I'm an occasional reader of CP's opinion columns, mostly when the columns are linked by Drudge Report. This is my first letter to the editor in response to a column. I'm an old Vietnam vet who is conservative/libertarian on economic issues and liberal/libertarian on social issues.

I largely agree with CP's opinions on social and political issues. I'm a bit more of a hawk on military matters and a bit more of a philistine on artistic/cultural matters than CP. But the differences aren't major.

Overall I find CPs opinions to be informed, open-minded, and sensible. I'm always a little surprised that CP's columns can be so entertaining at the same time that her opinions are so sensible. Usually I equate entertainment with extreme views and a freak show mentality. That is, complex social and political issues are often boring or overly complex, so commentators usually spice them up by portraying them in stark ideological contrasts and speaking of near-apocalyptic consequences. CP, on the other hand, demonstrates a wide knowledge of the issues of the day, reaches balanced conclusions, puts things in perspective, and at the same time still manages to be pungent, biting, and entertaining.

Of course, part of CP's success is due to the nature of the competition. Shock value and stark ideological contrasts have become so much the norm that a sensible, balanced perspective becomes shocking. This shows up in the negative responses of irritated readers in this "letter to the editor" section. Distressed that CP won't toe one or another neat ideological line, readers on both the left and the right dismiss her work as air-headed bloviation or worse. But to such readers I would reply: CP is tackling complex, controversial social and political issues. Why on earth would you expect that they can reasonably be boiled down to easy black/white, right/wrong orthodoxies? If she knows what she is talking about and incorporates the full complexity of political and social controversies, then it would follow that her opinions can't toe the line of any one quick, easy ideological convention or orthodoxy. So why the outrage and dismissal?

One thing that's often missing from CPs pronouncements is substantiation, i.e., some indication of the research and reading that she has done on the issue. But opinion columns aren't research papers; they are done on the quick. Perhaps CP expects her readers to be as informed as she is, in which case they will recognize her opinion as being thoughtful and nuanced. As for the outrage and dismissal of the rest: The hell with it. You can't spoon-feed everyone. You pick your niche and you provide good substance to that audience. The rest won't starve. They can draw their sustenance from the ideological convention and orthodoxy so prevalent elsewhere in the media.

... a little over-the-top, of course, but that just made it even better.

What I liked best was the class-vs.-race analysis of the Gates arrest and the swimming pool events. Excellent! Of course the overview of the healthcare situation (and Pelosi's mishandling of it in particular) were top-notch as well.

Good for you for pointing out the disarray of both parties in general. Neither side has the moral high ground here. Both sides need to stop, do a little introspecting, and figure out what they really stand for--and also what's really best (or better yet, what's really practical/feasible/achievable) for America in a quickly-changing world.