Texas Monthly has * on the cover with the word: "Maybe."

[PDittie]

The perils of writing about this president in anything less than glowing terms are already, depressingly, the stuff of legend; ask a pointed question, challenge the official line, or offer an unsanctioned opinion and you risk being called unpatriotic, un-American, or—my favorite epithet of all—a Democrat. But even before Ken Auletta connected the dots, we knew it from personal experience. Over the years TEXAS MONTHLY has been accused, not always without merit, of being a bit too chummy with George W. Bush, but the more recent rap on us is that we haven't been chummy enough, to him or to his fellow Republicans. Never mind that there are plenty of Bush bashers who still think we're in the tank. Lately, around the state and around the country, the Ann Coulter types have come charging out of their spider holes, splaying their legs, and crying, "Treason!"

Go here for the online version (Paul Burka's article isn't available but two of the sidebars are -- reg. req.):

http://www.texasmonthly.com/mag/issues/2004-02-01/index.php

[displacedtexan]

1. Well, it's about Texas Two-Steppin' Time!

Jesus wept, Goddamn it!
NOW we're supposed to be glad that TX Monthly gets it?



(Don't blame me for *. I'm a real Texan. My state was usurped back in the 70's by Poppy and Pals!)

[PDittie]

2. LOL then you know Texas Monthly is a right-wing

whore-mongering River Oaks/Oak Cliff advertising rag which has mostly done nothing but prop up and suck up to every single Republican in the state.

That's the significance to me of this series.

That they're not sucking up.

(Oh, and the poll question, "Do you think Bush will be re-elected?" needs some unFReeping...currently 69% yes and 31% no.)

[MissMarple]

3. The reference to Ann Coulter types brings forth a very bad visual image.

Gag!