But I don't think it was written for any reason other than to provoke an emotional reaction from his target audience. That's the conclusion I'm left with, after reading it several times. I don't believe it was asking "why is no one questioning Bush" so much as "why isn't everyone treating Bush like Clinton", and Baldwin very ineffectively sets up false comparisons between the two as his only evidence for his premise -- which is, of course, that Bush is probably even worse than Clinton because conservatives like him. By that standard, Reagan was even more dangerous.
And I am not a Bushbot, you can ask anyone. But it's kind of pointless to debate charges that are distorted or just plain inaccurate, even along general principle points like "what if it was Clinton doing this instead of Bush?" If Bush hasn't done it, there's no point in what-iffing.
I did not comment on anything in this article in relation to Bush. My comment on Osbourne was about some Christian family watching it.
My other question, and I have asked it many times, (with no answers) is what if Clinton had done this? No there is nothing wrong with what-iffing - it is a very good way to examine your actions or your stand on things. Are you treating President Bush with a double standard? It would be natural for most any Republican to give the President a little leeway - but for some - it is a mindless repetition of blind loyalty.
As I said there is a very good reason for what-iffing - it makes you take a good, hard look at your actions and thoughts. It might be quite painful - but it is a good thing. If it is possible for some to do it - it might open some eyes - I don't think it is possible.
It is simply saying am I judging President Bush by the same standard I did Clinton? For many, the answer is decidedly NO - that is scary - I don't understand it.