esmaspäev, aprill 26, 2004
The Enemy
His name is Britton Stein.
He lives in a fantasy world where George W. Bush is "a man, a man's man, a manly man." This, I assume, is based entirely on the fact that Bush owns a ranch and never uses words longer than two syllables.
There are an incredible number of details in this article worth, well, mocking this man for far more than he really deserves. I'm going to generally refrain from that, more because I have actual work to do than because I don't want to. But let me just point out one thing.
A lot of us on the left often ask ourselves what's wrong with Bush supporters. I mean in terms of, why do they not see what we see? Why don't they understand the problems Bush causes? Why don't they hold him responsible for his mistakes? Usually, the answer comes, admittedly condescendingly, down to them being either stupid, extremely religious, or both. I'm going to push those explanations aside here and just list the news sources Mr. Stein checks regularly:
The Drudge Report
World Net Daily
Free Republic
Soldiers for the Truth
Military.com
AmericanRhetoric.com
Townhall.com
Fox News
Now, to be fair to Mr. Stein, this is quite a bit of information and he's correct that it's more reading than most people do. But when you hold Ann Coulter up as one of your news sources, well, you get what you pay for, I guess. Seriously, I get that a lot of people on the right think the mainstream media is biased. I don't buy into that, but whatever. Do they really think World Net Daily is less biased? I mean, even if the New York Times leans left, it's still a major national news source. They'e not far-left goofballs. But Birtton Stein gets his "news" from the most right-leaning websites on the internet and he considers himself well-informed. He also sees nothing odd about this. He dismisses a CBS poll's results because Dan Rather's liberal? What the hell does that have to do with anything? If you want to be well-informed, and I think Stein really does, wouldn't it make more sense to, say, read the New York Times and World Net Daily so you can look at things from both sides? Is intentionally blinding yourself in one eye really the best way to operate in such a dishonest political culture?
An example. Over the weekend, there was a story about Bush attacking Kerry on offshore drilling. Kerry had made a comment that he supports offshore drilling in the deep waters off Louisiana. Bush goes down to Florida and says Kerry might want to drill in Florida, where it's incredibly unpopular. Now, I read the Washington Post article about this and, being that they're so damn liberal, they don't call Bush a liar, which he is. Instead, they present his claim. Then they present the Kerry campaign's response. I read both and came to the obvious conclusion that Bush is a liar. Odds are, Mr. Stein in his little right-wing bubble only hears one side of that over on the Free Republic message board. Is this not a problem?
What this really means, though, and what's frightening, is that John Kerry can fight Bush as hard as he wants. He can correct every lie. He can shoot down every stupid idea. He can berate Bush 24/7. And every word out of his mouth can be true. But Britton Stein ain't going to hear a word of it.
This is Red America.
This is what we're up against.
And if this is how they think, I really don't see how we're going to beat them.
|
His name is Britton Stein.
He lives in a fantasy world where George W. Bush is "a man, a man's man, a manly man." This, I assume, is based entirely on the fact that Bush owns a ranch and never uses words longer than two syllables.
There are an incredible number of details in this article worth, well, mocking this man for far more than he really deserves. I'm going to generally refrain from that, more because I have actual work to do than because I don't want to. But let me just point out one thing.
A lot of us on the left often ask ourselves what's wrong with Bush supporters. I mean in terms of, why do they not see what we see? Why don't they understand the problems Bush causes? Why don't they hold him responsible for his mistakes? Usually, the answer comes, admittedly condescendingly, down to them being either stupid, extremely religious, or both. I'm going to push those explanations aside here and just list the news sources Mr. Stein checks regularly:
The Drudge Report
World Net Daily
Free Republic
Soldiers for the Truth
Military.com
AmericanRhetoric.com
Townhall.com
Fox News
Now, to be fair to Mr. Stein, this is quite a bit of information and he's correct that it's more reading than most people do. But when you hold Ann Coulter up as one of your news sources, well, you get what you pay for, I guess. Seriously, I get that a lot of people on the right think the mainstream media is biased. I don't buy into that, but whatever. Do they really think World Net Daily is less biased? I mean, even if the New York Times leans left, it's still a major national news source. They'e not far-left goofballs. But Birtton Stein gets his "news" from the most right-leaning websites on the internet and he considers himself well-informed. He also sees nothing odd about this. He dismisses a CBS poll's results because Dan Rather's liberal? What the hell does that have to do with anything? If you want to be well-informed, and I think Stein really does, wouldn't it make more sense to, say, read the New York Times and World Net Daily so you can look at things from both sides? Is intentionally blinding yourself in one eye really the best way to operate in such a dishonest political culture?
An example. Over the weekend, there was a story about Bush attacking Kerry on offshore drilling. Kerry had made a comment that he supports offshore drilling in the deep waters off Louisiana. Bush goes down to Florida and says Kerry might want to drill in Florida, where it's incredibly unpopular. Now, I read the Washington Post article about this and, being that they're so damn liberal, they don't call Bush a liar, which he is. Instead, they present his claim. Then they present the Kerry campaign's response. I read both and came to the obvious conclusion that Bush is a liar. Odds are, Mr. Stein in his little right-wing bubble only hears one side of that over on the Free Republic message board. Is this not a problem?
What this really means, though, and what's frightening, is that John Kerry can fight Bush as hard as he wants. He can correct every lie. He can shoot down every stupid idea. He can berate Bush 24/7. And every word out of his mouth can be true. But Britton Stein ain't going to hear a word of it.
This is Red America.
This is what we're up against.
And if this is how they think, I really don't see how we're going to beat them.
