. Bush is one of the most powerful men in the world, and Kerry isn't--he just wants to be. Compare the coverage of Kerry now to the coverage of Bush 6 months before 2000's election. You'll see that Gore was getting the lion's share of all coverage, and was the focus of attention, being the incumbent veep. Incumbents are always always the focus, unless they've already served 2 terms. As long as Bush is making news, whether it's for important stuff, or stupid stuff, that's what we'll be seeing--here and in the media.
posted by amberglow at 8:19 PM on May 25, 2004

Bush may "win" if the atrociously bungled "War on terror" escalates through a major pre-November 2004 Al Qaeda attack on the US.

Al Qaeda is more numerous and better funded than ever, and WMD technology is now much easier to get a hold of then when GW Bush took office

Because of this fact, many are now predicting a pre-November strike on the US, and the Bush Administration has even floated a trial balloon that concerns calling off the 2004 election in the event of terrorist attack.

The ducks are all lined up, girls and boys.
posted by troutfishing at 8:20 PM on May 25, 2004

and--it's not just Democrats that are focused on Bush--Republicans are too, and are not that thrilled with him either.

and on preview--it'll be on Bush's head if we're attacked pre-election, no matter how much they warn us--he's supposed to keep us safe, and if he fails at that, he's history.
posted by amberglow at 8:22 PM on May 25, 2004

By the way, despite wulfgars usual dig, and your insistance on focusing on that idiotic article,

It's almost as if this was a website about posting links. And talking about them.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:24 PM on May 25, 2004

Give us all a break from your axe-grinding, XQUZYPHYR. You don't like Midas. We get it. No need to draw out a useless battle in the name of vanity and ego.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:26 PM on May 25, 2004

The ducks are all lined up, girls and boys.

troutfishing, your accusation (that somehow Bush and Co. would "eliminate" the election altogether) is slanderous and baseless. You do the Kerry campaign, and Democrats, a great disservice by suggesting such a ludicrous conspiracy.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:29 PM on May 25, 2004

Many things once considered ludicrous conspiracies have come true these past few years, starting with the Patriot Act. Who would have ever dreamed that people reading websites would be reported to the FBI, or that librarians would have to turn over information on what books were checked out....
posted by amberglow at 8:36 PM on May 25, 2004

BlueTrain, its possible until the election happens. Call it a conspiracy if you want, I just call it covering your bases.

Derailing an unwinnable election, trotting out a nicely trussed up Osama, I put very little stock in any honest dealings of ShrubCo.

It would be doing democracy a disservice to not suggest all of the possible scenarios.
posted by fenriq at 8:37 PM on May 25, 2004

It would be doing democracy a disservice to not suggest all of the possible scenarios.

Well, since fabricating stories with no corroboration is called "suggesting all possible scenarios", here's one: seems that Kerry and Bush get much of their monetary and political support from similar groups of people and rumor has it that Kerry's agenda over the next four years won't be much different than Bush's past performance. Basically, either way the election goes, the same people bitching now about being fucked will continue to be fucked. Remember, I don't need to point to links...I'm just exploring all the possibilities.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:44 PM on May 25, 2004

Let's talk about fabricating stories with no corroboration--we're in Iraq why?
posted by amberglow at 8:49 PM on May 25, 2004

That's fine but the fact is that Bush has already demonstrated that he's incapable of leading this country positively. Why would we want to give him four more years to prove it ever so more effectively?

John Kerry might (and its a pretty iffy might given the fact that it would be hard to screw up as badly as Bush has) do the same or worse. But we already know that Bush is awful. Why not even just take the chance that John Kerry will do better?

And just because you can link to something doesn't provide it with anymore weight than if you just spin it off your head. The web, as you already well know, is a pit of corroboration for wild conjecture.

Oh yeah, and what Amberglow said too.
posted by fenriq at 8:50 PM on May 25, 2004

It's almost as if this was a website about posting links. And talking about them

Yes ... talking about our opinions about them. Its almost as though different people actually find different things to focus on in articles, and actually have different reactions to them. Wanna just trade snide little digs, or actually have a discussion?

Since it is apparently a really really huge point, I'll agree (yet again) that the article was stupid. Pretty much equal in stupidity to all sorts of the same kinds of articles printed in Democratic "propaganda machines". Satisfied?

What I'll also assert, however, is the fact that a liberal board examining that stupid article in much greater detail than conservatives themselves would is, itself, equally stupid.

That's the problem with open discussion boards, people can talk about any aspect of the articles they want to. I, myself, saw this as a "talking dog" situation ... A guy says "My dog can talk". His friend says to the dog "what's two plus three"?" The dog days "Seventeen". The guy says "What a stupid dog" ... focusing solely on the fact that the dog did the math wrong, while completely ignoring the much larger fact that dog talked in the first place seems to be quite a narrow view of the situation. Just as focussing obsessively on whether the article was idiotic, while being completely blind to the fact that this is what lefties are having long discussions about (instead of discussing their actual candidate) seems just as narrow.

You may not like the fact that I don't want to stay within the narrow range of discussion about the article that you'd prefer ("is it, or is it not stupid") ... but that doesn't mean I'm not talking about the article. Y'all feel quite free to post your endless, daily anti-Bush screeds here. Welcome to the other side of "freedom of expression".
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:00 PM on May 25, 2004

Midas, find some stupid Democrat articles and point them out, since its apparently so easy. Bring it on.

And I'm not sure, oh wait, yes I am, I wrote a decent explanation of why I'm supporting Kerry. Did you miss it? Scroll up.
posted by fenriq at 9:03 PM on May 25, 2004

while being completely blind to the fact that this is what lefties are having long discussions about (instead of discussing their actual candidate) seems just as narrow.

Why do we need to discuss our candidate? We know who we're voting for. There's nothing to discuss.
posted by amberglow at 9:05 PM on May 25, 2004

Let's talk about fabricating stories with no corroboration--we're in Iraq why?

I've already made it perfectly clear that I oppose the war. Nice strawman, though.

Why not even just take the chance that John Kerry will do better?

Because there are better candidates out there than Kerry, who may not be "electable", but are certainly more qualified, ethically and historically.

Why do we need to discuss our candidate? We know who we're voting for. There's nothing to discuss.

Odd, because that's exactly how many Republicans feel as well. Yet here you are, everyday, trying to prove Bush to be a liar. Why bother, amberglow? The voters have already made up their minds...

Your extremism saddens me, because if/when Kerry becomes elected to office, you, among others, will defend him to the death, like so many "conservatives" do now with Bush. You claim open-mindedness, but spout one-sidedness.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:12 PM on May 25, 2004

And I'm not sure, oh wait, yes I am, I wrote a decent explanation of why I'm supporting Kerry. Did you miss it? Scroll up.

Actually, I didn't miss it. In fact I noticed that you were the only one that actually said anything substantive about Kerry. I don't agree with your viewpoint - but you seem to have actually really thought about Kerry himself. I was actually hoping that's what the discussion might move towards. (Vigorous, intelligent debate between people that disagree is the esesence of healthy democracy).

It would be nice if there were dicussions here contrasting Bush & Kerry's repsective approaches to trade, and terrorism, and Iraq, and all manner of other things. But we are talking instead - largely in one-liners - about whether a conservative article is or is not stupid (an article that the author probably thinks was stupid ... it appears to be one of those pieces you write in 15 minutes when you get back late from a weekend in the Hamptons, and suddenly realize you've got a deadline you forgot about).
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:14 PM on May 25, 2004

So USA elects its leaders based on their alleged athletic prowess?

This explains so much.
posted by spazzm at 9:17 PM on May 25, 2004

replace "dog" with "Bush"

one-liner!
posted by mr.marx at 9:24 PM on May 25, 2004

Odd, because that's exactly how many Republicans feel as well. Yet here you are, everyday, trying to prove Bush to be a liar. Why bother, amberglow? The voters have already made up their minds...

Your extremism saddens me, because if/when Kerry becomes elected to office, you, among others, will defend him to the death, like so many "conservatives" do now with Bush. You claim open-mindedness, but spout one-sidedness.

Sorry, you don't know me at all. I don't need to prove that Bush is anything. Facts do that. I don't drink koolaid, and I hold all presidents accountable no matter what party they come from. Kerry was not my first choice, nor the first choice of many many Democrats. I've typed plenty of comments on that during the primary season, to the point of repeatedly challenging specialk, who was the only visible Kerry booster here. We're going to be very very tough on our next president--that's what we do, unlike Republicans who cry "treason" at every hint of criticism, and threaten and smear the people who make those comments.

Watch and see, and don't make the mistake of thinking the Democrats here are like a mirror image of freepers or lgf. Kerry will be spending his whole first term cleaning up Bush's messes anyway.

and Midas, if you want to discuss policy, make a post about policy.
posted by amberglow at 9:25 PM on May 25, 2004

15% body fat is quite good for a middle aged man.

Bush was never seriously athletic. On the other hand, I'm actually pretty impressed that Kerry, at the age of 60, windsurfs, goes snowboarding, and cycles. Meanwhile, Bush's biggest mistake was going mountain-biking. Everyone knows that only outdoorsy, pot-smoking hippies from California and Oregon do that kind of thing.

Bush's status as a jock, like his ranch, like his flight-suited appearance on an aircraft carrier, is phony. G HW Bush (varsity baseball) was a jock. Kerry was a jock (hockey). Gore was a jock (football team captain).

Can Bush do six-minute miles (consistently for 4-5 miles) and bench 200 lbs? That strikes me as similar to the claims that Bush is fluent Spanish -- in the urban legend category -- we have examples that indicate he speaks some Spanish, but those familiar with his skills know that he just knows a few phrases. Likewise, while we know that Bush does work out quite a bit, his weight-lifting skills and running pace are likely just average.
posted by deanc at 9:36 PM on May 25, 2004

Discussing policy and leadership and ability differences between Bush and Kerry?

Bring it on is right.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:42 PM on May 25, 2004

Odd comment in an FPP that came via a website called "georgemustgo". Curious how desperate the left seems to be to paint anyone that favors Bush over Kerry as "believers", who have to go to some sort of extremes to find reasons to vote for Bush.

Midas my friend,
Leaving aside all your subsequent novellas (how I love them so!), it seems a bit silly to criticize my comment based upon the particular website ("georgemustgo") from which fenriq was directed. I didn't even visit "georgemustgo", I just read the NRO article, as I read NRO regularly.

Criticizing my flippant comment is fine. Have at it. But trying, as you've done, to develop some sort of half-assed meta-critique from this FPP and the ensuing discussion is really stretching it.

As for "reasons to believe" in Kerry, I totally agree that Kerry isn't lighting anyone's fire, which should be, and I believe is, cause for concern among Democrats. In regards to Bush, various members of GOP coalition seem to have been getting disenchanted with him: small government types don't like his Big Huge Government, nativists don't like his proposed immigration amnesty, and lately he's come in for a lot of criticism from foreign policy conservatives for his complete lack of control or even apparent comprehension of the situation in Iraq. So I saw this inconsequential little article as trying to get the team back together behind Bush, the athlete. That is all. Not that complicated.

See you at the next global trade FPP!
posted by Ty Webb at 9:49 PM on May 25, 2004

On the subject of Kerry, it's both unfortunate and fortunate that he simply doesn't shine in the sound-byte medium. Listen to him give a long speech and that's where he comes into his own.

You don't scare the shit out of the entire Nixon administration without being able to inspire people with your speeches. But if no one hears them, that's a problem.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:02 PM on May 25, 2004

Give us all a break from your axe-grinding, XQUZYPHYR. You don't like Midas. We get it. No need to draw out a useless battle in the name of vanity and ego.

Oh piss off, BlueTrain, this started with me welcoming Midas' conservatism. How you can tell the one who isn't writing the numerous thousand-word essays about the expanse of political disparity based on some hack writer's obsession for how much Bush can bench press and flowing babble about the state of politics in general that he's the one "axe-griding" and "drawing out a useless battle in the name of vanity and ego" is beyond me.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:51 AM on May 26, 2004

I'd just like to point out that if Kerry doesn't win, the real reason is because he plays bass not because he's a nerd.

Bass players never win.
posted by drezdn at 9:38 AM on May 26, 2004

This article is neither the left-wing media or the right-wing media.

It is the stupid-wing media.
posted by darukaru at 9:47 AM on May 26, 2004

Bass players never win.

Tell that to Les Claypool.
posted by jonmc at 9:50 AM on May 26, 2004

Meta-preaching-to-the-choir filter.

"While everything is black and white here on MeFi" and blue.

Frankly I enjoy watching the Bushwhackers twist and squirm and lie and yell and whine. That's bad of me, no?
posted by nofundy at 10:01 AM on May 26, 2004

200 pounds is average for a guy Bush's size. I'm just barely six feet tall and can put up 225 without breaking a sweat. More importantly, who fucking cares?

XQUZYPHYR, Bush would fuck you up. You'd have a better shot against Kennedy.
posted by David Dark at 10:15 AM on May 26, 2004

he's probably the weakest candidate in a national election since Mondale

There's a blind spot in your memory, Midas, it's 2000.

And all this talk about people not being 'pro-Kerry'? Well, perhaps it's because your glorious system doesn't give a challenger to the incumbent any real ex officio political role? In the UK, Canada, Australia etc, the challenger to the political throne has a paid office and a weekly bully pulpit.

And yet the reliable cheerleaders have to talk about Bush's prowess in the gym? Dear me. That's one step away from talking about how 'he can shoot guns real well'.

It would be nice if there were dicussions here contrasting Bush & Kerry's repsective approaches to trade, and terrorism, and Iraq, and all manner of other things.

Well, it would be nice if I had a chair like Jimmy Saville's, but I don't. Why not set up your own site to do that? Let the market dictate, an' all?
posted by riviera at 10:37 AM on May 26, 2004

Heh. Funniest damn thread I've read in ages, if a bit verbose and thin-skinned and ducking-the-issues in, uh, the usual predictable parts.

XQUZYPHYR, Bush would fuck you up. You'd have a better shot against Kennedy.

Since you want to pursue the silly point....team wrestling with the trio of David Dark, BlueTrain, and MidasMullligan versus Hillary Clinton would be a much better matchup.

Even odds.

~wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:32 AM on May 26, 2004

I had no idea Kerry *snowboarded*! That's so cool!
posted by eoligarry at 11:45 AM on May 26, 2004

David Dark, height has very, very little to do with ability to bench press. I've known guys much larger than me who top out at my warm up weight. And guys smaller than me that can bench 275 for reps.

I just can't see Bush putting up 200. Sorry. And yes, I was a personal trainer for about 6 years so I do know what I'm talking about.

As for Bush whipping someone's ass? I don't think so. He strikes me as one of those people that will hide behind their bodyguards.
posted by fenriq at 12:26 PM on May 26, 2004

fenriq, see geoff's comment above about his athletic friend who "is around 5'11" or 5'10" and benches 194. I think this is comprabable to Bush from what I quickly searched for. This kid gets up and does 2 hours of weight lifting in the morning. I really, really doubt Bush can lift this much."

200 pounds is not a lot of weight to bench press, and it's impossible to tell how much a person can lift by height, weight, or by looking at them in person, let alone on television or in pictures. Unless someone here is Bush's spotting partner, no one can make claims as to his ability. See also my question: Who fucking cares?

The entire discussion is ludicrous. But my, y'all are really obsessed with making sure that pointless little comments about bikes and bench presses are Quickly Categorized As Lies From The Right.
posted by David Dark at 2:23 PM on May 26, 2004

David, you do realize that you're spinning an article (from the National Review, no less) as being defensable, while calling the responses to it stupid, don't you? That's like telling people that they're stupid for arguing who would win a fight between Mighty Mouse and Superman, while defending Superman's probable superiority. How does it feel for you, to be so stupid?

Unless someone here is Bush's spotting partner, no one can make claims as to his ability.

No shit, Sherman, so why are YOU arguing the point considering that a writer from NR made the claim that is, by your admission, indefensable? Crimany, you even had yourself a little fantasy about whether Bush could take a MetaFilter member in a fight. How absolutely ludicrous. This is what you've said, David:

"These claims are lies, from the rightwing National Review, but you meanies are spinning them as lies from the Right. You meanies. Bush could take you, you know..."

Crap. If you ever wondered why I disrespect you, David, wonder no more.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:07 PM on May 26, 2004

I wouldn't waste my time on the thoughts of a hillbilly, so, you know, no worries.
posted by David Dark at 3:32 PM on May 26, 2004

Wulfgar, David's president can beat up your president. Nyah nyah nyah.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 3:42 PM on May 26, 2004

Is that avoidance I see? Quite so. Can't defend yourself, so you attempt to impune me (as if you could). Nice try. Care to try again? Or are you scared, little Davy?

You made the bed, lie in it, (and that's not a misspelling).
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:43 PM on May 26, 2004

200 pounds is not a lot of weight to bench press, and it's impossible to tell how much a person can lift by height, weight, or by looking at them in person, let alone on television or in pictures
A person who is "in shape", can bench their weight. Need no pictures or dimensions thank you, PE101.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:24 PM on May 26, 2004

Frankly I enjoy watching the Bushwhackers twist and squirm and lie and yell and whine. That's bad of me, no?

Peculiar how when any conservative decides to say anyuthing here ... it is claimed that they are doing something like "twist and squirm and lie and yell and whine" ... while when the usual liberal one-liner gang go ape-shit over a conservative article that even conservatives could care less about - (and twist and squirm and yell and whine about it ad infinitum) - it is apparently because of (what? their intellectual brilliance? moral superiority?).

Certainly isn't bad of you to live in your pleasant little fantasy world - but this thread itself makes it pretty damn obvious who's doing the twisting and squirming and whining.
posted by MidasMulligan at 4:26 PM on May 26, 2004

Reading that Jennifer Graham op-ed piece gave me culture shock.
posted by Keyser Soze at 4:38 PM on May 26, 2004

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Midas. You portray a picture of those having fun with the lunacy that comes from their opposition, and use it as an indictment against those who do so, in contrast to those who wish to have fun with the lunacy of the opposition, but aren't having much luck in the fishing. Is that envy I smell?

Except for mister DavidDark, nobody is twisting anything. Jennifer Graham wrote an article that is the height of speciousness, and you would fault those who laugh at the admittedly laughable? You accuse us of living in fantasy when the fantasy was all Ms. Graham's? Come on Midas, you can do better than that.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:48 PM on May 26, 2004

David, you do realize that you're spinning an article (from the National Review, no less) as being defensable, while calling the responses to it stupid, don't you?

I did no such thing. I didn't even read the article. Judging solely by the FPP, I thought the point of the article was 'Bush will be elected because he's athletic' or some such nonsense. I haven't made a single comment on that one way or another, except to call a discussion of it ludicrous. All I said was 200 pounds isn't any great feat in the bench press. Maybe Bush can lift that much, and maybe he can't. I don't know, and I think I've made it pretty clear that I don't care one way or another. How is that spinning, twisting, or defending anything? I also didn't call anyone stupid, so please stop trying to twist my words into insults. I'm not insulting anyone.

Regarding the fight comment, XQUZYPHYR made the comment that he could whip Bush in a fight. My response was tantamount to betting against him, as much for razzing as anything else. Maybe XQUZYPHYR is a golden gloves boxer or a black belt, again, I don't know. And I don't much care about that, either.

Wulfgar! I quit responding to your comments some time ago because of your less than stellar reading comprehension skills. I only respond to you now because you have fallen below my bedrock-level expectations, in a most laughable way. In the off chance that it was an honest mistake, I thought I'd try to clear it up. I doubt it worked. So when you respond from your own deranged version of what you think I meant, don't be surprised when the response is silence.
posted by David Dark at 6:10 PM on May 26, 2004

200lbs lifting isn't the pinnacle of all weight lifting, but it's definately not bad. How did this go to arguing about George Bush's ability to lift weight? Hes a poor president, cannot pronounciate to save his life (or keep his daughters from getting blasted at college keggers), and is the butt of a million jokes. This is not about politics: If George Bush were democratic I would say the same thing. What happened to judging a president by his character and diplomacy?
posted by Keyser Soze at 7:37 PM on May 26, 2004

...not bad = Anybody who seriously lifts weights can do this.
posted by Keyser Soze at 7:37 PM on May 26, 2004

welcome back Keyser! : >
posted by amberglow at 8:16 PM on May 26, 2004

Little Davy - I did no such thing. I didn't even read the article

Further Little Davy - Wulfgar! I quit responding to your comments some time ago because of your less than stellar reading comprehension skills.

So your response is that you will not respond because you care about not caring, and didn't read the article to which you were responding without responding. As I've shown time and again, you're a pathetic apologist, and have proven it quite nicely in this thread. I'll consider my point well made then. Please expect me to bring this up in the future, because you know I will, or maybe you don't. Though you attempt to project your weakness upon me, you've well shown that your reading skills leave something to be desired, after all ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:29 PM on May 26, 2004

Jesus, is there a bottom to this hole?
posted by David Dark at 10:34 PM on May 26, 2004

Let's hope it's right here
________________________
posted by shoos at 2:11 AM on May 27, 2004

Jesus, is there a bottom to this hole?

"Fuck you!"
"No, fuck you!"
"Yeah, well fuck you!"
"No, fuck you!"
"Fuck you!"
"Fuck YOU!"
"God, listen to how pathetic you sound."

Riiiiiight.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 3:56 AM on May 27, 2004

Midas: it made me realize what a peculiar election this has turned into ... it is people that are for Bush against people that are against Bush.

Peculiar? No, that's the dynamic of every election involving an incumbent.

Did the NRO writer even mention that Kerry rides a bike?

Kerry rides a custom Seven. It's a sweeeeet bike that only the husband of a billionaire could afford. More importantly, it's a road bike, and we road cyclists are freakin' awesome! Middle-age guys who ride mountain bikes are rather pathetic, though. I wonder what brand of mountain bike Bush rides? Probably not anywhere near the quality of the Seven roadie that Kerry rides.
posted by Holden at 1:10 PM on May 27, 2004

Oops. Damn. He doesn't own a Seven. He owns a Serotta. Also very nice. The Ottrott model might be the best-made bike frame in the world, but I doubt that's what Kerry rides.
posted by Holden at 1:38 PM on May 27, 2004

I do so enjoy a good tussle.
posted by troutfishing at 7:13 AM on May 29, 2004