Straw-Man Watch

Ever since Jennifer Loven’s terrific AP article over the weekend on Bush’s straw-men arguments, I’ve found it hard to listen to White House officials without noticing how dependent the Bush gang is on this inane rhetorical game. It’s almost as if they can’t help themselves.

The president had a real gem yesterday.

“Now, I understand some say, well, maybe they’re just isolated kind of people that are angry and took out their anger with an attack. That’s not how I view them.”

As Dan Froomkin responded, “Question for the White House: Can you name one political leader who has said any such thing?” I’d add that if we expand the question beyond political leaders, can the White House name any American anywhere who’s made this argument?

And speaking of Loven’s AP article, some conservatives apparently get very annoyed when journalists write accurate news stories that expose the absurdities of the president’s rhetorical devices.

Did a recent Associated Press story examining President George Bush’s alleged tendency to use a “straw man” approach in his speeches cross the line from news to biased opinion? Or was it just a long-overdue, in-depth review of the president’s public speaking approach? […]

“Loven has written some astonishingly biased ‘news’ articles attacking President Bush,” Powerlineblog.com claimed this week. It then called the straw-man piece “a new low” that “masquerades as a straight news article, but reads like a DNC press release.” It ends by saying “there must be someone at AP who wants the organization to be taken seriously as a news source. If that’s true, sacking Jennifer Loven would be a good first step.”

Yes, by all means, let’s fire a reporter for having the gall to write an article exposing one of the president’s favorite rhetorical devices, and quoting on experts presidential rhetoric, including the director of the non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center, who said Bush’s arguments abuse the rules of legitimate discussion.

Dismissal is the only logical approach. I’m sure the AP could replace Loven with some 24-year-old blogger who thinks Coretta Scott King was a communist….

Post Script: And speaking of the straw-man phenomenon, Tristero had a fun post today on a sub-category of the strawman argument that she calls the “jeffies.” Take a look.

Don’t dare point out the emperor is wearing no clothes — especially in a time of war.

  • What slip kid said. Of course they want Loven fired. She’s “off message” and the media isn’t supposed to do that.

  • “Now, I understand some say, well, maybe they’re just isolated kind of people that are angry and took out their anger with an attack. That’s not how I view them.” – George W. Bush

    He was so busy setting up a strawman he forgot to tell us what the strawman says.

    What an idiot! (using an Emma Watson voice, the actress who plays Hermoine Granger).

  • CB, as you pointed out in the Ben Domenech posts it happens that objectively pointing out the truth IS in line with Dem talking points. But that doesn’t mean it shows a bias toward anything other than the truth.

    When the president and his party are so wedded to a fantasyland nonsense non-existent worldview, simply pointing out the truth will come across as being “anti-Bush”. Doesn’t make it wrong though.

    In a way it reminds me of something Carville tried to stop Clinton from doing as a campaigner. I can’t remember where I read it, but Carville said that Clinton did a lot of, “Now they’re going to say I’m (whatever bad thing), well here’s the truth…” The big difference here is that there really was a “they” and they really were saying the things Clinton attributed to them.

  • Okay, now I get it. The ‘They’re’ is talking about the ideologue terrorists and not the ‘some’ who say.

    Gosh, that’s bad English.

  • Another thought – might the terrorists themselves be a strawman to some extent? Other than bin Laden and his seemingly endless stream of “second in command” people, who are THEY? Where are THEY?

    As we all know, THEY only appear from time to time when Assface needs to remind us how great a guy he is.

    Fuck him and his rhetorical devices.

  • Much like GOPers repeating lies, talking points, and memes so often they be come the truth, using strawmen on a daily basis for all your argments becomes the acceptable way of talking hence anyone pointing out this practice is biased and wrong.

    They think it is biased because the do it with such frequency they think this is the correct way of framing an argument. They know no other way.

  • Now some may say that using strawmen on a daily basis makes me a habitual liar. I can only say to them that my lying isn’t habitual, its calculated…..so there!

  • Bush’s terrorist enemies are strawmen as Chief points out.

    W. says they attacked us on 9/11 because they hate our Freedoms (like W. loves American’s freedoms). But that is not Osama’s motivation. Occasionally it helps to actually read what these people say (in Arabic, at least).

    But actually Osama and his henchmen want Power through a Sunni Caliphate that will allow them to take over all the Middle East (Egypt and Saudi Arabia, particularly). Not that they hate the freedoms of Egyptians and Saudis, because those people don’t have any. Really it is just a question of Osama wanting the power he is denied by not being a member of the House of Saud.

    They may hate America, but it is because of our Policies, not our Freedoms.

  • The other problem conservatives have with the piece is that she’s in a relationship with one of them:

    Among its complaints is Loven’s alleged conflict as the wife of Roger Ballentine, an environmental consultant who has worked in the Clinton Administration and has written for liberal outlets such as New Democrats Online.

    Based on her marriage alone, everything Loven writes should disregarded as biased, partisan trash. Of course, that doesn’t apply to NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, wife of Bush tax-cut enthusiast and former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, or to CNN’s Daryn Kagan, the former girlfriend of Rush Limbaugh.

  • PRM – not to mention Jeff Gannon/Jim Guckert. Since he was “in bed” with the military. Ha ha.

    Whatever happened to that guy?

  • This rhetorical device works both ways:

    You know, some people say that the Constitution is a nice document, but it really doesn’t work for a post-9/11 world. They think we need to throw out principles like Habeas Corpus and the Fourth Amendment. Some would even say that what we really need is a one-party, authoritarian government. But we Democrats would disagree with that. You see (leaning over the podium and smirking), we believe in de-mo-cra-cy.

    That last sentence went a little too far into the Bushit, but the principle’s there.

    Or how about …

    Some people don’t mind the graft in Congress. They believe that people who give Congressmen money should be able to write the legislation and that the people don’t have the right to know about it. But we Democrats are for open, honest government.

  • Bam! Kick it up a notch. Now we are getting “straw presidents.” He can’t say how long it will take to win in Iraq. The NEXT president, his repalcment will have to decide. There’s two things that come to mind. Since we want out of Iraq and Chris Matthews says Bush “is telling the truth” then lets get the next president now so we can get out now. That seems to be an unreasonable request under the circumstances since Bush was heard to say, “I want to be your president” meaning he’s not likely to quit. In that case will someone please call Pat Robertson and get the results of the, 2008 presidential election so we’ll know who to blame for the failure in Iraq.

    I’m confused. Didn’t Bush declare victory on the deck of an aircraft carrier in the Pacific ocean 2 or 3 years ago? Probably talking about victory over Japan. I’ve heard of late but that’s rediculous.

  • So (please don’t hate me) I was watching Hardball tonight and Chris had on the Army wife (Gail) who softballed W. on the Media not reporting the good news in Iraq and her Army Reservist Public Affairs Warrant Officer husband (Ken, I think).

    At one point the W.O. said that ‘some of’ the media had a political reason for telling only the horrible stories in Iraq. Chris actually nailed him. Who were these people? Ken couldn’t say. Did anyone working in Iraq talk like this? Ken said no. What proof did Ken have a media bias? Ken offered none.

    Chris actually burned down a right-wing strawman. It was awesome to observe.

  • Some people want to divide americans. I am a uniter, not a divider.

    Some people want to focus on the past. I want to focus on the future.

    Some people want to live with a pre 9/11 view of the world. My view of the world changed after 9/11.

    Some people believe the world was better with Saddam Hussein. I believe the world is safer with him in jail.

    Wow, this comes pretty easily. The list could go on forever. Just hope the press starts calling him on it, if they ever get another chance. If the consequences were not so tragic, the clown can be somewhat entertaining. But now, it is getting very old, very sad, and just pathetic.

  • “Some people believe the world was better with Saddam Hussein.”

    Would that be your dad, Mr. President?

  • Bush uses the attack of the straw -men,
    perhaps it’s time to fight fire with fire.

    The liberal straw-men counteroffensive.

    Some administration supporters will say ………

    America doesn’t need a middle class
    Terrorism is good for poll ratings
    Bush is compassionate conservative
    That Americans are idiots who can be tricked by a straw-man

  • Comments are closed.