In this case, ash responds to points in two letters in one day’s edition of her local paper (made briefly, which is why she hasn’t included them). The title of the first alluded to a moral equivalence (“on the one hand this; on the other, that”) structure only to prove a lecture on liberal – and only liberal – shortcomings. The second made the reference to conservative writer George Will. But ash’s true purpose is to tease the editor about his resolutions for the new year:
Bouncing off a letter with a misleading headline (ie, has no bearing on what I’m about to observe), there’s an overused and often inappropriate formula for covering a debate (to mix the two slangs): “on the one hand this, she said that.”
But I prefer another template, as demonstrated below:
Liberal: Here’s what the administration, bolstered by Congressional Republicans, self-described conservatives, and other Bush followers, are saying and doing. Here’s what’s wrong with that. Here’s what they should be doing and saying, and why. Here’s what’s right with our suggested alternatives, and furthermore, when you engage people on the issues instead of the labels, most of them agree with our positions.
Conservative: You’re a liberal. Admit it. Why won’t you admit it? You’re a liberal and so is the elite media. No wonder we’re sinking rapidly in the public’s estimation. The liberals are out to get us. Whether we’re in the majority or minority, we’re the victims. Liberal, liberal, liberal.
Meanwhile, since the editorial page’s emphasis on a fair and balanced ratio of opinion’s debut, it strikes me that, considering their disproportionate contributions, several frequent conservative writers are about to be published, well, almost as often as I used to be. How about recruiting more Sullivans and Brattons to represent the like-minded community?
And finally, George Will isn’t senile. He knows exactly what he’s doing, which makes him much more insidious, if not effective.