I've never understood the internet phrase, "intellectual dishonesty." As opposed to, what, physical dishonesty? Podiatric dishonesty?

Isn't this just dishonesty, period?

Oh, and no, conservatives never stop to say, "Okay, good point." Most of us are sore losers. What distinguishes conservatives, as a class, is that they're also sore winners.

Unbelievable.  They should run a correction.

Modern conservatives are not capable of stopping and saying, "Okay, good point". At least not the  media personalities (or the WSJ). Expecting them to do that is like expecting Rush Limbaugh to pass up the chance to make a vile smear. It just won't happen.

There are conservatives here on Talkback who will say that, and plenty of regular people who happen to be conservative.

Not overly surprising.  Most of the talk from the right so far has amounted to making lots of straw man arguments so they can knock them down, Charles Murray being the notable exception.

In fairness, it was one line in a 37 minute speech, so conservatives could legitimately claim that he should have emphasized it more, but saying he completely ignored it plays better for them (typical liberal, won't acknowledge the harm their policies have done, etc.).

Agree with Rhubarbs.  Intellectual dishonesty is arguing a viewpoint the good faith basis for which you know to be contradicted by the evidence.  It's not stating an outright falsehood.  If *that's* done knowingly, it's plain dishonesty.  And if it's done carelessly, as may have been the case here, then it's inexcusable carelessness.

they're conservatives. what did you expect?

"Apparently, conservatives didn't stop and say, "Okay, good point." They flat out ignored Obama's words, put words they wanted to hear in his mouth, and then condemned those."

Barron YoungSmith

And of course Obama supporters are not intellectually dishonest when it comes the candidates running against him. They never tried to make Hillary and her supporters seem like racists.

(cross-posted from another Plank thread - with a special Golden Rule pertaining to editorials)

It is probably a lot easier to parse a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed than it was to parse an article in Pravda.

Golder Rule) If the writer is a member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal the article is a piece of horse shit not worth reading. There are always several of these a day.

1) If the writer is associated with the American Enterprise Institute the article is  a piece of horse shit not worth reading.  There is typically one of these a day.

2) If the writer is associated with the Hoover Institution the article is a piece of horse shit not worth reading. There are typically several of these a week.

3) If the writer is associated with a partnership the article is a piece of horse shit not worth reading. There are typically several of these a week.

4) If the writer is the author of a "forthcoming" book the article is a piece of horse shit not worth reading.  There are typically several of these a week.

5) If you start reading an article and come across mumbo-jumbo like "agreed-upon unit of account in terms of which trading partners could price every contractual agreement" the article is a piece of horse shit not worth reading. This affects nearly all the articles on the Op-Ed pages.

6) If the article discusses a topic without actually refencing the usual name of the topic the article is a piece of horse shit not worth reading.  This affects nearly all the articles on the Op-Ed pages.

AlanSP:  Maybe you're right, but it's still inexcusable.  That part of the speech jumped right out.  Any person listening to it in even the most minimally attentive way should have picked it up.

jhildner, I totally agree, which is why the argument is intellectually dishonest.

Updating my earlier comment, Charles Murray has now been joined by Mike Huckabee on the rather short list of conservatives praising Obama's speech.

www.politico.com/.../Huck_defends_Wright.html

But what does he know about things like preachers and sermons?

It's obvious that the WSJ writers didn't actually watch or read the speech. Rather, they watched the two or three clips of it that are running on Fox.

jacksondyer, that was childish. You do not even attempt a defense other than "well, you guys do it too."

So does this mean that TNR's Michael Crowley is "intellectually dishonest" too? He wrote that Obama didn't "so much as mention" affirmative action, which is not true. Crowley even quotes a section of the speech that mentions "affirmative action" in the same piece!

www.tnr.com/.../story.html

I pointed this out in the comments yesterday, but TNR still hasn't run a correction. I would like to know if Barron YoungSmith thinks this is "intellectually dishonest."

AlanSP, thanks for the Huckabee link. Raises my regard and respect for the man even higher than it already was.

With regards to "intellectual dishonesty", I'd like to flag the following passage from the editorial:

"He then laid down a litany of American woe: "the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who has been laid off," the "shuttered mill," those "without health care," the soldiers who have fought in "a war that never should have been authorized and never should've been waged," etc. Thus Mr. Obama's message is we "need unity" because all Americans are victims, racial and otherwise"

Obama's point seems to be that all (or almost all) Americans face some form of barriers or struggle in their lives, although those barriers may be different for each person, such that we may not instinctively understand or appreciate those barriers. I am a white, self-employed male, which means that I have no direct understanding of what it means to be a soldier, a professional woman, or a black urban minister. Has anyone at the WSJ ever faced or even understood the barriers listed above? They seem to be arguing that anyone who mentions imperfection in our country is complaining or whining ("woe" and "victims"); I see Obama's phrasing as simple acknowledgement that these factors exist, and the country would be stronger if we worked as a community at easing them in a resonsible manner.

I say all this as a non-Obama fan who has reluctantly supported Clinton so far. I am far from impressed with his supposed talent for rhetoric. But projecting words and thoughts into others' mouths is far different than criticizing what actually comes out.

This is ridiculous.  Everyone knows, or should know, that Obama has voted 100% left as a Senator. He votes for every welfare program, every program that makes the government larger, every paternalistic piece of legislation that appears before him. So no need to play games with this or that sentence in his speech. Apparently the dastardly WSJ knows this, but not the editors and readers of The NR. Obama has proved himself to be a manipulative fraud to all those who are so heavily invested in him that they have gouged out their eyes.

Yeah, "welfare programs."  That stung.  But I always wondered what to call the government baling out private industry when it screws up.  Or steering vast mountains of taxpayers' money toward no-bid contracts in Iraq.  Or giving extremely rich folks a tax break 'cause they suffer so much.

Any suggestions, hsaper?

Nice to see you literatehobo - that Huckabee speech got as much play with the kids at my work yesterday as Obama's speech (which was a humungous, gigantic hit).  The Huck rules.

wandrey -

Thanks, it's nice to be remembered.

I hope Huckabee stays in politics. We need more thoughtful class acts, regardless of their policies.

At some point I hope to watch Obama's speech, though I still tend to side with the teplukhin school of voter indignation, in which this Democratic campaign is all about rhetoric and feelings and only barely touches on policy. We just finally got high-speed (sort of) internet out here, which opens the possibility of finding speeches and educating ourselves on candidate's stances rather than relying on highly skewed media reports. It's exciting.

Ironyroad:  That's a wonderful non sequitur, a fine way to avoid the issue.  But I'm  against corporate welfare, too. Just realize that has nothing to do with the substance of my comment on Obama which stands on its own.  Your turn.

That's an admirably idealistic position to take but I don't think it holds water.  Given that we have government and require it to some extent, either you are in favor of government coming down, as much as is acceptable and practicable, on the side of the ordinary citizens in a society, or coming down, as much as can be gotten away with, on the side of the already rich and powerful.  Maybe I'm cynical, but that's just the way I see it.

Generally, most Democrats (and even some Republicans) are drawn to different degrees to the first option.  Obama is -- last time I looked -- a Democrat.  It would be indeed strange if he did not share the broad Democratic Party approach.

So, your point is . . . ?