The Wall Street Journal editorial page has to be viewed as comical. I read it and try to keep a straight face, but can't as hard as I try.

Today, the page bemoans the lack of a middle in the Democratic Party. Are they so completely delusional as to not see the irony in what they accuse? If anything, it's the GOP that has long lost its middle, verging so far to the right that many REPUBLICANS are on the record stating this fact. Christine Whitman, Chris Shays, John McCain, John Danforth, Paul O'Neal, just to name a few.

Because the GOP has shifted so far to the right, and have just a few Snowe's and McCain's, what at one point in time might be considered a moderate Dem is now considered a flagrant liberal. The terms "middle" or "moderate" are relative and these days, such a central position is much farther right than it was ten or twenty years ago. Example: Goldwater was considered extreme right-wing in the '60s and yet today he'd be a run-of-the-mill Republican; also, Reagan would be considered moderate whereas at the time he was regarded as a hard-right conservative.

Oh, and this nugget from the editorial: "As tough as these columns have been on the current Republican majority in Congress, Democrats bear their share of the blame for its dysfunction." Anyone, please send examples of this "toughness" they mention. I often read their editorials (beats reading the comics) and I don't recall such frequent GOP blastings.

The editorial concludes with "Many conservatives have watched the left's hostile takeover of the Democratic Party...." First, what are they talking about? Proof, we want proof, names, anything! But secondly, it's much easier to make the case that the extreme right-wing contingent of the GOP has successfully taken over their party. And again, many within the GOP have publicly stated this fact.

Kevin Drum is right when he states the WSJ has "the most dishonest editorial page in the country."