Home | Register | Login | Members  

Politics > "Bush using straw-man arguments in speeches"
New Topic | Post Reply
<< | 1 | >>  
1. Sunday, March 26, 2006 1:36 AM
JVSCant "Bush using straw-man arguments in speeches"


 Member Since
 12/18/2005
 Posts:2870

 View Profile
 Send PM
 


Bush using straw-man arguments in speeches


Associated Press

"Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day," President Bush said recently.

Another time he said, "Some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free."

"There are some really decent people," the president said earlier this year, "who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care ... for all people."

Of course, hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions.

When the president starts a sentence with "some say" or offers up what "some in Washington" believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.

The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.

He typically then says he "strongly disagrees" - conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.

Bush routinely is criticized for dressing up events with a too-rosy glow. But experts in political speech say the straw man device, in which the president makes himself appear entirely reasonable by contrast to supposed "critics," is just as problematic.

Because the "some" often go unnamed, Bush can argue that his statements are true in an era of blogs and talk radio. Even so, "'some' suggests a number much larger than is actually out there," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

A specialist in presidential rhetoric, Wayne Fields of Washington University in St. Louis, views it as "a bizarre kind of double talk" that abuses the rules of legitimate discussion.

"It's such a phenomenal hole in the national debate that you can have arguments with nonexistent people," Fields said. "All politicians try to get away with this to a certain extent. What's striking here is how much this administration rests on a foundation of this kind of stuff."

Bush has caricatured the other side for years, trying to tilt legislative debates in his favor or score election-season points with voters.

Not long after taking office in 2001, Bush pushed for a new education testing law and began portraying skeptics as opposed to holding schools accountable.

The chief opposition, however, had nothing to do with the merits of measuring performance, but rather the cost and intrusiveness of the proposal.

Campaigning for Republican candidates in the 2002 midterm elections, the president sought to use the congressional debate over a new Homeland Security Department against Democrats.

He told at least two audiences that some senators opposing him were "not interested in the security of the American people." In reality, Democrats balked not at creating the department, which Bush himself first opposed, but at letting agency workers go without the usual civil service protections.

Running for re-election against Sen. John Kerry in 2004, Bush frequently used some version of this line to paint his Democratic opponent as weaker in the fight against terrorism: "My opponent and others believe this matter is a matter of intelligence and law enforcement."

The assertion was called a mischaracterization of Kerry's views even by a Republican, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Straw men have made more frequent appearances in recent months, often on national security - once Bush's strong suit with the public but at the center of some of his difficulties today. Under fire for a domestic eavesdropping program, a ports-management deal and the rising violence in Iraq, Bush now sees his approval ratings hovering around the lowest of his presidency.

Said Jamieson, "You would expect people to do that as they feel more threatened."

Last fall, the rhetorical tool became popular with Bush when the debate heated up over when troops would return from Iraq. "Some say perhaps we ought to just pull out of Iraq," he told GOP supporters in October, echoing similar lines from other speeches. "That is foolhardy policy."

Yet even the speediest plan, as advocated by only a few Democrats, suggested not an immediate drawdown, but one over six months. Most Democrats were not even arguing for a specific troop withdrawal timetable.

Recently defending his decision to allow the National Security Agency to monitor without subpoenas the international communications of Americans suspected of terrorist ties, Bush has suggested that those who question the program underestimate the terrorist threat.

"There's some in America who say, 'Well, this can't be true there are still people willing to attack,'" Bush said during a January visit to the NSA.

The president has relied on straw men, too, on the topics of taxes and trade, issues he hopes will work against Democrats in this fall's congressional elections.

Usually without targeting Democrats specifically, Bush has suggested they are big-spenders who want to raise taxes, because most oppose extending some of his earlier tax cuts, and protectionists who do not want to open global markets to American goods, when most oppose free-trade deals that lack protections for labor and the environment.

"Some people believe the answer to this problem is to wall off our economy from the world," he said this month in India, talking about the migration of U.S. jobs overseas. "I strongly disagree."




 
2. Saturday, March 25, 2006 4:35 PM
jordan RE:

 Admin
 Member Since
 12/17/2005
 Posts:2274

 View Profile
 Send PM

Anyone see what I see in this editorial?

"There are some really decent people," the president said earlier this year, "who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care ... for all people."

Of course, hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions.

The author then goes on to say that "HARDLY" anyone in mainstream political debate have those comments. Let's see HARDLY. That means that SOME people have said such a thing which is EXACTLY what Bush said above. No, the author didn't say NONE, she said HARDLY which means SOME. The author created her very own straw man right there.

And let's also be honest - SOME people in Washington and outisde DC belive exactly what Bush said. Let's look back at Hillary-care in the early 90s as solid proof that some people believe the federal govt should decide such things. People like, oh, Hillary.

But I won't fall into the category of only picking one point and ignoring the entire article like we often see. It's eaier to pick up one comment rather than argue the overall intention.

Fields is quoted above as saying that "all" politicians (wow, talk about generalization - do ALL politicians do this?). Many politicians do this very thing. It's been going on for oh, I don't know hundreds of years probably. It's often used in basic debate. You twist or take the comments down to the core of what is being said so that your overall point can be made. It's normal to do this sort of thing. Clinton did very similar things too. It's called spin, and twisting an argument for your own needs. Calling Bush out on it specifically as they do in this article is pretty hypocrtiical.

The paragraph regarding what Bush told some audiences about how Democrats don't want security is also normal. Democrats often do this against Republicans: "Republicans don't care about XXXX because they are taking away your benifits." It's called a scare tactic - something that has always been in politics, and something both sides do all the time.

Finally, the author of the article doesn't even have her facts straight with the following two pargraphs:

Last fall, the rhetorical tool became popular with Bush when the debate heated up over when troops would return from Iraq. "Some say perhaps we ought to just pull out of Iraq," he told GOP supporters in October, echoing similar lines from other speeches. "That is foolhardy policy."

Yet even the speediest plan, as advocated by only a few Democrats, suggested not an immediate drawdown, but one over six months. Most Democrats were not even arguing for a specific troop withdrawal timetable.

I remember specifically in the beginning of that debate that some in Congress were talking about the "immediate" withdrawal of troops. A few days later, these same people backtracked a bit and said "Oh we didn't mean 'immediate' but we meant in 6 months." Furthermore, there's plenty of people outside Washington who do support an immediate withdrawal - like Cindy Shehan. So once again, yes, some say we ought to just pull out of Iraq - note that Bush didn't even use the word "immediate" in the quote offered above, and yet the author implies that "immediate" was the point Bush was trying to make. The author is putting up her very own straw man to make her own point. 

You know, if you're gonna criticize someone for putting up straw men, I'd strongly suggest not doing it yourself. (Note the reference of you in that sentence is a general you)

Furthermore, is this an editorial, political analysis or what?  

 


 


Jordan .

 
3. Saturday, March 25, 2006 4:35 PM
superducky RE:

 Admin
 Member Since
 12/18/2005
 Posts:8271

 View Profile
 Send PM
MODERATOR NOTE: Either an avatar needs to be fixed or one of these posts need to be fixed.


Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

 
4. Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:24 PM
Raymond RE:


 Member Since
 12/18/2005
 Posts:1664

 View Profile
 Send PM
March 19, 2006-------

 

"As we've noted before, AP reporter Jennifer Loven has written some astonishingly biased "news" articles attacking President Bush. But the folks at Federalist Journal called our attention last night to a Loven piece which may achieve a new low. Loven's latest effort is "Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments In Speeches," which masquerades as a straight news article, but reads like a DNC press release: .....

The "straw man" is, of course, a time-honored rhetorical device that is sometimes used by all politicians. But Loven attacks only one: President Bush. Do you suppose we can look forward to a piece on the Democrats' logical fallacies? No, neither do I......

Loven's penultimate example of Bush's "straw men" is inexplicable:

Usually without targeting Democrats specifically, Bush has suggested they are big-spenders who want to raise taxes, because most oppose extending some of his earlier tax cuts.

Do you understand that? I don't. If the tax cuts aren't extended, taxes will be raised. Most Democrats, as Loven acknowledges, support this. So how is this a "straw man"? Loven doesn't say.

The Associated Press is an odd organization, and it isn't clear to me who (if anyone) runs it. But there must be someone at the 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. " ---------

 Oh and on the unbiased newsperson front please note Jennifer Loven's husband was cited by the Kerry campaign as one of its leading endorsers. And I'm sure Bush makes her puke.

 
5. Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:49 PM
nuart RE:


 Member Since
 12/18/2005
 Posts:7632

 View Profile
 Send PM

That's pretty funny that this journalist noticed the ole "some say" device since it's a familiar trick of her trade. As in:

The joint Chief of Staff of the US Army said today that the news media is overlooking all the good that's being done. Not only that, he claims that such and thus number of provinces are functioning well, with schools, electricity, shops up and running, yada yada.

However SOME say... it's all lies, distortions, rosy-tinted glasses, yada yada yada.

Or SOME critics point out... yada yada, it's all death and devastation yada.

I always look for the "Some Says" and know I'm reading the writer's own feelings.

Furthermore, I will follow Jordan's lead and not ignore the rest of the article. Can you believe Bush uses a word like 'DECIDER?"

"...the federal government ought to be the decider of health care..."

Oh, geez, it hurts. I don't know. Maybe it's a word but it's just so damned awkward. So -- Bushian. Norman Mailer made the point last week that Bush mangling the language is no small matter. According to him a great leader must also be able to communicate. A few more years of this and I may be solidly in agreeance. (As Kid Rock might say.)

 

Susan


     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

 

Ben Franklin

 
6. Saturday, March 25, 2006 8:29 PM
Raymond RE:


 Member Since
 12/18/2005
 Posts:1664

 View Profile
 Send PM
How did the old lion Norman Mailer seem to you Susan? I had heard that he has been failing the last two years in his ideation and presentation. I have heard, of course it was before my time-like the Zombie's music :), but his encounters with Gore Vidal were cool to watch. Is the intellect still there?  OT

 
7. Saturday, March 25, 2006 9:46 PM
nuart RE:


 Member Since
 12/18/2005
 Posts:7632

 View Profile
 Send PM

You can listen for yourself, Raymond. I think you'll appreciate at least some of it.  He was very enjoyable as was the interviewer, Dotson Rader.  Mailer's 28 year old son, John Buffalo Mailer, however, was a Twit-us Supremus. Seems the two of them have authored a book together called "The Big Empty."  I call it Norman throwing his sycophant boy a bone.

Even when I disagree with Norman, he's fun to listen to and you can always count on something fresh and invigorating from him.  This is an hour and a half talk much of which NM complains about not being able to hear.  

Susan

http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segid=6842&schedID=407  


     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

 

Ben Franklin

 
8. Sunday, March 26, 2006 9:07 PM
Raymond RE:


 Member Since
 12/18/2005
 Posts:1664

 View Profile
 Send PM
Thanks for the link. For some reason my computer showed an " Install Shield " warning that stopped my playing it. Suffice to say that NM is a great personality and writer, and whatever his views as you say they have always been interesting. His love of boxing always showed in his strong delivery. I want to savor his presence on the planet as so many of his generation are getting up in years.   

 

New Topic | Post Reply Page 1 of 1 :: << | 1 | >>
Politics > "Bush using straw-man arguments in speeches"


Users viewing this Topic (0)


This page was generated in 218 ms.