President Bush, several years before he began bike riding, showing the common minor cuts and scratches consistent with the rugged style of his future bike riding.
ONE of the many differences separating John Kerry and George W. Bush is their choice of bicycle - not an especially presidential mode of transport, one might think, except that these are not ordinary bikes.
Mr. Kerry reportedly pedals an $8,000 Serotta Ottrott, as high-tech and skittish as a sports car. It is made of space-age carbon tubing and comes equipped with the patented ST rear triangle, whatever that is.
Mr. Bush pumps away (often emitting low "hrrr, hrrr, hrrr" grunts, according to an Associated Press article last week) on a $3,000 Trek Fuel 98. It, too, is made of carbon tubing, but unlike the Kerry machine, it has shock absorbers fore and aft. That's because it's meant to go off-road. If Mr. Kerry's bike is a Ferrari, Mr. Bush's is a Land Rover. Mr. Kerry rides on the flat, more or less, and usually on paved surfaces.
Mr. Bush likes to ride up into the hills of his Texas ranch and then come flying down. To put it another way, Mr. Kerry is more nearly like Greg LeMond, Mr. Bush more like Evel Knievel.
What this says about their political philosophies is best left to the analysts and the pundits. But a study posted recently on a New Zealand biking Web site suggests that downhill mountain-bike riders, like Mr. Bush, score considerably higher than cross-country riders on something called the Sensation Seeking Scale. (Road riders, like Mr. Kerry, are comparative wussies when it comes to sensation seeking.) Downhill riders are also more likely to drive a car too fast, and to have had a brush with the law.
Of course they also get hurt more often. According to Tim Blumenthal, the executive director of the International Mountain Bicycling Association, "minor cuts and scratches are pretty common in our sport."
You know what other grown-ups tend to get hurt more often? Do know what kind of other grownups tend to get minor cuts and scratches on their faces and have brushes with the law?
Life long alcoholics.
Fucking hilarious. Kerry drives a Ferrari, while Bush drives a Land Rover. See how that works? Kerry drives an elitist, super expensive, European sports car, a car reserved for only the wealthiest.
While Bush drives a rugged, manly sport utility, a good one, but not unlike one any regular old guy's guy in any part of America might drive. Like Evel Knievel--an all American dare devil!
Unlike that French sounding Greg LeMond.
(Reading too much into it? Maybe. But just a week or two after the Tour de France, does Kerry even warrant a comparison to American hero Lance Armstrong? Is Kerry the Lance Armstrong to George Bush's Evel Kneivel? Hell no! Kerry is LeMond, the French sounding guy.)
Not that either of them actually drives either of those cars, but a "professionally" trained journalist, above the "all spin all the time" of bloggers, has simply interpreted their fucking bike riding in this way.
And why? Because that's the fucking spin the RNC has been putting on Bush and Kerry since Kerry became the democratic front runner. Because that interpretation fits perfectly with the pre-conceived notion this "professional" journalist has, his script for the story of campaign 2004.
And your "professionally" trained journalists just type up what's handed to them.
Two millionaires: one a combat veteran, a successful prosecuting attorney, a powerful investigative Senator since the 1980s; the other, a C history student, a cheerleader and 3rd string Ivy League pitcher, a sometime appearing National Guardsman in a time when the National Guard was a way out of combat, a playboy, an alcoholic, a drug user, a business failure, a guy who refers to his adult life of his 30's and 40's as his "youthful indiscretions".
(Any of you out there in your 30's and 40's feel like these are the crazy irresponsible days of your youth? Like any day now you'll set aside these childish pursuits and maybe get a day job? Because that's how your president unbelievably describes his 30's and 40's. His twenties, he won't comment on and the records have been purged, but his 30's and 40's are the days of his silly, irresponsible youth.)
But again, two men, both wealthy, both from Yale, and yet John Kerrry must always be the elitist, white wine swilling, French sounding aristocrat. And George Bush must always be the rugged, regular guy's guy.
No matter what. Because that's the story line for this election. No matter what we're talking about, we're going to find a way to frame it in those terms. The facts have to be made to fit the story line.
Because we're "professionally" trained journalists, not bloggers, for God's sake.
Oh, and also, if George Bush shows up in public from now until the election with bizarre contusions and abrasions on his face, it's because he's a dare devil, sweating and grunting, rugged bike rider.
Not because he's a recidivist alcoholic.
Let's just get that spin out the way.
What makes this bit particularly pathetic is that the author feels the need to specifically disclaim that he IS spinning this piece: "What this says about their political philosophies is best left to the analysts and the pundits."
Posted by: Jerry | August 02, 2004 at 04:20 AM
You know, I thought the same exact thing. Somebody needs to do a breathalizer on that man! Of all the jobs in the world, shouldn't the President of the United States be test for drug and alcohol abuse?
Posted by: Nicole | August 02, 2004 at 09:19 AM
What makes this bit particularly pathetic is that the author feels the need to specifically disclaim that he IS spinning this piece: "What this says about their political philosophies is best left to the analysts and the pundits."
What's even more pathetic is: how much do you want to bet that the study from a New Zealand biking Web site was fucking emailed to this "professional journalist" from some RNC member of the "truth squad"? From their fast action War Room?
I'd lay good money he got the web site and the idea for his article right from the RNC.
Christ, does the New York Times even get paid by the RNC for the free advertising space and the use of its "professional" journalists?
Posted by: ricky | August 02, 2004 at 08:02 PM