BCT Editorial – 4/12/07

This page was last updated on April 12, 2007.

Hypocrites; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 12, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“President Bush couldn’t get Sam Fox, a Republican fund-raiser, appointed as U.S. ambassador to Belgium so he did the next best thing. He waited until the Senate was not in session and made a recess appointment.

“Oddly, there was no hue and cry from conservative radio and TV talk show entertainers about this abuse of presidential power, even though when President Clinton used the same process in 1997 to appoint Bill Lann Lee as assistant attorney general for civil rights in the U.S. Department of Justice, you’d have thought democracy in America was on the verge of extinction.

“But when Bush does the same thing - and he did this with John Bolton’s appointment to the United Nations - there’s nothing but silence.

“It’s not the politics. It’s the hypocrisy.”

[RWC] If you’re a frequent reader of my Times editorial critiques, you know these editorials rarely (never?) tell the whole story. This piece is no exception.

Regarding Mr. Lee, Republican opposition to him was based on his extensive record supporting racial preferences. Since racial discrimination is clearly unconstitutional, support of institutional discrimination should clearly be a disqualifier for someone whose job is to be a defender of the Constitution, especially when it comes to civil rights. The editorial also conveniently omitted the fact that Senate Democrats blocked a vote on Mr. Lee’s appointment, not Republicans. Why? Because Democrats knew Mr. Lee couldn’t win approval. Stopping a vote by the Senate allowed President Clinton to appoint Mr. Lee as “acting” AAG in 1997. Mr. Clinton didn’t fully appoint Mr. Lee AAG until nearly three years later near the end of the Clinton administration.

Now let’s look at Messrs. Bolton and Fox.

In the case of Mr. Bolton, his record was impressive. Mr. Bolton’s “sin” was that he was not a softy when it came to foreign policy. Since they couldn’t assail Mr. Bolton’s extensive record, Democrats and liberal Republicans tried to paint Mr. Bolton as some kind of “bully” who was mean to his staff. This was the basis of not allowing a full vote by the Senate. These people didn’t allow a full vote because they knew Mr. Bolton would win approval. When President Bush made Mr. Bolton a recess appointment, he appointed a person the full Senate would have approved. That was not the case with Bill Clinton and Mr. Lee.

In the case of Mr. Fox, his “sin” was that he contributed to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential campaign and they vigorously opposed John Kerry. You guessed it, Mr. Kerry (D-MA) sits on the committee that reviewed Mr. Fox’s nomination. What especially infuriated Democrats was Mr. Fox would not apologize for his contributions, not that apologizing would have made a difference. In other words, Democrats denied Mr. Fox the appointment simply because he contributed to a political opponent. So much for freedom of speech.

Regarding the “abuse of presidential power” comment, when did recess appointments become an abuse of power? If you accept this position, Bill Clinton abused presidential power in this way 139 times according to Fox News. President Bush #1 made 77 recess appointments during his four years and President Bush #2 has made 167 recess appointments so far.

Since the editorial appears concerned about hypocrisy, how many Times editorials proclaimed “abuse of presidential power” when Mr. Clinton made his recess appointments? Don’t bother to check; it’s only a rhetorical question.