Re: WSJ: I'd like to confirm that the tiger is changing its stripes. Unfortunately, I cannot.

The editorial page is still run by Neanderthals in good standing. If anything it usually inveighs against Bush for not being hard enough on Iran, North Korea etc.--or not pushing the well-known panacea--tax cuts----hard enough. Tax cuts, of course, primarily for the captains of industry--who will of course create more jobs as a result and thus help the entire country, in fact the world. It's by far the editorial page's favorite theme.

From the editorial page songbook:


Tax cuts in the mornning, tax cuts in the evening,
Tax cuts at suppertime....

All you need is tax cuts (da- da da- da da)
All you need is tax cuts (da -da da-da da)
Tax cuts are all you need....


The WSJ does allow an invited liberal columnist to hold forth once a week-- (Fair and Balanced?).   Thomas Franks is the current invitee. Once upon a time it was Albert Hunt, when he was the head of the WSJ DC bureau.

After the column which is the subject of this thread, they will publish many letters frothing in righteous indignation and vehemently disagreeing with the thesis of the article. And maybe they'll publish one letter agreeing.

The salient point in the WSJ is the actual "Chinese wall" between the editorial page and the reporting. They do--even--so far--under Murdoch--let their reporters have free rein to write it as they see it. As a result, the reporting contradicts the editorials all the time. This gives me yet more confidence in the reporting. I don't know one other newspaper in the world where the chasm between the reporting and the editorial stance is so huge.

So, as I've mentioned before, I'll put the reporting in the WSJ up against that of any newspaper. The editorials are usually good for comic relief--and to find out what the more-Bushite- than-thou crowd are thinking.