Is it wrong to taunt these losers? Op-ed writers

I read this guy's piece and had to respond.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/218908p-188030c.html

-snip-
The problem is, most Americans don't regard their lives as "hell" or Bush as Satan. The economy, after all, is not really in a Great Depression. In fact, it's doing pretty well. Iraq isn't Vietnam, and won't be unless there's a draft. The Islamic jihad against America isn't Bush's fault, either. A candidate who insists otherwise is bound to strike voters as detached from reality.

The usual talking point, up is down, economy not bad, Iraq not a quagmire stuff. My take is this guy knows the real poll numbers and they are pressuring his butt (and everyone in the media) to push harder for Boosh. He makes crap money working for a Mort Zuckerman rag which seems to want to be The Post now. But since he knows the facts -- Bush is toast in November - I thought he'll never write anything different their is no changing his mind (since he knows whats what and is just playing for the other team regardless). Might as well rattle his cage.

Here was my response:

My subject line: Propaganda less effective when seen as such

You contradict well-know facts in your op-ed piece. Some of which include the fact that no incumbent has won after having a polling position to Bush's at this point. You turn to obvious exaggeration in order to avoid dealing with the real facts. You seem detached from reality so lets see if we can reel you back in a little.

Oil is at a 21-year high. Jobs are being outsourced rapidly. Your boy is using information that was developed by the Clinton administration (2000) to try and cover for the fact that he has done nothing significant to make this country safer from terrrorism. And we have lost more than 1 million jobs net since Bush took office. The jobs which have been created pay far lower than those lost.

Let's talk for a moment about your electoral analysis. In 2000, in a high turn out election, Bush lost the popular vote by 500K+ votes. He has pissed off many of the people who voted for him last time. Why? Because he is NOT a fiscal conservative and he lied to the country repeatedly in order to get us into the Iraq quagmire. $100 million+ in negative ads have failed to stem the tide. People see George Tenet getting fired and Paul O'Neil coming out with unflattering information and CIA agents being "outted" as political punishment -- it doesn't make them feel safer OR better about Bush. How in the world do you expect Bush to get more votes this time than he did last time?!

Your piece includes all the talking points ("no bounce" etc.) so we get the impression you don't have much to add to the dogma. Do results matter? Are we turning the corner? I think we are and you better get ready to start writing come November about why we should impeach John Kerry rather than this obvious, desparate fantasy about Bush bouncing back.

You better start writing better propaganda or they'll boot you put a Hannity column in your place.

This isn't my usual angle and I'm not sure how I feel about it. Was it mean?

nice presentation. papers wont print all attack however. or they will trim it.

TearForger

Thanks. I had an exchange earlier in the year with their film reviewer and she told me they had re-written her headline and put stuff in her column under her byline?! She was covering Moore in Cannes and did a fairly straight piece so they editted it to make it anti-French and anti-Moore but left only her name on it (the editorial equivalent of a "human shield"). I have a whole different angle for LTTE stuff.

Very good. Hey, I wonder if we could create DU peer-editing board for amateur activists?