Being a conservative editorial writer involves understanding rhetorical devices. The golden rule for Goldberg and Lowry would appear to be "avoid writing about the subject as much as possible." False equivalency is another a favorite. The modern reader has little knowledge of these devices and some editorial writers might not have encountered them on their journey to writing fame. Goldberg's argument that banning Trump from Facebook is the equivalency of any book banning over the past two hundred years is tentative at best. Not once does he mention why Trump was banned. Lowry is bent on persuading us that Biden's spending plans are way out of proportion to the crises facing America. He repeats the argument that Biden doesn't have sufficient majorities in Congress to do this and blithely asserts that there is no climate crisis which is contradictory to the evidence of melting glaciers and ice shelves and thus claims there is no reason to spend money on it. He might want to study the Chinese government's spending plans on the climate crisis that doesn't exist. If all else fails both writers resort to the ad hominem fallacy. Attack the person! Trump is good at that. It makes him money. No need to argue a case. Just attack the man.