Some things need to be fleshed out, I think.
Some in the press have attempted to go after Bush for many, many things.
Some examples:
1) His TANG service.
2) His "youthful indiscretions".
3) His tax cuts that "overwhelmingly benefited the rich".
4) His "faith-based initiative".
5) "No Child Left Behind".
6) "The jobless recovery".
7) Not being upfront about the cost of the Medicare Drug Benefit.
8) "Lying about Iraq".
9) Politicizing Teri Shiavo.
10) Politicizing stem cell research.
12) His Social Security "reform/privatization/destruction" plans.
13) Not meeting Sheehan.
14) Trade and budget deficits exploding.
15) "Destruction of the middle class and ignoring the poor to enrich the wealthy."
16) No coherent energy policy.
17) No sensible environmental policy.
18) Outing Valerie Plame.
And so forth. All of that was before the New Orleans fiasco which seemed to bring out the indignation in many of the TV news people. (I wonder how long that will last.) And those are all "mainstream" stories - not stuff only covered by Democracy Now or MoveOn.org.
The press isn't as monolithic as it was in 1968 when Cronkite could criticize the Vietnam War and have a big impact (but, IIRC, most people supported the war even after Tet).
My feeling is that most of the press is too focused on the latest scandal. They worry too much about polls and popularity. Even the big papers will only cover a story for a week or so before moving on to something else. It's impossible for me to imagine the weeks and months of coverage that Watergate got in the Post repeating these days. :-(
So you and Bill are both right. The press has been after Bush, and the press has let things slide with his administration too much. It depends on which part of the press you pay attention to and how much work you're willing to do to keep up with the story.
So, where you stand depends on where you sit.
IMHO.
Cheers,
Scott.
