Pat,
Thank you for the kind words.  It clarifies for me the constructive point I believe you were trying to make.  Part of the issue is your firm grasp of the subject (which I believe to be MUCH better than the average student).  What I mean is that I am expecting students to argue several points in this "too simplified" yes-no question.

#1 defining conservative broadly as "tradition, the way things were" and liberal as "change, usually meant for the better"  (some students will have trouble just at this point

#2 argue the merits/facts of the revolution itself (simple stuff... leaders before were leader afterwards... in this case, more conservative than liberal or revolutionary... republican form of government without a king, more radical than conservative)

#3 examine the "experts", their backgrounds, the time period they wrote, etc.

#4 if lucky, get to the changing nature of the definitions of conservative and liberal over time, and how this complicates the issue.

As you can see, you are already operating on the #3 and #4 levels (highly analytical and complex).  This is wonderful for you and I hope a few high achievers in your group can truly participate in a fruitful discussion with you at that level.

So, in order for me, and more importantly, for other students to more clearly see where you were coming from, I would suggest a rewrite of your first two sentences.

You wrote:
We are to argue, based on the reading, whether the revolution was conservative or radical. The question misses the most important aspect of the revolution. It’s so far off the mark one wonders if there's a partisan agenda here?

I would re-write it this way:
In order to argue, based on the reading, whether the American Revolution was conservative or radical, it is crucial for us to have a common understanding of those two politically charged terms.  Moreover, since either expert will (or has) undoubtedly express a particular bias, it is imperative to know what THEY mean when they say conservative or radical.

Please let me know if I'm in the ballpark here or missing your point completely.  Written this way, your introduction no longer sounds like a direct attack on the Taking Sides book, on either of the two experts, or even on me for assigning such a reading.  

Actually, since early posters (like yourself) often get to "set the agenda" in an online forum, my real worry is/was that students reading this post might indeed turn this discussion into a name-calling, conspiracy-finding, Bush vs. Obama exercise... which, as it turns out, I'm happy to say, was not your intention.

I hope my written communication to you has been as articulate as yours was to me.  If it was not, let's be sure to touch base, in person, tomorrow sometime.

Joe

P.S.  I guess I should add that since you cannot change the text of your post, I am still able to do that.  Feel free to accept, reject, or rewrite my intro and/or adapt yours as you see fit.  Let me know how you'd like it to read.