Hypocrisy at the New York Times

Betsy Newmark blogged James Taranto at Best of the Web points out how the New York Times praised President Clinton for making a recess opinion of James Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg when the Republican Senate was blocking his nomination but then the Times turned right around and excoriated President Bush for ignoring the Senate's blocking of Sam Fox's nomination to be Ambassador to Belgium. When Clinton did it, he was utilizing a constitutional provision; when Bush did it, he was making an "end run around the Senate." Don't these editorial writers have any sort of institutional memory or do they just not care? Of course, the Democratic Senators sputtering in anger about Fox's nomination also showed a similar lack of care when Clinton recess-appointed Hormel. I know that all this political hypocrisy is shocking everyone.

Betsy is exactly right. NYT feels that if Clinton did it, it is ok, but if Bush did it, it is bad. It is ok for Clinton to fire 93 or 94 attorneys, including one about to indite a friend of his, yet it is not ok for Bush to fire 8, and no one has proven that any pending inditements were prevented.