But Some Do

This is actually a "NEWS" article on Yahoo News. It should be in the opinion section. Can you imagine the MSM doing this to Bill Clinton? I can't.

AP: Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches

What a headline. How about one that says "Bill Clinton Eyeing Women in the Audience"? I'm sure it happens all the time, but you don't read about it.

Let's look at the article by Jennifer Love, AP Writer:

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.

Obviously Jennifer Loven lives in Liberal La La Land, because Liberal critics of the President certainly do mean these things, even if they don't say them in so many words.

Their every day actions and words show that Liberals believe the War in Iraq is lost. They question every penny spent on the effort. They attempt to derail the President's vision, by insisting that we cannot win, we cannot defeat the terrorists (though they prefer terms like "freedom fighters" and "opposition" and "insurgents"). And which party has been calling for a pull-out since March 18, 2003 (for you Libs, we went into Iraq on March 19, 2003)?

As for Muslims being free, Liberals seem to have no problem with the limited liberties of Muslim women. If a man in the United States has his wife wear head-to-toe coverings, never drive a car, and basically stay home, locked away, Libs call him a mean, women-hating Republican. Yet, when a Muslim nation demands this of every woman, they don't utter a peep.

And haven't we heard the LIbs argue that Muslim nations and Democracy don't mix? That Muslim nations cannot acclimate to Democracy, so the whole War in Iraq is a foolish waste of time and money? Sounds like "Some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free" to me, only more concise.

And as for this part: "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." I would debate the use of the word "decent" in conjunction with these people. It is true that many Democrats believe that the Federal Government ought to pay for health care for everyone. Is this even debatable? The Libs are always decrying the fact that so many people don't have health care---the government should pay for health care---just look at Canada and the nations of Europe! But, Jennifer Loven chooses to believe that the President is making things up about the Dems stance on health care.

Loven says "Of course, hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions." To borrow from the Dems favorite country, Au Contraire!

Let's look at more of the "article:"

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.

That's funny, because President Bush actually takes it pretty easy on the Dems. They call him Hitler and the #1 Terrorist in the world and he reminds us all that everyone has the right to an opinion. They (wait, am I using a "straw man" argument because I'm not directly naming names?) accuse President Bush of all sorts of heinous things and President Bush just lets it go by. But when he actually uses slight criticisms, he is suddenly making "straw man" arguments and behaving abominably. Go figure. Of course, what else would we expect from the MSM?

Since Bush came into office, I haven't heard many moderate words coming from the mouths of the leaders of the DNC. Is Loven saying Howard Dean, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Hilary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi are not the mainstream of the Democrat Party? I thought they were. And, I've heard some pretty extreme statements coming out of their mouths.

Of course, Loven could be right, in that the Democrats haven't really had a unified, coherent, or actual platform in a number of years. But that isn't President Bush's problem. He's just stating the facts as he sees them (and as a lot of us see them too).

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

Well, President Bush, even as the most powerful man in the world, cannot make the truth up. He just can't. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is excellent at saying things that seem like the truth, but just aren't. I strongly disagree with some people who say that cheerleading is a sport. That doesn't mean I am making a "straw-man" argument. It just means that some people say cheerleading is a sport and I disagree. I don't know their names, but do I really need to? It seems to me that if there is one opinion, then there is always someone with the opposite opinion. Can I not say "some people" have the opposite opinion?

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.

It is easy to be entirely reasonable when one is willing to work on something, while the other side prefers to stand outside chanting "Bush is Hitler!" Indeed, it is no contest.

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.

I wasn't aware that "some" implied any qualitative number. Apparently, to the Dems, "some" means 1,034,758 people. President Bush is, therefore, accusing 1,034,758 of being unreasonable and holding certain positions. How very rude.

Seriously, is it not a typical use of the English language to refer to others as "some"? Should President Bush actually name names and provide references, including time, date, location, and exact words? How unreasonable. If "some" have written or spoken about certain things, can't we say "some" have?

Loven then goes on to provide "examples," such as this:

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

Hmmm, I have actually been rather peeved that the President hasn't been very tough on the other side. He's been too nice. But, apparently, he's caricatured them (which implies being mean). And the President has tilted debates in his favor and scored election-season points with voters by speaking truth and working hard. Loven has bought into the typical (more straw-man? "typical"?) Dem (Dim?) view that the American people are a bunch of mindless idiots (well, thanks to our public schools, some (oooh, some!) are) and unable to think about anything important: therefore, the President can convince us with "caricatures."

And to continue:

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.

But, Dems are owned by the Unions and the education unions didn't want President Bush's education ideas taking hold because then teachers would be held accountable. Teacher's unions don't truly care about the children and what is best for them; they just want to retain power. If their teachers are fired because they are rotten at their jobs, then the union loses bargaining power. Plus, they do not want voucher programs because they know they would lose students and funding and, therefore, power. Voucher systems have worked remarkably well, but teachers unions don't want to admit it. A voucher system would hold failing public schools accountable. So, really, the President's opponents are opposed to holding schools accountable.

Don't be fooled by that last line of Loven's. The "chief opposition" was entirely to do with the merits of measuring performance." To say otherwise is absolutely ridiculous. The unions don't want teachers to be paid based on merit. And since when to Libs care anything about the staggering amount of money wasted in the public school systems every year? They are always pressing for more, more, more, more, more. And "instrusiveness"? Please, the Dems love intruding into the lives of citizens, though they pretend not to. Who else gets pissy if students voluntarily pray before a school football game?

The rest of the article is the same thing: so called "examples" of the President using the word "some" in his speeches. Quite a ridiculous waste of space. It doesn't actually prove anything, other than the fact that President Bush uses the word "some" sometimes (I do too!). The Libs are so desperate they are willing to use anything to bring President Bush down. They haven't been able to in the five years since he took office. But, you know, some will keep trying.