Why let the truth get in the way of a good headline?

In today's Dallas Morning News, Laura Schreier writes about how "Bush Breaks Remarkable Run" [of not vetoing bills] by vetoing the stem cell research bill. Ms. Schreier breathlessly relates how Bush "stood to be [Thomas] Jefferson's only vetoless peer" if he managed to complete his second term without a veto, and quotes a source as saying that "Mr. Bush's record is remarkable even with political power in Washington consolidated under Republican leadership."

But what about those 750 signing statements Bush has added to bills he didn't like, in which he alters the text of the bill when he signs it in such a way as to nullify the bill entirely? Well, those signing statements don't fit in very well with Ms. Schreier's thesis of the "remarkableness" of Bush's feat, so she gives barely a footnote reference to a source who observes:

Mr. Bush has added 750 "signing statements" to bills in which he vowed the administration would not enforce terms of the legislation. Some observers think these statements are a way to "quietly veto."

Instead of explaining or addressing this affront to her thesis, Ms. Schreier pushes right on past it, resuming the thread of her story about how unusual Bush's no-veto status was. That's how they roll at the Dallas Morning News.