Why does Palin get special treatment?(Columbus Dispatch, November 25, 2009)I read the Saturday Dispatch article about Sarah Palin, "The right's rock star." I don't believe I've ever seen these headlines in The Dispatch:
• "Hillary Clinton: queen of the left"
• "Ted Kennedy: lion of the far left"
• "Barack Obama: rock star of the radical left."
That might be because the newspaper rarely labels leftists for what they are. By labeling only those on the right, The Dispatch gives the impression that there are two kinds of politicians -- the partisans of the right and everybody else, who by inference must be nonpartisan.
The Dispatch owes an apology to Sarah Palin and the central Ohio community. In the future, if the newspaper wishes to report without bias, either avoid labeling or label those on both ends of the spectrum equally.
THOMAS G. ESHELMAN
Westerville
Poor, deluded Mr. Eshelman spends so much time listening to Fox "News" and Rush that he identifies moderate centrists like Hillary and Obama as "radical leftists". Even Kennedy, who is in fact frequently associated with the "far left" tag by newspapers like the Dispatch, was not actually a "radical leftist". A true radical leftist would, among other things, advocate dismantling our capitalist system and substituting government ownership of all means of production. I don't know of any prominent figure on the political scene who advocates such a step. The fact is, there
are no "far leftists" in positions of influence in America,
pace Eshelman.
But why am I surprised that Eshelman's screed makes no sense? He identifies himself right in the letter as a Palin worshipper, and we all know how logical and sensible
they are.
:eyes: