A "straw man" is something that is both easily constructed and even more easily torn down.  This holds true for both the actual physical item out in the field and for the logical argument.  One would normally expect that a "straw man" argument was not the domain of the intelligent.  At lest not normally.

There are many ways to construct a straw man argument.  One (#1) is to employ falsehood (whether by intent or careless neglect). Just assert that your opponent has said or believes something that is not the case.  And for the greatest effect make the statement as objectionable to as possible to your supporters.  A current example of this is the Obama & supporters' use of the "100 years" argument against Sen. McCain in the presidential campaign.

Another practical method is the use of (#2) incomplete information.  A couple of things can be accomplished with this method.  It allows you to paint your opponent as ignorant or unwilling to be prudent with information.  Or (#3) you can stereotype your opponents, placing them all into one convenient package that is often not representative of those bundled together.  Another (#4) effective option is to mix your opponent's position with another and objectionable position, allowing your supporters to establish a false relationship in a less direct but equally damaging.  These certainly do not cover all the methods available.  Manipulative people will find all sorts of ways to accomplish their goals and careless people will make these errors, generally through negligence.

Richard Bartholomew provides a good example (#1) of a mis-assigned position.  In attacking historic Christian doctrine he says:

Aside from the question of bad taste, the theological problem (NB: I mean "problem" in terms of "intellectual coherence", not in terms of what I may or may not believe) with Christian exclusivity as regards Judaism is that if Judaism used to be the true religion, how can that not be the case now?

The error here is that the religion of Judaism has not been seen simply as the "true religion" but that faith, the beginning point of Judaism through the faith of Abraham, is part of a shared core belief system that Christianity inherited from and with Judaism.  Whether this neglect of theological study when making a theological statement was by intent or laziness cannot be judged.  But it is clear that the information is false, and so leads to a false conclusion about Christianity, the common Christian views of the Jewish people's standing before God, and the nature of evangelism.

Ed Brayton gives us another example of manipulative illogic.  In his post the straw man comes from a redefinition of terms in order to presume and assign a racist position upon evangelicals.   He begins by (correctly) quoting Shirley Dobson regarding the National Day of Prayer:

The National Day of Prayer Task Force was a creation of the National Prayer Committee for the expressed purpose of organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values.

It is clear here that the term refers to the shared ethic found throughout the Bible and shared generally by Christianity and Judaism.  But he thinks the term does something more, or at least should.  This inference is drawn from his closing remark:

We're here to conform to a Judeo-Christian system of values. So naturally, no Jews are allowed. Very nice.

To say that "no Jews are allowed" is indicative that he finds the Christian exclusivity somehow worse than wrong-headed but actually quite racist.  He led into this with an earlier statement concerning early American history, so it's not a stretch of reason.

The error (per #3) in Brayton's post is making an exclusive Christian belief and practice out to be racist.  It's certainly some sad "logic" but still a clear example.  Sadly, though, this same weakness can be found in a good deal of conservative and Christian material.  For the sake of the gospel, I will challenge Christians to not resort to these methods.

The patent lies of these manipulators are easily discerned.  The pretense of TalkToAction being concerned only about dominionist and theocratic matters is transparent.  The pretense of "science" in Dispatches is transparent.  Liars are liars, through and through, day after day.

When the abortion movement received its nationwide imperative in 1973 via Roe, Jesse Jackson called it genocide. I wish he had not changed his mind because the evidence is becoming clearer to all of us.

Planned Parenthood is the main culprit. And unless you think this is a slur or otherwise a smear of a good organization, go to their web site and type in "sanger" in their search line and hit Enter. This is what you'll come up with.

These links paint a picture of Margret Sanger, PP's founder. Through spin that makes it sound nice, the target groups of PP is stated in the article entitled Planned Parenthood - Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood Founder :

created access to birth control for low-income, minority, and immigrant women

Sadly, it is completely consistent with those several PP representatives in high positions (a "Development" position is one of serious commitment) as they seek funds to fulfill their goals.

But abortion is non-partisan. Voting or not voting for any candidate because of party affiliation will not stop the racism and quasi-genocidal principles that drive this movement. How we vote is often a matter of life and Christian decency. (Don't let anyone tell you to vote your pocketbook over your morality. That is idolatry, imnsho.)