The Economist: Delay Must Go

The British newsweekly The Economist is rightly revered for its brilliant reporting, crisp editing and all-around sensible and sophisticated take on the world. The current issue offers yet another reason why it's held in such high esteem by smart readers. Let me quote from the closing passage on a piece arguing that it's time for the sleazeball strongman Tom Delay to step down:

'Many Republicans see no harm in America's more businesslike party cozying up to business. But Delay Inc. should raise questions for all sorts of people on the right. For social conservatives committed to moral government: why are they now in bed with the likes of (lobbyist) Mr. Abrahmhoff? For small-government types: why are they hand-in-glove with the pork procurers who have pushed up federal spending? For free-market Reaganauts: why have the Gipper's heirs given so much power to people bent on twising government to favor special interests? For the American right, K Street conservatism is the political version of steroids: it confers short-term strength at the expense of long-term health problems. The Republicans took over Congress in 1994 in part because they skillfully used attacks on individual politicians to suggest that the Democrats were soft on corruption. The Republicans are vulnerable to exactly this treatment. From that perspective, getting rid of Mr. Delay is only a first step. But it is a good place to start.'

Meanwhile, in an illuminating interview published in the current issue of The Progressive, journalistic icon Sy Hersch (the thinking man's Bob Woodward, you might call him) authoritatively sounds off on the continuing controversy over whether Bush II's outrages were worse than Nixon's. A couple of months ago, I suggested here that the Bush crowd's crimes hadn't yet risen to the level of Nixon's, but my friend Roldo Bartimole subsequently convinced me in an email exchange that I was wrong about that. And Hersch reprises some of those arguments here:

'I think what's going on right now--and I'm not talking about the legal implications--is much more dangerous (than Nixon). Nixon clearly broke the law in the coverup of Watergate and hush money payments. That was all criminal activity. With these guys, we're not talking about the kind of common crimes that Nixon committed. I can't tell you whether they are technically breaking the law, but basically the American government has been hijacked by neoconservatives. They are taking an awful lot of national security operations into the White House.'