And The Straw Goes Marching On

Spread the love

Loading

I’m sure we’ve all heard of the False Dilemma. It’s false pattern of reasoning in which only two answers to a question are considered when in fact there could be more answers. Karl Rove describes Obama’s use of the False Dilemma in his new article. He lays out how Obama states, over and over, that his opponents have a opinion which they obviously don’t have and then says that those with that view are the one’s who oppose his policies:

…On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, “I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.” Who exactly has that view? Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity.

Mr. Obama also said that America’s economic difficulties resulted when “regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.” Who gutted which regulations?

Perhaps it was President Bill Clinton who, along with then Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, removed restrictions on banks owning insurance companies in 1999. If so, were Mr. Clinton and Mr. Summers (now an Obama adviser) motivated by quick profit, or by the belief that the reform was necessary to modernize our financial industry?

Perhaps Mr. Obama was talking about George W. Bush. But Mr. Bush spent five years pushing to further regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was blocked by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank. Arriving in the Senate in 2005, Mr. Obama backed up Mr. Dodd’s threat to filibuster Mr. Bush’s needed reforms.

Even in an ostensibly nonpartisan speech marking Lincoln’s 200th birthday, Mr. Obama used a straw-man argument, decrying “a philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only government would step out of the way; that if government were just dismantled, divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us, it would somehow benefit us all. Such knee-jerk disdain for government — this constant rejection of any common endeavor — cannot rebuild our levees or our roads or our bridges.”

Whose philosophy is this? Many Americans justifiably believe that government is too big and often acts in counterproductive ways. But that’s a far cry from believing that in “every” case government is the problem or that government should be “dismantled” root and branch. Who — other than an anarchist — “constantly rejects any common endeavor” like building levees, roads or bridges?

During his news conference on Feb. 9, Mr. Obama decried an unnamed faction in the congressional stimulus debate as “a set of folks who — I don’t doubt their sincerity — who just believe that we should do nothing.”

Who were these sincere do-nothings? Every House Republican voted for an alternative stimulus plan, evidence that they wanted to do something. Every Senate Republican — with the exception of Judd Gregg, who’d just withdrawn his nomination to be Mr. Obama’s Commerce secretary and therefore voted “present” — voted for alternative stimulus proposals.

Then there’s Mr. Obama’s description of the Bush-era tax cuts. “A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy,” he explained in his Tuesday speech, after earlier saying, “tax cuts alone can’t solve all of our economic problems — especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few.”

The Bush tax cuts were not targeted to “the wealthiest few.” Everyone who paid federal income taxes received a tax cut, with the largest percentage of reductions going to those at the bottom. Last year, a family of four making $40,000 saved an average of $2,053 because of the Bush tax cuts. The tax code became more progressive as the share paid by the top 10% increased to 46.4% from 46% — and the nation experienced 52 straight months of job growth after the cuts took effect. And since when is giving back some of what people pay in taxes “transferring wealth?”

The best description of Obama by Rove is this one:

Continually characterizing those who disagree with you in a fundamentally dishonest way can be the sign of a person who lacks confidence in the merits of his ideas.

But none of us should be surprised. He is just following his playbook. Always say less than necessary and win through your actions, never through argument.

More here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thoughtful post.

While on the topic of straw men, however, there has been much accusatory gnashing of teeth on this blog about the Democrats instituting the “Fairness Doctrine” to take the teeth out of Conservative Talk radio. This particular straw man just went into the dumpster:

Senate bars FCC from revisiting Fairness Doctrine

By JIM ABRAMS – 39 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate voted Wednesday to bar federal regulators from reimposing a policy, abandoned two decades ago, that required balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves. The pre-emptive strike against the so-called Fairness Doctrine has been actively pushed by conservative radio talk show hosts who have warned that Democrats would seek to revive the policy to ensure that liberal opinions get equal time.

The 87-11 vote added the measure as an amendment to a bill giving District of Columbia residents a vote in the Houses.

Most Democrats voted along with the amendment, pushed by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., but said it was unneeded because President Barack Obama has stated he has no intention of reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

– Larry W/HB

Larry, of course Obama doesn’t support what is called “the Fairness Doctrine”. That’s a sweeping, all in one maneuver that’s too easy to spot.

Obama has another way to accomplish it, as I pointed out in a comment I made on an old August post of last year.

To reiterate via a Sept article by Guy Benson:

In June of this year a spokesman for Barack Obama had this to say about reimposing the “Fairness Doctrine”:

Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.

Just like Harry Reid says we should stop using the word “nationalization”, and Congress has pretty much banned the phrase “war on terror”, it’s all a matter of calling a rose anything *other* than a rose.

Why package that rose with it’s thorns under a known unpopular concept when you can divvy it up into several legislation that seems “fair”, and accomplish the same?

He’s against the revival because he’s got other kinds of legislation in mind for controlling the media that will do the same…

i.e. ownership caps (a new definition of “monopoly” by Obama?)

… or regulations on “network neutrality”, (and who defines and enforces “neutrality”?)

… and “increasing minority ownership”. (what’s this entail… telling a broadcast owner to sell to minorities to keep a “quota”??)

Lest ye think I am making this up, let’s note that in a Fox News article Feb 18th, both Axelrod and Gibbs… two who are much closer to Obama than Labolt… *deliberately* left a back door open on the fairness doctrine issue.

“As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated,” White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.

That was after both senior adviser David Axelrod and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs left open the door on whether Obama would support reinstating the doctrine.

“I’m going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC … and the president to discuss. So I don’t have an answer for you now,” Axelrod told FOX News Sunday over the weekend when asked about the president’s position.

So the question now remains, does it leer it’s ugly head under affirmative action ownership legislation, ownership caps and “neutrality” regulations instead? Do not be so quick to dismiss it just because the Senate voted on the Fairness Doctrine as it was once implemented. There are more ways to skin a cat, and the Dems in Congress know this.

BTW, how’s that “governing from the center” BS claim working out for you? Like just how “center” is it that he and Pelosi/Reid cuts out the GOP for added bill input, and the public is shut out because everything is considered “emergency legislation” so it can’t be put up on that transparency website.

Governing from the center my ass. He governs from the left, and spends from the far left. So much for your predictions…

The ugly head has reared, the Durbin amendment passed on a party line vote 57-41.

– The amendment by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) would achieve the same goals of the Fairness Doctrine through backdoor FCC regulations. His legislation forces the FCC to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership,” an attempt to dismantle successful syndicated radio programs. The Durbin amendment would hurt small, local radio stations who depend on popular syndicated programming for listeners and revenue.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/fairness-doctrine-on-senate-floor-dems.html

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

I’m still waiting for your reaction to Mata’s comment:

Freed to Kill

Larry with the twinkle in eye -increasingly mesmerized with the superficial, Hollywood presentation of political flash.

I’m telling ya, Missy… sometimes it scares me how we’re so dang connected! Like there’s another me running around in the middle of the country! LOL

So, are you and hubby ready to open your farm up to a conservative senior citizens co-op when we’re all broke under Obama?

@MataHarley:

I’m ready! You’re welcome anytime, we have a guest house you would be more than welcome to reside in, but it would be really cool to build you a straw house, they fascinate me. One of our friends in Colorado built one, it’s outstanding, very warm and cozy even though it’s huge. He’s an artist, you would have to see it to believe it. Take me forever to explain all the unique details he put in that place.

Years ago one of my gardening magazines had plans for a straw house and I saved it hoping that some day I could get my very busy hubby to build one down in our park on the edge of the lake between two coves, perfect spot for you.

Never could make it happen and I no longer have the magazine, I did find this to give you an idea of what some of them are like:

http://www.hollowtop.com/cls_html/do-it-yourself/strawbale_housebuilding.htm

Anytime Mata.

Mata Musing: emailed you off forum, Ms. Missy. Mata

Mata, didn’t recieve an e-mail, think I see why. It’s gr8, not great.