So the truth comes out...

A letter to the editor yesterday lumped me in with what he perceives to be an over-represented conservative cohort in the WSN. Don't worry, I'm not taking this too seriously, but this is not the first time my writing has blurred perceptions of my politics among those who don't know me better, so I'm curious as to why readers might think this way. A few theories:

1.) Selective reading. There are columns like this one , this one. and this one where my siding with the Democrats couldn't be more clear. On the other hand there are columns like this one, this one, and this one that either give Republicans credit or advance positions on issues that could be said to be conservative. Perhaps if one by chance tends to read the latter pieces only, confusion can be understandable.

2.) My own topic selection. When I choose what I want to write about, it tends to be on matters where I break with liberal orthodoxy. I avoid issues that would just have me repeating DNC talking points, since that would be uninteresting both for me and the reader.

3.) George Will-itis. I think it is valuable for columnists to critique their own side as much as it is to build its case. So therefore, while I did my damndest to practice restraint on criticizing Kerry and the Dems, I have written columns like this one and this one, intended to be constructive criticism but I suppose could be mistaken for a conservative attack on the campaign.

4.) NYU. In a place as liberal as NYU, labels take on a whole new subjectivity, wherein anyone to the right of Jason Rowe , or at least anyone who doesn't use "Republican" like a dirty word, can be called conservative. (By the way, Jason's latest column is terrific.)

So those are my theories. Opinions as to which one it is, or alternate explanations, are welcome. In the meantime, Omar Tungekar has reprised his invitation for me to join the College Republicans, and once again I am flattered by the offer but will decline.