Straw man sighting

I'm not going to defend Barry Manilow here. His cowardly exit from a scheduled appearance on "The View" was weak, lame and contrary to everything the First Amendment stands for (i.e., I don't agree with your beliefs but I defend your right to them).

But listening to hometown talker KFAN online yesterday, I got my knickers in a twist over something said by the normally sane Dan Barreiro on his afternoon show. Now, I hate to be the kind of guy who "blogs" to refute members of the media, the sort of one-way argument that resembles a pea-shooter taking on a battleship.

But I have to bring this up, because it follows a pattern I've seen in the past (and I'll give examples later). Barreiro made the specious claim that Manilow is getting support from "liberals" for his ridiculous stance regarding Elisabeth Hasselback. Of course, Danny Boy didn't bother to point out any actual examples of liberals supporting Manilow. We're just supposed to take his word on it.

I surfed a bunch of liberal blogs today to see who's on Barry's side, and not one of them supported him. Check it out for yourself. Talking Points Memo: nothing. Daily Kos: nothing. Atrios: nothing.

There's a chance that this story has nothing to do with "liberal views." Maybe this is all about Manilow backing his pal Rosie and nothing more. But even if this is Manilow's misguided attempt to defend "liberal" views, he's just not getting any mainstream support from those identified with the left.

My wife and I are as liberal as it gets, at least from a political support standpoint, and when we heard the Manilow story on the news the other night, we looked at each other, rolled our eyes and commented on how ridiculous it was for him to do that. And I don't know anybody who would support his idiocy.

But I'm guessing that's a gray area that Barreiro doesn't want to get into on his show. It's much easier to just go black-and-white on the bit, and claim that Manilow speaks for all liberals, or at least invent some straw-man support for his actions and then use this imaginary support to blast all liberals.

I'm disappointed, because I thought Barreiro was better than that. Then I remembered another time he did the same thing, because I called in to complain about it. Just after the 2004 election, Danny Boy went on the air and related an anecdote that he said proved that liberals "just don't get it" and will remain in the minority unless they change their ways. His proof? One caller he heard on an NPR show whining about one thing or another, probably voting irregularities or moving to Canada.

But at least Barreiro had an example that time -- however anecdotal it might have been. This time around, he just fell back on the tired rhetoric patented by the right, whether it's Rudy Giuliani blasting Hillary Clinton for not distancing herself from the MoveOn.org "Betray Us" ad, or one of my conservative pals (hi, Bill!) disparaging all Democrats because they weren't condemning the deluded ramblings of an obscure University of Colorado professor.

It's all a great, big straw man argument. It would be just as easy for me to say that all fundamentalist Christians are murderous terrorists because Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, or that all NFL coaches are smug cheaters who dress like hobos because of that one guy in New England.

I expect this kind of nonsense from the Coulters and Limbaughs of the world, but not Barriero. But if this is the kind of trenchant political analysis we can count on from him in the future, maybe he should just stick to sports, sports, sports.