The Wall Street Journal had an editorial on Tom DeLay yesterday. It pointed out that he's behaving, regrettably, just like any other pol:
The problem, rather, is that Mr. DeLay, who rode to power in 1994 on a wave of revulsion at the everyday ways of big government, has become the living exemplar of some of its worst habits. […] Whether Mr. DeLay violated the small print of House Ethics or campaign-finance rules is thus largely beside the point. His real fault lies in betraying the broader set of principles that brought him into office, and which, if he continues as before, sooner or later will sweep him out.
Well said. What's the point in being a Republican if you're going to behave … well, like a Democrat?
But Howard Kurtz's column goes too far, when, after summarizing the editorial, crows: "Hmmm. Maybe I mixed things up and this was actually a New York Times editorial."
No, Howard. You're looking at something called "principled, non-partisan criticism." You know, the kind that has no problems with ripping politicians of either party. I guarantee you'll see that far more often on the WSJ's editorial page than the NYT's.
Update: Matthew Hoy has the goods