Here's something to ponder: On the same day that they ran the story about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer and his hooker problem, the Chronical also ran an editorial calling for his resignation. Nothing wrong with that, I'd say it's the consensus opinion, and likely to come true fairly quickly, though given that this was a late-in-the-day story, the speed by which the Chron responded editorially was remarkable to me. They must not have had anything else pressing to opine about today, I figure.

But contrast that to their response to the Chuck Rosenthal saga, which I think we can all agree is of more local interest than the foibles of a Northeastern governor. The story of Rosenthal's racist, sexist, and possibly illegal campaign-related emails hit the news on January 8. As far as I can tell from doing multiple archive searches, the first time the Chron ran an unsigned editorial on the subject was February 16, when they expressed their approval at his long-awaited decision to quit and called on Governor Perry to name a replacement (which he hasn't done yet, by the way). Before that, even as calls for him to step down came from folks like Kelly Siegler, a group of black ministers, various letter writers, and County Judge Ed Emmett, there was nothing from the Chron.

So I've got to ask: Why was it more important for the Chron to comment on the Spitzer situation than the Rosenthal situation? I'll stipulate that Spitzer is headed for an indictment, while Rosenthal may never face charges, but so what? Again, Spitzer is in New York. Rosenthal is here, and his saga dominated the local news for weeks, and is still having an effect on the political scene. Note that I'm not saying the Chron needed to call for Rosenthal to step down, though in the end they did approve of him doing just that. I'm just wondering why it took them so long to express any editorial opinion on the subject when they were lightning quick to judge Spitzer. I don't understand their priorities here.