.."can somebody read back to me what he said to me yesterday? I left my pad in what I thought was the ladies room, it turn out to be a hall closet, but I can't remember what hall, or even if I wiped"
Posted on 03/22/2006 10:44:07 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
"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."
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
Perhaps she is familiar with the phantom favorite of Democratic talking heads which begins with, "The American people (fill in the blank with whatever criticism of Bush the speaker wants to make)."
What a hatchet piece she has come up with! Her "clever" attempt to delegitimize Bush's rebuttals to critics simply serve to reinforce their validity.
Loven's problem is that her political blinders keep her from seeing that us real "American people" out here know exactly who the President is talking about, because we have heard and read their criticisms.
Those AP-Holes at the AP can't figure out that they are the LEGITIMATE Targets???
.."can somebody read back to me what he said to me yesterday? I left my pad in what I thought was the ladies room, it turn out to be a hall closet, but I can't remember what hall, or even if I wiped"
Same with the Clinton rhetoric device of "reasonable" people. Disagree? You're unreasonable!
Never one mention in the whole article about any other politicians using rhetoric. I can think of a whole host of BS phrases used by other folks. Clinton was just one example. Loven never wrote such an article in 8 years of his silvered tongue wagging. I guess she found more uses than speaking for that!
Never a mention about any others. Just Bush. Pathetic. It's not as if politicians don't use rhetoric a thousand times a day. Loven acts as if Bush is the first person to do so. And get her "expert" professor, too. "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." How much THIS administration? Was he sleeping from 1992-2000?
If other folks can't see the bias in that, there just ain't no such thing as bias.
At least we no longer have to listen to our President say things to us like, "I never had relations with that woman...not once" on a semi-annual basis. *Rolleyes*
I agree. President Bush needs to keep talking to us and not shut up...not once! :)
Oops.
Left out a couple of paragraphs about what the professor missed:
Did he not hear how many democrats cried "Bush Lied!" and Bush mislead us!" Algore's spitting roar of "He betrayed us! He played on our fears!!!!"????
Calling the President of the United States a liar, a betrayer of our people and such isn't as much of a "whole in the national debate" as the Katie Couric "some people same" rhetoric?????
PULLEASE!
Fat chance. But how funny that she attacks this when all of her colleagues use the exact same device, daily!
awwww is this little jennifer snit got her nose out of joint because the Pres has the cohunas to tell the truth???
awwww poor, poor little jennifer....go home to mommy and she will dry your tears.
Ruh Ro! Jennifer Loven is in a bit of trouble now. She went too far with her bias this time, and Editor and Publisher did a story on it.
The worst part for her is that it is linked via Drudge’s page. The AP will be forced to marginalize and muzzle her for awhile – and hope this doesn’t get too much coverage. They better hope no one discovers that her husband is a DNC insider and advisor to John Kerry.
AP's Bush 'Straw Man' Story: News Analysis Or Unlabeled Opinion?
NEW YORK 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? The viewpoint, as often happens in Washington, depends on whose blog you are reading, and what you consider opinion and analysis. Still, the article by reporter Jennifer Loven sparked an interesting debate on the blogosphere, and in some newsrooms, over how such an examination of a public figure can cross the line from reporting to opining. Since the piece was not labeled a column, or even analysis, it raised some eyebrows as it veered into a sharp attack on Bush's use of such tactics.
Check this out!
Totally biased smear!
Jennifer Loven is married to a former Clintonite and DNC Bigwig. She is merely writing what she was told to by the DNC
Oh dear. Did AP get caught with their pants down AGAIN?
So JENNIFER LOVEN is confused?
Keep them confused, President Bush! They'll follow you around like puppies:):)
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.
Dumb and arrogant is no way to go through life, Jennifer.
Hah! And then they end the article by saying so far the Powerline request for comment only came up with 2. They end an article about a smear with a smear.
Will a reporter try to fact-check the AP's biased hit piece? I would say probably not. Once again, it's up to the alternative sites to do it. Thanks "reporters" or as I call you, idiots. I'm glad Moveon is happy with the AP, when are they not? When ever have conservatives agreed with what the AP has written? Does this raise ANY flags?
Thanks for the ping SkyPilot. This story has gotten to me, especially after the media's defense of its reporting as unbiased all day.
i noticed you can never email AP writers as theyre never braves enough to give out their email addresses.
bttt
Ruh Ro! Jennifer Loven is in a bit of trouble now. She went too far with her bias this time, and Editor and Publisher did a story on it.
The worst part for her is that it is linked via Drudge’s page. The AP will be forced to marginalize and muzzle her for awhile – and hope this doesn’t get too much coverage. They better hope no one discovers that her husband is a DNC insider and advisor to John Kerry.
AP's Bush 'Straw Man' Story: News Analysis Or Unlabeled Opinion?
NEW YORK 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? The viewpoint, as often happens in Washington, depends on whose blog you are reading, and what you consider opinion and analysis. Still, the article by reporter Jennifer Loven sparked an interesting debate on the blogosphere, and in some newsrooms, over how such an examination of a public figure can cross the line from reporting to opining. Since the piece was not labeled a column, or even analysis, it raised some eyebrows as it veered into a sharp attack on Bush's use of such tactics.
I was so out of touch with all those "American people think." statements. Thankfully, I found FreeRepublic.
That is why the left makes films like the recent biography of President Reagan and the Ted Turner series "The Cold War", with its They-had-the-gulag; we-had-Kent-State equivalence. I don't think they care if anyone watches it the first time it runs on TV. It gets into school libraries to propagandize a generation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.