President Bush never received a free pass on his use of executive power and neither should President Obama. There is a legitimate debate over the use of recess appointments, executive orders, and various national security initiatives. But now that a Democrat is in the White House The New York Times seems remarkably complacent about presidential exercises that short-circuit legislative channels…
When President Bush was in office, the liberal media assumed a jaundiced view of executive power that was evident in both the reporting and certainly the editorial pages. The New York Times was particularly critical of presidential exercises conducted in the name of national security that did not necessarily meet with congressional approval. There is a legitimate debate here as even some on the right have expressed misgivings about The Patriot Act, for instance, and post 9/11 initiatives.
Regardless of where one might stand here, there was at least a compelling rationale for the polices Bush set into motion after worst terrorist attacks on U.S. soil whereas President Obama seems determined to push through policy changes that lack democratic consent. Unelected czars that have positioned in key agencies such as the Environmental Protect Agency (EPA) and the Labor Department are now advancing news laws and regulations with nary a word from The Times.
Van Jones, an avowed communist, was forced out of his position as the EPA czar after his radical views were exposed by Glenn Beck of Fox News. But even in the absence of Jones other czars who share his convictions remain firmly entrenched, according to policy analysts.
Don Todd, who was deputy assistant secretary in the Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS) under Bush, now works with Americans for Limited Government (ALG) as research director where he heads up “Appointments Watch.”
“When we started with the project we use to do 10 worst, now we do 10 typical because they are all so hard left, there is a constant thread through all the appointees,” he said. “It’s very frightening and no one picks up on it in the media except for Glenn Beck. It’s important to point out that Van Jones is not an outlier, his ideology is not unusual for an Obama appointee.”
In many respects, the Jones ideology is much in step with that of The Times, which may explain why there has been such a paucity of reporting on the aggressive use of unelected officials and policy directives that are well outside of the American mainstream.
To the extent there has been any coverage of Jones, the Gray Lady has set out to portray him as a noble victim “under fire from conservatives.” The “cap and trade” schemes favored by Jones and other administration officials do not have enough votes to pass the U.S. Senate. The fallback position here is to use the EPA’s recent endangerment finding as a way to regulate greenhouse gases. If the administration is successful, it could expand government control over the private sector in a manner that is unprecedented in American history.
If the Times is sincerely opposed to executive activity that raises constitutional questions, it should provide readers with a series of reports that probe into unelected czars and administrative activity that short-circuits legislative channels.
Most recently, President Obama announced the recess appointment of Craig Becker, a left wing union lawyer, to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This would be a good starting point for the Times as Becker could win Senate confirmation as a result of his radical views.
The Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI) released the following statement in response to Becker’s appointment:
“With today’s recess appointment, President Obama has completely undone his own argument concerning job creation and traded away any credibility his administration might have on the economy. Craig Becker’s nomination to the National Labor Relations Board will only result in higher unemployment and more burdens on small businesses due to his willingness to enact administratively portions of the Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act. Let’s be frank about what Becker’s recess appointment really is; it’s a payoff to union bosses at the expense of America’s employers and employees. Our nation’s job creators will not soon forget that the country’s chief executive turned his back on them in favor of rewarding political patrons advocating job-killing policies.”
This is the kind of quote that would balance out the pro-union coverage that has characterized most of the reports that thus far appeared in The New York Times.
The paper has blogged about some of the recess appointments. But this is pretty weak tea. There is a lot of ground to cover here for benefit of readers might wonder why Obama’s use of exeutive power goes unreported, while Bush was constantly challenged.
Popularity: 1% [?]
