Back when President Bush was in charge and issuing signing statements the liberal media (but I repeat myself) were in a state of continual shock and dismay at the “lawlessness” of the president’s actions. Sen. Barack Obama as a presidential candidate vowed that he wouldn’t behave as his predecessor had when it came to attempting an “end run” around laws duly passed by Congress.
Both were full of $#!+ up to their eyeballs.
New York Times editorial page editor admitted as much today.
President George W. Bush used his executive power to bypass Congress, almost as a matter of routine. Now President Barack Obama is pulling a similar stunt.
I was appalled, and so was the Times editorial board (and so, in fact was Senator Barack Obama) when a Boston Globe reporter, Charlie Savage, documented Mr. Bush’s use of presidential signing statements and executive orders. But I am not appalled by the way Mr. Obama is relying on those instruments – as detailed in today’s Times by that same enterprising reporter, who now works for us. Context and intent make all the difference.
And this was what it was all about. When Bush was doing it, they made a big deal about the legality of the practice—it’s legal—and pooh-poohed the suggestion that the real reason for their outrage was that they didn’t like Bush or his views.
Like their convenient, shifting positions on the appropriateness of the filibuster based upon which party holds the presidency, their outrage over signing statements is perfectly partisan.
They’re not principled journalists, they’re partisan hacks.