Some Obama Enemies Are Made Totally Of Straw: New York Times

New York Times:

Democrats often complained about President George W. Bush's frequent use of a rhetorical device as old as rhetoric itself: creating the illusion of refuting an opponent's argument by mischaracterizing it and then knocking down that mischaracterization.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[wbramh]

Here's a proper answer to this bogus pile of %^ article

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/27/736060/-Straw-DigsThe-Yellowing-of-the-NYT

[MuchMadness]

“Here’s the trick: Take your opponent’s argument to a ridiculous extreme, and then attack the extremists,” said William Safire

Well, Mr. Safire, many of President Obama's opponents are ridiculous extremists, also known as Republicans, so this would be a pretty easy trick.

[cinesimon]

Indeed - and Obama's been very kind to them in my opinion, by not responding to the most extreme.
Which unfortunately seems to be the majority of their (rather small) party these days.

[Maury66]

The Republicans, congressional, as well as media types, don't want Obama to do anything, on health care, foreign relations (except fight wars) or on the economy. Where is the straw man? I read this article and having done so, have no idea what the writer is talking about.

[cinesimon]

Yep, it's very strange.
The right wingers' comments here all say it's all true, yet like Ms Cooper they cannot actually point to an argument he used a straw man in. Certainly Helene's examples are all obviously NOT straw men.

But in true right wing style: because it fits their politics and prejudices, they're simply saying that our rejection of this argument is just another example of how we worship Obama and won't criticize him regardless of his actions or policies.

They ignore, of course, the many criticisms we have already made of Obama.
Because to republicans and the right wing in general, as we've seen with their treatment of those n the gop who have other ideas: it seems that if you differ in any way from the party line, you need to be outright rejected, hated and thrown out of the party.

They seem to think that because we welcome intelligent and reality based internal and external debate, that means we don't have values.
The fact that this points to the fact that our values include the support of robust and intelligent debate, and honest disagreements being a part of life, appears to have gone WAY over their heads.

[MacQ]

It's true. They all do it, including Mr. Obama (which is obviously a thought some posters here can't tolerate).

His strawmen don't bother me. What does bother me about his rhetoric:

*when he gets up and SAYS things that are the complete opposite of what he DOES. I don't listen to him anymore, because why waste the time? What he says has nothing to do with anything.

*continual whining about what he "inherited". Get over it already. George Washington (and the next 42 people after him) also inherited messes. And some of them were way worse.

[Gasparilla]

The only guy who inherited worse economically was Roosevelt. Bush inherited a vibrant economy. The fact you could write what you did shows how uninformed you are.

[cinesimon]

Funny thing is, nobody can point to Obama actually USING a straw man argument.

I challenge somebody to do so. I'd be more than willing to accept he has done it, if only it was pointed to!

Another thing: what's with the quotations that you guys on the right use to justify your points, but never actually say who said it, and where the quite can be seen within it's context? I see that more and more from the right, and it's just lazy and intellectually dishonest.

As for the quotes themselves: just pathetic. He's been in office how long?
Bush cocked up America for eight years - the nation still blames Cheney and he, and see them as the worst team, Bush as the worst predient(or bottom 5 at least) EVER.
So don't blame the president for reflecting the sentiments of the vast majority of the public, you're obviously just trying to cover your man's behind, and it will never work using the methods you guys do: you're just too see through and lacking in honesty every step of the way, and every word in a conversation.

And you seem to lazy to make a proper argument, the lot of you.

[LoyalOpposition]

Where has this NYT writer been, under a rock? Of course Obama has answered all the criticism that is lobbed at him daily in the Mainstream Media. I have heard all of those charges, so when I read that he has answered them, I know that President Barack Obama is not using straw man arguments. Please, give us credit, Cooper!

[tb92]

The difference between Bush and Obama is that the comments Obama quotes were actually said by the GOP. Bush's administration was famous for making up lies, convincing the media they were true, and then using the media as "evidence". That difference makes this entire article misleading and inane. Isn't there any REAL news that the Times could be covering?

[Gasparilla]

Just like Bush was against the dept. of Homeland Security, changed his mind, and then accused others of not supporting it.

[Plus15]

Helene Cooper's attempt to compare Obama's rhetorical flourishes with the continuing daily blatent lies of Bush, Cheney, Rove and the GOP is a now typical NY Times attempt at equivalency and is false and beneath this once great newspaper.

[solarian]

ny times who is going to $1.50 for a week day issue thanks but no thanks

[skeptical2]

I think he's always comparing himself to the "right-wingers" in order to look more liberal than he actually is.

[indeevoter]

With regard to President Obama (or any president), this article is much ado about nothing. Presidents are always going to use rhetorical flourishes to underscore the points they want to make. Parsing their words is a waste of time (and newspaper ink) unless their words hide a crime - or set the stage for war.

If Helene Cooper wanted to write an article on this topic that REALLY had some value, she'd have written it about her colleagues. "Some say..." is a device journalists use one helluva lot when they want to introduce a point of view into their articles but can't (or are too lazy to) find someone to actually quote! Or maybe, "some say..." is just an artifice used by journalists when they wish to include their own point of view in an article.

In the NY Times on May 6, Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote: "Some say change is inevitable, not only for Mr. Obama but also for the other Democratic politicians who have embraced civil unions but rejected same-sex marriage."

On May 3, the UPI in an article about Terry McCauliffe’s fundraising skills and his run for Virginia governor wrote: “But some say those credentials won’t play well in an era when the public is wary of high-flying investors in the wake of Wall Street’s meltdown…”

And John King on CNN uses “some say…” so much, it must be some kind of a tic.

Presidents are entitled to rhetorical flourishes­...journal­ists are not.

[Gasparilla]

So, in other words, just because he doesn't spell out the names of the people who oppose his policies, every single time, then he's using strawman arguments? The fact is there are plenty of his opponents who make the very arguments that he says they are making. Remember how people said the White House should not aswer what Rick Santelli said on CNBC? This article is idiocy itself.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The most dramatic indication of the GOP adapting to LaRouche's cogent warnings about the President's Nero Complex is the May 2009 issue of the right-wing Whistleblower Magazine, affiliated with WorldNet Daily, of Joseph Farah. The cover of the magazine features a portrait photograph of President Obama, above the headline, "Narcissist in Chief: Experts Explain What Makes Barack Obama Tick.'' The entire issue of the magazine is devoted to a series of articles, several by licensed psychiatrists, including one titled "Barack Obama: Narcissist or merely narcissistic?,'' and another titled "New Study: Narcissists crave power.''

The promo for the May issue could have been lifted directly from Lyndon LaRouche's April 11, 2009, webcast: "Beyond Obama's political ideology, many Americans are troubled also by his strange personality attributes: He greatly exaggerates his achievements, expects constant praise and admiration, believes he's special, doesn't appear to concern himself with other people's feelings, expresses disdain for those he feels are inferior, sets unrealistic goals, appears as tough-minded and unemotional, and other qualities--all of which are textbook symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Indeed, the word 'narcissist' is increasingly being applied to America's 44th president.­.. Is the president of the United States indeed a narcissist, a condition psychology and psychiatry recognize as a serious personality disorder?''

[channelerchik]

Alex: If you put your focus and energy into something other than hating and spreading hatred, you may create something productive in this lifetime.

Peace.



Go, Obama!!!!!

[Gasparilla]

Substitute Bush for Obama and you might have a point.

[ghtrains]

I hear the "straw men" and women everyday on the television and see their words on the web. What exactly does this woman do each day? Does she spend no time at all even reading her own newspaper?

[meede]

It took her from mid-March until now to write that crappola. She actually got paid to write it.
And the NYT whines about loss of business -- I wonder why when they employed empty headed writers the likes of this story.

No sympathy here. Here's a quarter -- call somebody who cares!!

[HHarvey]

Hmm.... strawmen? I think not. My belief is that these "strawmen" as the NY Times would have it are actually the news media. Got to keep the controversy alive right? Or is was it an illusion every time I hear Boehner and Limbaugh open their mouths.

[jmpurser]

I'm guessing the author either has no clue what a "strawman argument" is or she's hoping we don't. Really a terrible piece.