I couldn't believe the AP pointed this out

[R00k]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060318/ap_ ... traw_men_1

Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches


WASHINGTON - "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."

Trying to save face by pointing out all this 2-3 years after the fact?

[Ryoki]

Eh... odd indeed.
The safe face theory is spot on i think.

[seremtan]

the irony is, he not only mischaracterises the position of people who oppose him, he even misrepresents his own position at the same time. on withdrawal from iraq for instance -

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.

- he talks about 'standing down when iraqis stand up', when what he really means is: permanent bases to control the flow of oil, which is what the war was all about of course

[JulesWinnfield]

Yeah he did that all through the press conference yesterday. It's like it's his attempt to normal and folksy with people - trying to have a casual conversation, but it really comes off insincere and I think even the most devoted heartland-of-America types are starting to see through it.

[Ryoki]

...what? No, it's clearly intentional demagoguery.

[menkent]

and the rush limbaugh types LOVE it, because it plays directly to the scare tactics and prejudices that they're already working with

[SplishSplash]

Somebody said ( , but somebody actually did say that, I just forgot who it was) that the big fight between the two candidates in '08 will be about who can distance himself farther from the current administration. I believe the press will do the same.

[R00k]

Yeah he did that all through the press conference yesterday. It's like it's his attempt to normal and folksy with people - trying to have a casual conversation, but it really comes off insincere and I think even the most devoted heartland-of-America types are starting to see through it.

I think it's a little more cynical than that. I think his speechwriters know that the only way they can make his positions really look good, is by comparing them to others that are so bad they have to be made up.
Like the pullout question, for instance. If he publicly admitted that Democrats were only asking for a reasonable estimate on a withdrawal timeline, he would look like a complete jackass for denying one. But if he convinces people that Democrats want to "CUT 'N' RUN!!" then he has a chance at looking macho and patriotic by denying them this made-up alternative.

Again, it's all about framing the debate. Unfortunately, they're not only framing the debate, they're also pretty much fabricating the other side's stances, and since the media aren't calling him on it, then that's all the debate consists of. Which is why people still believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 - because nobody will hold the president in the realm of reality while he is on television, so he can say just about any darn thing he wants to without anyone challenging him.

[R00k]

Example: Today he can get away with saying he never wanted to go to war - he said that in his response to a reporter yesterday.

He can get away with saying that, even though this clip of him is available for anyone to watch:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/feel_good.html

Hence, there are still tons of people across the country who genuinely believe their president is a peaceful man who wanted to avoid war, even though it is the opposite of reality.

[Freakaloin]

u shoulda seen that town hall meeting today...it was bizarre to say the least...watch this video clip...this bitch gets a standing oviation...crazy's in da house!

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/22/townhall-world/

[R00k]

Pathetic.

It's the same idea as I posted about the other day though:

The effect of these staged events is to give people a false impression of people’s attitudes about the President’s policies. The media seems happy to play along.

If you can control the media polls and the vote, then youv'e got the public eating from your hand - as long as the majority are easily cowed, which they are.

It's all a matter of perception. If the papers and the boob toob convince everybody in the nation on a regular basis that Bush has large support, then people who disagree will be either scared to speak out, apathetic/despondent about the state of things, or just flat-out convinced that they can't do anything about it anyway.

The climate of fear isn't just about terror alert levels.

[Fender]

Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people... - Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice

Miserable failure.

[Freakaloin]

yeah..the networks showing that townhall should have added commentary pointing out it was a staged politcal event...