Fisking WaPo

The Washington Post is becoming very uneven, as this article, which would get a C-minus in any respectable journalism course, amply demonstrates:

Bush's decision to lay down blunt new markers about the things he deems intolerable comes at an odd time, a phase of his presidency in which all manner of circumstances are not bending to his will: national security setbacks in North Korea and Iraq, a Congress that has shrugged its shoulders at his top domestic initiatives, a favorability rating mired below 40 percent.

"Mired" is simply inaccurate, as Bush was above the percentage named for a good while until a couple of weeks ago, when the Foley media-frenzy brought his numbers down. The nitwit reporter yammers on about Bush's use of the word "unacceptable" until after several paragraphs of yadda yadda about the word, we come to the astonishing paragraph:
Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton -- often pilloried by Republicans as irresolute -- also labeled many events "unacceptable" or "not acceptable," particularly after the political tables turned against him. When Democrats controlled Congress in 1994, for example, he used those terms four times, according to transcripts of his public comments. In 1995, after his party lost control of both houses, Clinton used the terms 20 times; his annual usages thereafter fluctuated between eight and 22, but they totaled only 86 percent of Bush's usage in a comparable six-year period.
OMG! Only 86%? Alert the Federal Judge; we need an instant injunction or other specimen of judicial fiat to stop Bush from employing the term "unacceptable," as Bill Clinton only used it 86% as often!

This journalist makes Jayson Blair, with all his spurious creativity, look like a GOOD JOURNALIST!

Affirmative action at work, is my guess.