The concept of the National Review being objective is as humorous as thinking Mother Jones is objective. One has a organic slant to the far right and the other has an organic slant to the far left. Please, William Buckley Jr. founded the National Review for one purpose, and it fulfills that purpose admirably, to be a mouthpiece of conservative Republican apologetics. I am well familiar with the publication. There is nothing wrong with it being a partisan magazine; that has a place in the national discourse. But it is not objective, was never meant to be, and it isn't.
As for Bush, Cheney, and the corporate inside traders: when your best campaign contributor and key insider in the circle is Kenneth Lay of Enron and you are in the oil busiiness and the sleazy ethics of the giant corporations is being revealed (oops, there was a 4 billion dollar mistake in our reports) and the campaign was based on "restoring integrity" you can be sure that Bush will be judged by the same measure with which he judged others. It also takes a lot of gall to propose criminalizing behavior that Bush himself admittedly engaged in, no matter how Ari Fleischer tried to spin that today. In the end, the politics you take is equal to the politics you make. After all that was made over Whitewater, do you think honestly this is going to go away? If you go back in the archives far enough, you will find that I suggested in early 2000 that the only Republican who could cleanly run for the presidency was McCain. That still holds. My original choice for the Democrats was Bradley. Gore beat out Bradley legitimately while Bush used some incredible hatchet techniques on McCain in Michigan and South Carolina. And who funded those attacks on McCain? A lot of Bush's former business partners in the oil business. The chickens are coming home to roost, as they always do. Bush and Cheney are big boys. We shall now see them take what they dished out. That is a part of life. Vince
