The Post ran one of my letters to the editor after a long absence. I would have liked to have written at greater length, but brevity is the soul of wit (and the secret to getting a letter printed). I wrote in response to both letters and editorials - it was a Post editorial that labeled Zell Miller's speach "vituperative." I suppose I labor under the illusion that anybody, and I include the paper's staff, reads the editorials or opeds or letters to the editor. I barely know anbody who gets the paper, let alone reads anything beyond sports and everyday (comics).
I reproduce the letter for your reading enjoyment:
The responses to the Republican National Convention make it clear that the Democrats are no longer the party of Harry Truman; they can't stand the heat. The Republicans told the truth, and the Democrats thought it was hell.The Democrats can't tell the difference between ad hominem attacks and factual takedowns. Pointing out that John Kerry was on the wrong side of a number of issues and votes is called vituperative; calling George W. Bush a moron, a fascist, a liar and AWOL and Dick Cheney a war profiteer and a coward for obtaining draft deferments passes as reasonable debate.
Considering the identical responses of mainstream media and partisan Democrats, it's clear that the media represent the view of partisan Democrats and not unbiased reporting.
