David Brooks probably wrote the most well-read article on the subject, but the idea of "Bush haters" has been dancing around for months. It's a concept that has been in the back of my head for some time now. In fact, it has caused me to take a step back and reassess the given situation before writing anything negative about the Prez.

No, really. I do.

There are a few folks out there who e-mail me from time to time and express outrage at my "reckless" accusations, but to be perfectly honest, whenever I'm writing about the Prez I take extra care to make sure I have my facts right. And if I get them wrong, I say so in a later column. I may be some disembodied voice dancing about in the web, but I want people to read what I write and think seriously about it, and that won't happen if I simply start tossing unsupportable accusations willy nilly. That sorta stupid behavior may be appropriate for TV and radio pinheads, but it surely isn't for people who embrace the written word.

But are people like Molly Ivins and Al Franken (the two folks most often named as "Bush-haters") really deserving of the term?

I don't know. I'm not privy to their personal thoughts. What I can say is that everything they write is backed up by research and reporting, and that when either is called on an actual mistake, they acknowledge it publicly. Which is more than can be said about, well, the Prez.

Do I hate the Prez? No. I'm disgusted by him, to be sure. But I don't think that qualifies as hatred. I'm always willing to examine what he does and try and see what it all means. I've said on many occasions (before and after the war in Iraq started) that there must be some reason for the military action other than filial revenge. I still can't puzzle out what that might be (the reasons offered to the public were fatuous at best and have all--that's right, all--fallen apart in surprisingly short order), but I'd like to think that there was some noble purpose for the war.

To be quite honest, I truly dislike the way I feel about our Prez. I shouldn't have to think "lying, shambling bastard" whenever I see his picture or hear his voice. Is that hatred? I don't think so. And I don't think the vast majority of people who write about or speak about the Prez in unflattering ways hate the man.

There's a reason why the notion of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" didn't ring precisely true. And that's because conservatives don't think of covert coordination as conspiracy. It's simply the most efficient way to get things done. And efficiency is a good thing, right? By the same logic, the notion of "Bush-haters" doesn't ring true. The people who oppose Bush don't like his politics, his personality, his lack of erudition or the things he does. They believe that the best way to accomplish their goals is by screaming in the most shrill and annoying manner possible. Sometimes, in the hands of a diva like Ivins, this sharp dissent can sound like an aria. When it comes from my lips, the result is something more along the lines of Metal Machine Music. But in any case, we're not talking about rampant hatred. Disappointment, disdain, disgust--oh, yes, and more. But not hatred. Hatred is slinging anything you can at a person or idea without having the slightest shred of evidence to back up your statements.

Even Michael Moore is more careful than that.

So let's get past this silly notion of "Bush haters" and get on to important things. Like the status of Ben and J.Lo's postponed nuptials. If we can get that affair all straightened out, then our future as a nation is truly limitless.

Jon Worley voted against George H.W. Bush (twice), Jeb Bush and George W. Bush, so it's not like he had high hopes for this most recent Bush Administration.