The New Republic responded to my letter to the Editor of September 12th (posted to the blog the same day). Below are their response and my own response to their response:

From: "Letters to the Editor"
Date: Mon Sep 29, 2003 12:30:14 PM America/New_York
To: "Daniel Labovitz"
Subject: RE: Letter to the Editor/TNR Primary Gets An "F"

thanks for the comments...you have a point, but the whole idea is that different TNR writers have different takes on the same events, and that's what we want to share with readers.

-----

From: Daniel Labovitz
Date: Tue Sep 29, 2003 8:57:09 PM America/New_York
To: letters@tnr.com
Subject: Fwd: Letter to the Editor/TNR Primary Gets An "F"

Thank you for getting back to me.

I get that this is opinion, really I do. I just think that the logical flaws in Joshua Kurlantzick's piece mean that the "F" that Howard Dean got was unfair on its face since Dean didn't propose to change US policy. And that the grade was particularly unfair in light of the fact that Joe Lieberman only got a "D" for intellectual dishonesty -- Dean didn't do something "wrong", but got a failing grade, while Lieberman did do something "wrong", and got a (minimally) passing grade.

As for the letter to the editor, students argue their grades all the time, and sometimes, when a cogent argument is made, the grade gets changed. At the very least, TNR should allow readers to see dissenting opinions (the web site doesn't appear to have a comments/letters to the editor section). That was really the point of the letter; I don't actually expect TNR to change the grade.

On the other hand, I give TNR some credit for responding at all, and responding with more than a form "thank you for your interest in our publication" letter.

Yours in democracy,
Daniel M. Labovitz