Rhetorical Straw Men

“There are those who will have you believe people living with illness should be dragged out into the street and shot…..but, we are a better nation than that, and free healthcare should be a right for everyone……”

I’ve heard several people bring to light Obama’s rhetorical cunning when it comes to his ad hominem attacks on “straw men”. The straw man argument involves attacking an unpopular and discredited view in order to validate a point you are attempting to make.

Obama did this yesterday when announcing his plan to fund scientific research with 3% of our GDP.

He said, "...there are those who say, we cannot invest in science.."

Really? Who are these people?

I think most people agree that “investing” in scientific research is a good thing. Now, the manner in which we invest is another matter. Do we encourage private investment through tax incentives tax incentives, or do we “invest” by setting up government laboratories to prove the existence of manmade global warming?

Either way, it is a gross mischaracterization of the true landscape of the debate.

During the stimulus debacle, Obama attempted to justify his unnecessary $800 stimulus package by saying, "Nothing is not an option. You didn't send me to Washington to do nothing" and "There seems to be a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing".

Yes, doing “nothing” would have been foolish; however, it was not even part of the discussion.

He also did this when he lifted the ban on embryonic stem-cell research. He made it appear that those who were against federal funding were against science in general. This was not true, and those who are against it are simply taking a moral stance.

This form of trickery is nothing new to politics, but Obama seems to use it with ease. He makes it appear as if he is always taking the “high road” by misrepresenting the opposing view point.