I must admit that it is well written and more or less void of all the normal yellow journalism sensational ridiculous Al Franken rabid mouth crap I am used to turning a deaf ear to. I don't agree with some of his conclusions - but some of his reasoning helps me see why he thinks so.
For example - yes, it's true that Bush no longer seems to be the guy who wants to change Washington into a less than partisan place. But consider - we went from a Ted Kennedy who was welcome at the White House, invited to watch "Thirteen Days" with the Bushes and hammering out an education program --- to a man vigorously and repeatedly calling him a liar liar LIAR on the Senate floor. When he tried to make a fair tax cut, Daschle went on the news with a car, and a muffler to dramatically show the difference each person would get. Bush learned in a hurry - Washington is NOT going to change, and if you believe it will, it will eat you for breakfast. THAT promise was abandoned, and I'm sorry it needed to be, but the other team had no intention of playing along. Yes, he's partisan - but not more than Clinton. Bush chooses a position consistent with the party - *Clinton* had to go on the air to remind you it was the other party's *fault*.
I've yet to hear the antagonism from Bush that I heard routinely from the Clintons. When do I hear about the vast left-wing conspiracy? The extra chromosome left? All of the problems left over from the previous administration? All that kind of talk that came from not the Democratic party, but from the White House *itself*.
*whew*
