So close...

... and yet so far. Today's WashPost Editorial veers perilously close to the truth:

Who should be held responsible for runaway government spending? Mr. DeLay is certainly a good place to start. His governing principle was not to stand on principle but rather to rain taxpayers' money on every lobby that could return the favor with campaign contributions. But the biggest responsibility lies not with any member of the legislature but with Mr. Bush. Unlike senators and House members, the president represents the whole nation; he is supposed to defend the general interest against particularist claims. Moreover, he has the power to do so. If Congress serves up wasteful bills, the president can veto them.

Mr. Bush has been too cowardly to do that. He is the first president since John Quincy Adams to have served a full term without once exercising his veto, and his second term has so far been no different.

You see the implications of the phrase I emphasize. The Post believes that Bush would rein in pork-barrel spending if he only could acquire the cojones. Um. no.

Have you seen any evidence that this administration doesn't actively like, nah, love, to shove money at their cronies? If so, please point it out to me, because the 'liberal media' must have chosen not to report it.