Bloggers at both ends of the political spectrum are commenting on today’s AP article Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches.

The piece accuses Bush of using the rhetorical device (also a logical fallacy) of the “straw man,” which according to Wikipedia “describes a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a ’straw man’ argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous.”

“‘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.”

“It’s such a phenomenal hole in the national debate that you can have arguments with nonexistent people,” (Wayne) Fields, a specialist in presidential rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis 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.”

Meanwhile, bloggers on the right are accusing the AP of lacking objectivity, employing a diversionary tactic by resorting to a logical fallacy of their own, the Ad Hominem (At the Man) attack, which “falsely assume(s) that characteristics of the person (the AP in this case) responsible for an argument imply that the argument itself must have certain characteristics, or that the characteristics of the person responsible for the argument are relevant to the acceptability of the argument itself. Another common name for this type of fallacy is genetic fallacy, since it attacks the source or ‘genesis’ of the argument rather than the argument itself.”

I found only a few conservative posts on the topic as of this evening, which include:

AP dropping any pretense of objectivity
“It used to be that liberal media bias was subtle, almost unnoticeable to the untrained eye. Nowadays it’s so overt in some stories that it’s surprising they even made it past the editors.”

AP peddling unvarnished partisan hit piece as “news”
“This piece is not labeled as an op-ed or ‘news analysis.’ It should be labeled ‘DNC press release.’ It is a prime example of egregious bias, even by AP standards.”

(I once had a journalism professor who, when asked, “what is the most egregious offense a reporter can commit?” responded, “the use of the word ‘egregious.’”)

Otherwise, the reaction to the AP piece among bloggers is predominantly from the left, and, you guessed it, predominantly supportive:

Stating the obvious about Bush’s deception
“Has Bush ever made a case for anything on its merits? Has he ever been truly honest in making a case for anything? No. His whole presidency, and not just his speechifying, has relied on misrepresentation and deception.”

Refreshing
“I can’t help but think what an aberration this story is. Seriously folks, when was the last time you heard a major news organization flatly point out Bush’s lying misdirection? Um… never.”

Calling Bush on his bullshit
“It would appear that some members of the mainstream news media, specifically Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press, can’t take it anymore and are now willing to point out the lies and mendacity of Bush and his administration.”

Crack In The Matrix
“No doubt some con will attack this story for being biased for reporting the facts, but who cares.”