As someone who receives daily compilations of environmental news, I'm struck by the wishful thinking "informing" this story. While it's true that the GOP didn't manage to push through certain planks of their often truly anti-environmental platform, the reporter omits the many "successes" they did have and the cynical maliciousness with which Congress went about directly and indirectly distributing their pro-industry pork (has this reporter never heard of the (still top secret) energy meetings Cheney held with his buddies?) The extensiveness and sheer abundance of the GOP's plans to plunder & pollute the planet was unprecedented. That much is accurate. But the article's naive "gosh, things could have been worse" slant omits the damage (still being) wrought by GOP appointees, e.g. in the EPA and Forest Service, as well as the often desperate -- and in no way always successful -- attempts by scientists and environmentalists to warn a complacent Congress and public of the dangers inherent in the GOP's shortsighted policies (global warming, anyone?). Merely mentioning that the ANWR was nearly opened to oil and gas drilling conceals the fact that the less well-connected drilling opponents had to rally their supporters and resources no less than a dozen times as the proposal had to be defeated again and again, because its pernicious proponents insisted on defying the express will of the People. To make a long story short (which is what this article does – to the detriment of balanced reporting), I sadly can’t call this good journalism.