Have a look everybody, a good look.  This column comes to us from our friend Rich Adams from the Cheboygan News up north.  What about this do I find so great?  It's a carbon copy of the thought process on the other side of the political spectrum.  Put more simply, ill-informed rants that seemingly have no purpose.

Here, Mr. Adams (when he doesn't repeatedly get off topic) goes off on the Bush administration for the U.S. Attorney firings.  While there is certainly some speculation on the issue, Mr. Adams seems to suggest that this is the greatest thing that has happened since Watergate and that we need to hold the phones and get to the bottom of this.

So let's get to the bottom of this, the president let go 8 attorneys that serve at his pleasure because he did not believe they were serving at his pleasure.  Controversial?  Probably.  A raw deal for the attorneys?  Yeah I guess so.  But Illegal?  Definitely not.  And that is why the Bush administration is not going to waste its time testifying to Congress about this.  No crime was committed here, but Mr. Adams doesn't mention that.

Why doesn't he, you ask?  Well, as we see later in the column, Mr. Adams' grasp on the facts or political realities isn't exactly iron clad.  He first talks about the case of Scooter Libby for outing former CIA agent Valerie "Plume" (no it's not a typo my friends, he did it twice).  This leads to (personally my favorite part of the column) Mr. Adams asking why it is necessary for George W. Bush, the President of the United States, to have a Political Advisor.  Is he serious?

Adams' logic is that Bush is lame duck and his political career is over, thus Rove is useless.  This careless assumption ignores the fact that everything the president does is judged in the court of public opinion and that those rulings are the basis in which people make their decisions on election day for Republicans or Democrats.  What the president does from here on out has a dramatic impact on Republican's chances in the 2008 elections.

Why does the President of the United States need a Political Advisor?  Why does Tom Izzo need an Assistant Coach?  Why does Lloyd Carr need an Offensive Coordinator?  Even in the last year of both their contracts those positions are critical.  It appears that Mr. Adams prefers an ineffective government over one that actually knows what it is doing.

Then Mr. Adams all but confirms what we pretty much already know about him anyways, he's Democrat in favor of higher taxes.  Yes, he favors the now dead Granholm "two-penny" plan.  Mr. Adams was "sickened" by the fact that Republicans attempted to avoid a tax increase.  "Sickened" (by the way, the Republicans are proposing a $34 per-pupil cut, a minor detail, but still one that he got wrong).

My point here is not to assail Mr. Adams just because it seems like something to do.  My point is to demonstrate what we're up against when it comes to the vast majority of the political left.  These are people who often times do not have their facts right, don't take the necessary time to get the facts right, but have no problems spouting off their half-truths and inaccuracies because they just simply ignore all information that contradicts what they want to hear.

So this is what we're up against, an impassioned base of people fueled by common hatred for our president who believe that anything he does needs to be assailed, while ignoring the same types of nonsense that comes from their own party.  Granholm Great, Bush Bad.  That's all you need to know, no more research is necessary and if someone does their own research and it goes against the "company line" then they're likely to be assailed (global warming) so as to not disrupt the hive stupidity Democrats wish to create.