Neither does being a "naysayer," particularly when some of his premises are demonstrably false. Opinions are great, but they should be supportable and based on conclusions which square with current facts and trackable history. That's not too much to ask, is it?
That's the great thing about opinions is that they don't require substantiation; they are subjective. "Nice weather" is not always quantifiable nor universal.
So if someone thinks that Bush didn't do well, debate why or why not, don't just throw rotten tomatoes and dismiss the notion because it doesn't fit your paradigm.
FR has its flip side to the clinton kool aid drinkers, those that worship Bush just as some worshipped clinton. They don't see that they exhibit the exact same qualities that they despised in other people.
Fair and balanced? This is NOT Fox News. Nor is it supposed to be.