And the nitpicking, "I'm smarter than you!" award goes to

Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press for her "report" Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches.

He mispronounces some words too. Let's kill him.

But surely citing an "expert" is good solid proof. She cites:

A specialist in presidential rhetoric, Wayne Fields of Washington University in St. Louis, views it as "a bizarre kind of double talk" that abuses the rules of legitimate discussion.

Isn't there a fallacy of appeal to questionable authority? Or special pleading, where you criticize others for things you do yourself?

Maybe it's just us lawyers who know that you can find an "expert" to testify whatever you want. And where do I get a copy of those "rules of legitimate discussion?" Who legislated them?

Apparently, Mr. Fields did.

"It's such a phenomenal hole in the national debate that you can have arguments with nonexistent people," Fields 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."

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

Yep. The boys down at the gas station t'other day were notin' the same thing.

And all specialists in presidential rhetoric are self-absorbed prigs. Most of the "rhetoric" I see from the left is nothing but name-calling. They never present any reasoning, or if they do, it's to call attention to trivia, and extrapolate to indictment.

I wonder if Fields has ever analyzed the stump speeches of Bill Clinton.