Witness this paragraph:
"Bush would like to restore the previous standard. You might recall that many Democrats howled that Bush was willing to poison people, but in these parts, Bush's proposal was greeted as simple common sense."
The danger of arsenic in ground water is not a matter of opinion. Whether it is true or not does not depend on where people live, or how they voted. An honest reporter would not have used the dismissive "was greeted as simple common sense." Instead, an honest reporter would have said, the experience here showed that the decision of the Clinton Administration was both wrong and costly.
I continue to spit on the Washington Post for its bias.
Congressman Billybob
If I remember correctly, the arsenic issue was one of the things Clinton deliberately contrived as he was leaving office to create a political problem for Bush. If the old standard was unsafe, why had Clinton waited 7 years and 51 weeks to do anything about it? The new standard wouldn't take effect for a while anyway, and I think most places in the country were already below the new level. What it did was give the Democrats a club to hit Bush with which had nothing to do with real safety issues.