I have mentioned several times Simpson's manipulation of the language, and called it slimy (i.e., slippery, slick). But there's more to this kind of language manipulation than facility with the spoken/written word ... there is the sheer nastiness of the motivation behind it, revealed often (but not only) by the leftist love of the putdown.
You find this nastiness -- this love of slander, lying, smearing -- manifested far, far more often in leftist writings than right-wing ones. It is sometimes called intellectual bullying, although in Simpson's case, there is a great deal of emotional manipulation in the "intellectual" component.
Right-wingers will never have the ability to do it that leftists possess because (1) leftists are working on the emotional level; their purpose is emotional manipulation and emotional motivation ... and truth, if it matters at all, is secondary (and discarded when it get in the way of emotion), and (2) rightwingers can't let go of reason and can't discard or distort truth, so their nastiness is diluted with the inclusion of truthful matter and the need to make a point with it.
Among the rightwing pros, only Anne Coulter and, to a lesser extent, Michelle Malkin have learned how to write mean and nasty. Doug Giles is trying, maybe he'll make it eventually. There may be others, but my reading of right-wingers has drastically tapered off since 1998, when I left my job as a Republican Congressional staffer, so I wouldn't know of any others.
Left-wingers are extremely capable in this area. You find it in both professional writers and common folk at the Facebook-post level. I've often wondered where they learn it...as children from left-wing parents? From left-wing facilitators in education? Does it just flower naturally in the absence of being taught to respect others you disagree with?
To see how this exists, let's look at the personal blog level of the heritage wars. Yes, the element of emotion is very much in evidence of both the proConfederates and the anti-Confeds. The difference is that proConfederate writings are often (though not always) the expression of emotion (for example, jerryd14), whereas with antiConfederate writings, emotion is the motivator.
Specifically, emotions motivate such writings (scorn for those they disagree with coupled with their love of ridicule are the motivating emotions) and the writing is designed to manipulate the emotions of the reader and thus shape the reader's attitude toward something or someone. Yes, there can be the expression of emotion in these writings, but it serves to support one of these two elements, motivation and manipulation.
I hope to make more posts in the future about how the leftist mentality manipulates the language.