Oh, God. This line of reasoning is so tired. Bush deserves credit for being only slightly worse than the previous administration? Did this guy write the article with a straight face?

Clinton and Gore's terrible environmental records have literally nothing to do with Bush. He's a different President from a different party, he ran on a pledge to do a better job, and any suggestion that his actions deserve merit simply because he's only repeating prior mistakes is worse than absurd. Would you give your kid a cookie because he got a D- in the same class his big brother got an F in? Of course not.

Easterbrook also conveniently minimizes the ANWR "debate" and Bush's evisceration of the Superfund, not to mention the administration's approval of the Yucca Mountain nuclear dump proposal. Or the painful joke the EPA has become under his cross-eyed watch. The administration's disdain for environmental regulation is aptly summed up in the insane "environmentalism is nice and all, but it won't work for us" rantings of Dick Cheney.

He's right that Democrats get a free pass on environmental issues, and his reasons why make sense. But Bush's environmental policies get attention for more reasons than just his party affiliation. Anyone who knows literally anything about his record as governor of Texas will tell you that Bush happily capitulated to industrial demands at every turn. To cast a jaundiced eye toward his laughable attempts to pass himself off as some kind of Earth custodian is justified. And smart.