Textbook case of he-said/she-said, empty-headed reporting in the NY Times today. The article implies that the Dems are now trying the same "partisan" tactics the Repubs used back in the days of Newt Gingrich's "Republican Revolution." It begins:

Newt Gingrich, the conservative firebrand who won control of Congress a decade ago by campaigning against an entrenched, arrogant and all-powerful Democratic majority, is once again an inspirational figure on Capitol Hill.

Yes, the Dems were SO arrogant back then, they made the neocons look positively cuddly.

The article goes on to make other comparisons, suggesting that the criticism of Tom Delay is a partisan attempt to mimic the ousting of Democratic speaker of the house Jim Wright over ethics violations. As if Tom Delay isn't already the poster child for absolute corruption. (Psst-- he's INDICTED!) Sheesh, what does a guy have to do before the Dems can fairly point out he's a crook?

Anyone who's seen or read "The Hunting of the President" knows that any comparison between the mild-mannered clucking of present-day Dems and the creative viciousness of '90s Repubs is completely absurd.

There's more egregious disregard for context throughout the piece. The facts don't matter; only what people are saying matters, and all criticism of the Bush administration by the Dems is seen as strategy-driven. At a time when we desperately need reporting to provide a reality anchor in a sea of spin, this kind of "analysis" does nothing to help.