It's a pretty typical piece; contempt for the American public (especially Arnold voters), distortions, and criticzing Arnold because of his career.
To be honest, this is so typical, I don't even know why I'm bothering. In the end, I decided it was such a perfect demonstration of where the NY Times is editorially right now that I couldn't resist.
Fire in the hole.
The Hitler thing is, as we'll deal with later, hopelessly out of context and we're not even sure if it's true *in context*. On top of that, the writer is saying, "Well, if I bothered to ask him this question, then the answer would be...". Surely this innovative technique to save time will spread like fire.
"Now, I didn't actually ask George Bush about North Korea's policy, but if I *had* he would have said..."
Argument by assertion. Anybody who supports Arnold must be stupid! If only we lived in some sort of world run by oped writers....
"The feeling like Kennedy had, you know, to speak to maybe 50,000 people at one time and having them cheer, or like Hitler in the Nuremberg stadium. And have all those people scream at you and just being in total agreement with whatever you say."
Quick, when was the book proposal written? Oh, that would be an inconvenient fact. Doesn't Arnold specifically say that he DOESN'T admire Hitler for what he did with it, contrary to the ABC quote? Has Arnold gone on record saying he hates everything Hitler stands for? Damn these facts!
I'm going to avoid the obvious irony of this oped writer criticizing somebody for remaining undisturbed by original thought and move on.
That's the first legitimate, substantiated complaint so far. Didn't that feel good?
I believe him. For one thing, he's apparently been acting boorishly — or worse — for several decades. If you reach out and touch as many people as Arnold's supposed to have touched, it would be impossible to remember them all.
Oh, that's brilliant. He's honest and says he doesn't remember exactly what he did 25 years ago. It MUST be because he's a serial criminal, despite no charges having been filed, ever. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that there were, in fact, relatively few incidents and several people desperately seeking attention.
Back to this again? Saying that the adoration they received would be a rush is completely morally neutral.
Watch this: Hitler was an excellent public speaker. *gasps*. It's true, but it's not an endorsement, and it doesn't mean I'm unable to realize the depth of his crimes.
Mr. Schwarzenegger is the favorite in California because, incredibly, he's perceived as a strong leader by many voters. In reality, he seems little more than an aging but still frisky goof-artist, a fun-loving egomaniac with a winning smile and very little understanding of what is appropriate behavior.
But he's played spectacularly strong leaders in one cartoonish movie after another. As scary as it seems, for a lot of voters in California, that's reason enough to hand him the reins of their government.
Precisely what I would expect from the most elite of the elite media. They can't accept the fact that the public support him for good reasons, so they have to assume people are just idiots.
Guess what? Are there a share of ideological voters for every candidate? Sure. Do they have anything to backup the assertion that people are voting for Arnold because he's the Terminator? Other than their own contempt for people like me, no.
So, we have contempt for you and yours (even if you agree with him this time, the way he feels about Arnold voters now is how he feels about YOU when you disagree with him... and he's hardly alone), guilt by association, out of context quotations, and the omission of several crucial facts. And snuck in the middle is one thing that is truly disturbing.
One for... eight isn't bad. And this is the best newspaper in the world?
This is merely desparation to try and get Arnold supporters to think.. "Gosh! I'm too SMART to vote for this guy!!. I'm confident Californians who were going to vote for Arnold before won't be swayed by this, and I salute them for not falling into the elitist trap.
Edited by Javert Rovinski, 06 October 2003 - 11:26 AM.