Please critique my LTTE of the Arizona Republic... (longish)

[blondeatlast]

Grammar, logic, punctuation whatever.

I've read the Republic for nearly 35 years, fully expected them to endorse Commander Bunnypants, but their logic in doing so defies explanation. I also wanted to go into domestic and fiscal policy, but it had already become too long, IMHO.

Any comments, critical or otherwise, are welcome and will be seriously considered. I want to make as much impact as possible.

Thanks in advance!

After more than 35 years as an Arizona Republic reader I have cancelled my subscription after your half-hearted and entirely illogical endorsement of the election of George W. Bush for President.

If this is the direction we need for the war in Iraq, may God have mercy on us. Our leadership in Iraq believes they are still fighting Saddam Hussein's army, when the reality is we are fighting insurgents determined to defend themselves and their turf at whatever cost is required. Our armed forces were ill-equipped and ill-trained to fight a conventional war, much less a war of citizens-turned-warriors defending their homeland, far more determined than Saddam's army ever was.

How, in good conscience, can your editors print this particular line nad still manage to eke out an endorsement for the continuation of current Iraq policy:

"Obviously, Bush has made serious errors in judgments regarding Iraq. Appalling weaknesses in planning served to hamstring Iraqi reconstruction and gave the terrorists their opportunity to wreak havoc."?

It simply defies conventional logic.

I fully expected an endorsement of George W. Bush. But your twisted logic in doing so defies explanation and does nothing to instill confidence in your editorial staff. Other major papers have been unable to endorse Mr. Bush's opponent; instead have chosen to make no endorsement whatsoever, the only responsible choice for those unable to endorse Mr. Kerry.

[spooky3]

1. Good letter; here are some suggestions as you asked...

1--what do you mean by "print this particular line nad?"

2--Wherever you can cite statistics or a news story to back you up, without adding too much to the length, I think that makes a more powerful case.

[blondeatlast]

3. Oops; I thought I'd already spell-checked. Yikes!

I'm specifically referring to their October 17th endorsement, do I need to cite that? I will of course, if necessary, but I thought it was a given.

[demokatgurrl]

2. Good letter-

just a typo "nad" instead of "and". Also,in the last paragraph, I would change "unable" to "unwilling"- if not both times, then at least at the second time near the end of the sentence.

[blondeatlast]

4. "Unwilling," good choice of words! Thanks. nt

[Julien Sorel]

5. They'll cut just about everything except the last paragraph.

Typo:

How, in good conscience, can your editors print this particular line nad still manage to eke out an endorsement for the continuation of current Iraq policy:


I think it hurts to say the soldiers were poorly equipped and trained to win a conventional war, given that the U.S. won that part of it in a couple of weeks. It seems like a slight on the soldiers themselves, as well. However, they certainly were ill equipped and trained for nation building, and this is inexcusable.

Other than that, I think it's very good; in particular, I like how you didn't demand a Kerry endorsement, but rather, chose the middle way, a compromise, which shows you aren't some crazed partisan. the overall tone also suggests this.

[blondeatlast]

6. Good points all. I'll rewrite that part for sure.

I decided to tone it down for that reason. After all, I knew they'd endorse him, and even could have lived with it, if they hadn't been so desperate to find a reason that they found one that should mean they shouldn't have endorsed him, if that makes any sense.

Edit; made the change, I'll repost the final form this afternoon after I send it to them.

I still welcome any thoughts; but must get ready for work now.

[BootinUp]

7. I second that.

A couple tweeks and its an excellent letter. It sounds very believable that you are a long time reader too.

[fudge stripe cookays]

8. Here's my 2 cents....

for the first paragraph,

"After more than 35 years as an Arizona Republic reader I have cancelled my subscription after your half-hearted and entirely illogical endorsement of the election of George W. Bush for President."

I would dump the "of the election." It would read more smoothly if you say "....entirely illogical endorsement of George W Bush...." It's pretty obvious what it's for, and just makes the sentence more wordy.

Also, I would delete the sentence "It simply defies conventional logic.

You essentially restate that in the following sentence, and repeat the same words. That also brings your repetition of "logic" and "illogical" to 3. Maybe check a thesaurus if you're set on keeping it in.

This from your friendly neighborhood writer/editor. Great letter.

FSC

[blondeatlast]

9. Excellent point. Will do. nt