Consider the following (lifted from a web site dealing with logical fallacies) in light of Pres. Obama's reference to  "...a false choice..." in his Inaugural Address, and in FINAL eulogy to the buzz-words and empty, repetitive slogans that have dominated public discussion these last eight years:

Fallacy of False Alternatives

Definition of FA: The reasons of an argument mention two (sometimes, more than two) alternatives, but there is pretty obviously at least one other alternative that the arguer should have considered, but didn't; this failure to consider a plausible alternative produces an incorrect conclusion.

Terminology: In an FA argument, it is false that the alternatives mentioned in the reasons are the only  alternatives. This is the only one of the fallacies presented here in which the mistake is that the argument has a false reason. For all of the other fallacies considered here, it doesn't matter whether the reasons are true or false, because the problem is with the relationship between the reasons and the conclusion.

Example FA argument:  Senator Blather was either telling the truth, or he was lying, and we know that what he said wasn't true. Therefore he was lying.

Explanation: FA because telling the truth and lying are not the only two alternatives that should have been considered. The Senator might have made an honest mistake (which isn't lying because lying has to be deliberate), or he might have been misinformed by his staff.

FA explanations: To give an acceptable explanation of why an argument involves the FA fallacy, you must include the following: 1) state the the two (or more) alternatives are that are mentioned in the argument, and 2) say that there is another alternative that should have been considered, and describe that missing alternative!  Of course the missing alternative is not in the argument you are criticizing -- you have to think it up for yourself.  It should be a reasonable, plausible alternative, not a wild or extremely unlikely one. If you can't write out a reasonable missing alternative, then you have no basis for saying that the FA fallacy is present.

Here is the REAL enemy, our Conservative nemesis from 1980 forward. How many times and in how many different forms has our Republic fallen for it?  Low taxes OR poverty. The Constitution OR be blown to bits by terrorists. Genesis OR evolution. A clean environment OR economic ruin. By the simple-minded rhetorical device of first, reduce every possibilty to only two, and then, exaggerate the effects of both the preferred and the lesser of the remaining options, the GOP has channeled and controlled the debate. It's exactly what Bush was getting-at when he so often disparaged 'nuance'.

 I think Pres. Obama is signaling that we no longer intend to 'think' that way -  to which I (for one) say, "Thank God, Hallelujah throughout the land!" We have reached a point (finally!) where the LAZINESS of so much of our thinking is a luxury we can no longer afford. Our problems are large, dangerous, and complicated. Their solution is certain to require hard study, careful choices, and a lot of REAL input from people who KNOW things, and know how to communicate these compexities and inevitable difficulties to the larger public in a way they can understand.