The James Taranto edition of the WSJ's deafening silence over the Mark Sanford scandal continues

Taranto writes the Journal's Best of the Web column, and boy the Sanford story couldn't be of less interest to the very serious conservative writer. Forget that an embattled Republican governor, who used taxpayer money to visit his girlfriend and is in danger of being driven from office. For Taranto, who covers the waterfront each day for the Journal highlighting the day's most important political developments, the Sanford saga is a total non-starter.

In the five Best of Web editions published since the Sanford shocker broker, Taranto has linked to approximately 250 items. How many of those dealt with Sanford? Approximately ten. Which means yes, less than three percent of the stories that Taranto has been flagging since the middle of last week are about Sanford, because his very public fall from grace is of no interest to Journal writers; the same Journal writers who literally could not sleep at night during the 1990's knowing that Bill Clinton had not yet been impeached or put in jail for his allegedly abusive and selfish ways.

UPDATED: If and when Sanford is forced to resign from office (driven by Republicans, is my hunch), will ''journalists' at the WSJ opinion pages then decide to weigh in? Or is the story still going to be pretty much ignored on the paper's editorial page?

UPDATED: The Journal couldn't care less about Sanford, but if you want to learn how Franken stole the Minnesota election, then today's Journal is the place for you.

And yes, the Journal called Norm Coleman's nearly eight-month-late concession “graceful.”