Has the Economist gotten wet?

This has been nagging at me for a while. A sense that the venerable Economist - a formerly? reliable paragon of conservative/Tory values - where the news roundup was written with gusto and a clearly conservative bent, gone wet? "Wet" as in how Margaret Thatcher meant it.

I noticed a defense of gay marriage as well as some articles (none of which come immediately to mind) that I found odd coming from the pages of the Economist. Click the link for a comparison of how the Economist has editorially called for Rumsfeld's head for Abu Ghraib but refrained from the same for Kofi with regard to to Oil for Food.

HT: Jonah at NRO