Frank Bruni (NYTimes) accuses

Frank Bruni was the food critic at the NYTimes for several years and now writes on general cultural subjects as well as on food.

In a recent opinion piece he had this to say (in speaking about Bristol Palin),

"...But she so perfectly distills the double standards and audacity of so many of our country’s self-appointed moralists and supposed traditionalists: hypocrites whose own histories, along with any sense of shame, tumble out the window as soon as there’s a microphone to be seized or check to be cashed."

Bruni's piece is full of lots of criticism of both Bristol Palin and Rush Limbaugh. However, I'm unable to follow his argument. As best as I can tell, the accusation of hypocrisy against Bristol Palin is that she has criticized gay marriage while, herself being an unwed mother. I don't understand what one thing has to do with another. Bruni also attacks the Palin assertion that children are better off in a nuclear family than otherwise. Bruni does not accuse Palin of having no facts on which to base the assertion (which would be true) but instead criticizes Palin's ex fiance.

With respect to Limbaugh, Bruni says that since Limbaugh has been married four times, he shouldn't criticize gay marriage. Again, I'm unable to understand what one thing has to do with another.

Bruni's opinion piece is here.

NR Editor Johnathon Cohn admits something

Johnathon Cohn is a senior editor at the New Republic (the image is from about a few years ago when Cohn was already working on the health care issue).

He is a fan of the Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare).

He recently wrote a piece stating that since the revenues raised by the insurance mandate are actually taxes, that then Obamacare is constitutional. I'm not going to comment about that.

Subsequent to his first piece on the subject, someone wrote to him and said that, if the mandate is a tax, then President Obama was breaking his 'no tax increases for people making under $250k/year' promise). Mr. Cohn essentially admits that this is true. If so, it would make Obama a hypocrite for saying one thing and meaning another, at least when the mandate takes effect (it is scheduled for 2014 as of this post) and assuming that Obama knew what Cohn knows which is likely. Interestingly, that does not bother  Johnathon Cohn in the slightest and I don't think it bothers many people either. The reason, I think, is that almost no one believed Obama when he made the promise.

Thus Cohn is admitting Obama is a hypocrite and implying that this hypocrisy was necessary for the common good. 

Cohn's article is here.


Note: my father subscribed to the New Republic for a few years before he died and my mom kept the subscription until she died - I renewed it once after she died in my own name but then did not renew it after that).

Context and Intent can nullify hypocrisy

Andrew Rosenthal has been editor of the editorial page of the NYTimes for several years. He has worked for the NYTimes since the 1980s. His father worked for the NYTimes. He knows a few things about newspapers and knows a few things about editorials.

He recently wrote a blog piece (which I don't think was in the paper edition of the NYTimes) admitting that then Senator and later candidate Obama harshly criticized former President Bush for the latter's signing statements and executive orders but now President Obama does the same thing. He has an interesting explanation for why this isn't hypocrisy.

Here it is,

"..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. ...."  

as Rosenthal explains later,

"..Unlike the Bush/Cheney team, Mr. Obama did not take office with the explicit goal of creating new powers for the presidency."

Really. Did the Bush/Chaney team have the explicit goal of creating new powers for the presidency? Mr. Rosenthal gives no evidence of this and I think I know why. No such evidence exists. Bush presumably didn't think he would have to issue signing statements at all. Obama presumably thought likewise. This is because many people simply do not have experience looking at actual statutory language, realizing how awful it is and having to try to find some way to work around that language. Given Rosenthal's experience, he not only should know this, he almost certainly does. Btw, I'm not accusing Rosenthal of hypocrisy here since he is simply carrying out an objective of defending the politician he likes while criticizing the one he doesn't like.

    Blog Post by Mr Rosenthal is here. The caricature used as an image is on Mr. Rosenthal's website.

Dr. Peggy Drexler and 'parenthood'

Dr. Drexler wrote something in the Huffington Post recently. She is against the automatic 'role assignment' of parents. Here is a quote,

"...To parent: It's a verb that barely existed a quarter of a century ago. By now, however, it is more useful than the verbs "to father" and "to mother," which were always of limited utility. "To father" refers to nothing more than the biological function of making a baby; it is the provenance of paternity suits...."


But here is Dr. Drexler at her own website, 


"...I am a long-married mother of a son and daughter.".

ooops.

Either she is a hypocrite or just tardy about updating her website to reflect her own research.

Post on the Huffington Post is here.
Dr. Drexler's website is here.

Salman Rushdie and Civility

If anyone would be expected to understand the idea of sensitivity and hypersensitivity, it would be Salman Rushdie (image of Rushdie at a film festival in 2011).

According to a recent article in the NYTimes (which carried the image shown above), Rushdie has a strong sense of civility as noted,

"...he seems to expect a certain civility. Mr. Rushdie blocked a Twitter follower last month [that would be Feb 2012] after the follower made a cutting remark about having read one of Mr. Rushdie’s books in high school. “Discourtesy not tolerated here,” Mr. Rushdie wrote in a tweet. “Your parents need to teach you your manners.”"

On the other hand,  here is a tweet made by Rushdie only yesterday,

Confused by news of Dick Cheney's heart "transplant." That implies he had one before.

9:09 AM - 25 Mar 12 via web

I think what Rushdie means is not "Discourtesy not tolerated by anyone" but "Discourtesy of me is not tolerated by me." Thus it would not be hypocritical to slam the 'follower' but then turn around and make a vicious comment about former VP Cheney. Of course, this doesn't mean that Rushdie is a nice guy, because, it shows he can be vicious (and the discourtesy to himself may irritate him because of an over sense of ego). 




NYTimes article here
Tweet here.

Two Cheers for double standards

Stanley Fish writing in a NYTimes blog (the same title as this post) essentially says that it is OK to be critical of Rush Limbaugh (right image) but not Bill Maher. This is so even though what he said wasn't as nasty as what Bill Maher (left) said and even though Maher never apologized.

He specifically says the the Tim Noah theory (in the post below) "won't wash".

Instead he says that the larger issue of having your ideas triumph (since you must view your ideas as the right ideas) justifies not being fair, specifically,

"... Rather than relaxing or soft-pedaling your convictions about what is right and wrong, stay with them, and treat people you see as morally different differently. Condemn Limbaugh and say that Schultz and Maher may have gone a bit too far but that they’re basically O.K. If you do that you will not be displaying a double standard; you will be affirming a single standard, and moreover it will be a moral one because you will be going with what you think is good rather than what you think is fair. “Fair” is a weak virtue; it is not even a virtue at all because it insists on a withdrawal from moral judgment.
I know the objections to what I have said here. It amounts to an apology for identity politics. It elevates tribal obligations over the universal obligations we owe to each other as citizens. It licenses differential and discriminatory treatment on the basis of contested points of view. It substitutes for the rule “don’t do it to them if you don’t want it done to you” the rule “be sure to do it to them first and more effectively.” It implies finally that might makes right. I can live with that."

So I take this as a statement that some things (politics) are too important to avoid hypocrisy.



Mr. Fish's blog post on this is here.

Tim Noah Defends Carbonite

Actually, I'm not sure Tim Noah (a journalist and senior editor of The New Republic) means to defend Carbonite (a company which sells software to back up files in cyberspace). In fact, I have no evidence to support my guess that Noah may know that the Carbonite company exists.

However, Carbonite recently ended their sponsorship of the Rush Limbaugh radio program. This was because, apparently of Mr. Limbaugh's reference to Sandra Flute as a sl.te (Ms Flute is an unmarried student at Georgetown law school who advocated requiring employers to pay for contraception). Limbaugh subsequently apologized for that. Carbonite, however, retained sponsorship of the Mr. Ed show despite Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham the same thing (Ed Schultz did apologize for this but not for other insults of this kind).

If I didn't cite the Carbonite issue, the whole thing wouldn't be hypocrisy because people who criticized Rush Limbaugh would claim they didn't know and shouldn't have to look up information about the Mr. Ed show (this wouldn't apply to Carbonite).

Mr. Noah cites a few cases of liberals calling conservative women obscenity laden names and says that this isn't the same for two reasons.

1. Sandra Flute, although a public activist, is not a public figure.As Mr. Noah puts it, "...First, all of the people who were subjected to verbal abuse by the liberal- or left-leaning blowhards and smart-asses mentioned above are public figures. If you follow politics you know who they are. Fluke, on the other hand, though a political activist, was not really a public figure.."

2. Something to do with President Obama not being afraid of rappers (I didn't follow the logic since, among other things, I thought it was about calling women names). Mr. Noah considers this more important than #1 above.

3. Rush Limbaugh has a bigger audience than the liberals who called conservatives obscenity laden names.As Mr. Noah puts it, "...When Taibbi, Olbermann, Mahar, and Schultz tell liberals what to think few of us even hear what it is they're saying and no politician pays them any mind. (Sorry, fellas, but it's true.) It matters more to society what a person with a big following says than what a person with a small following says."

Mr. Noah did not address the fact that Limbaugh apologized and the liberals generally didn't. He also asserts, without citing facts, the influence of Limbaugh. He also doesn't weigh the fact that Ms Flute is seeking to be a public figure.

Notwithstanding those things, he probably believes them. However, what about the totality. Even if each individual liberal insult (unacceptably vile, in Noah's words) is less important than Limbaugh's doesn't the fact that there are many of them count for something. Also, why isn't Mr. Limbaugh's apology important.

Even given Mr. Noah's beliefs, I can't excuse him from the charge of hypocrisy.

Tim Noah's piece in TNR is here.
Kisten Powers (writing for the Daily Beast) gives a more complete list (than Mr. Noah did) of liberal misogyny here.
Michelle Malkin (who used to live in our neighborhood) gives a list here.  Ms Malkin is the subject of many such misogynistic insults (she got enough for one chapter of a book). She has stated that she left our neighborhood because of threats.

Story on Carbonite's actions regarding the Rush Limbaugh program and the Mr. Ed program is here. This story also has embedded video so it covers quite a bit.

Death threats, approximately contemporaneous with the Noah article, reported against Limbaugh here.
next day, Keith Obermann issues an apology (sort of) for misogynistic insults to SE Culp and Michelle Malkin here.

Not A Hypocrite by virtue of Insanity?

David Brock (image on left) is the founder (in 2004) of Media Matters for America. He was at one time a right wing journalist (this was during the Clinton era) and then early in the Bush presidency became a left wing journalist.

As an organization, Media Matters is pro gun control. In fact, in 2010, Media Matters took in $600k in contributions specifically earmarked for pro gun control advocacy. 

However, it seems that David Brock, has armed guards. Not only that, the armed guards do not seem to be licensed to carry guns (as the organization is in Washington DC where obtaining a license is difficult to impossible).

So it would seem that Mr. Brock is a hypocrite.

However, what if, Mr. Brock is insane. Apparently he has had previous problems with mental illness (beginning about the time he moved to the left much to the amusement of some conservatives). He is apparently abusive to employees, etc. Of course there is the obvious issue of why anyone who is, essentially, a hack leftist lobbyist would think people are trying to kill him. Assuming he is insane, his hypocrisy is not conscious and thus he wouldn't actually be considered a 'real' hypocrite, merely a technical hypocrite.   


One investigation (by hotair) of Media Matter (specifically on gun control) is here.
One Media Matters policy post on gun control is here.
Another (more recent) such post on gun control is here.
Daily Caller's investigation of the armed guards is here.
Daily Caller's followup of that situation is here.

Charles Blow and the twitter hypocrisy

Charles Blow (image shows him speaking at an event) is a columnist with the NYTimes. Back in 2008, he praised then Senator Obama for addressing the issue of single parenthood and its effect on society.

Now it is 2012 and when Mitt Romney made statements on the same issue that seem to me to be quite similar to Obama's 2008 comments, Mr. Blow had this to say on Twitter (the actual twitter post is no longer available),

"Let me just tell you this Mitt 'Muddle Mouth': I'm a single parent and my kids are *amazing*! Stick that in your magic underwear. #CNNdebate""

Mr. Blow has since apologized for that tweet (the reference to magic underwear has to do with the garments of high level Mormon officials) as being bigoted but not for being hypocritical.

Mr. Blow has since the apology tweeted another seemingly bigoted comment and it is still there two days later. The comment is,

"Time to scratch some of this right wing lice out of my timeline. Be back in a sec... #block"

In any event, the 2008 Obama quote and the 2012 Romney quote seem similar to me so I consider Mr. Blow to be a hypocrite (this blog isn't about bigotry but it seems that bigotry might be the factor that makes Mr. Blow unable to see his problem). Of course, if I'm wrong, then its not necessarily hypocrisy.



I'm getting the twitter quotes from Tom McGuire's blog "Just a Minute" because of the twitter deletion by Mr. Blow. That site also conveniently has both the Romney quote and the Obama quote.
Feb 23 tweet by Mr. Blow noted above is here.

Glenn Greenwald Calls His Best Friends 'Hypocrites'

or does he?

Actually, Glenn goes further than that. The opinion piece is called "Repulsive Progressive Hypocrisy". He also uses the phrase "repulsive liberal hypocrisy". He also has this interesting sentence,

"...Indeed: is there even a single liberal pundit, blogger or commentator who would have defended George Bush and Dick Cheney if they (rather than Obama) had been secretly targeting American citizens for execution without due process, or slaughtering children, rescuers and funeral attendees with drones, or continuing indefinite detention even a full decade after 9/11? Please. How any of these people can even look in the mirror, behold the oozing, limitless intellectual dishonesty, and not want to smash what they see is truly mystifying to me."

The crux of Glenn's argument is that many progressives (or leftists or liberals) criticized Bush Administration officials for example, for wiretapping foreigners with expedited judicial permits but Obama decided to assassinate an American (who was working with foreign terrorists overseas) without even getting a judicial permit.

It is a telling point but here is the problem. Greenwald does not name a single individual person. Maybe he is too lazy to do this, maybe he couldn't find a case he liked, maybe he doesn't want to offend any individual but is willing to criticize a whole demographic.

Whatever the reason, the charge of hypocrisy isn't proved.

Glenn's Opinion Piece is in salon here

Jim Messina - Hypocrite by Using the Wrong Cliche

Yeseterday, the White House signaled to big donors that they were launching an effort to get substantial sums of money to SuperPacs for use in the 2012 Presidential Election Campaign (the image of President Obama was at this campaign event). White House officials and senior advisors and cabinet secretaries will be speaking at fundraising affairs for these superPacs. President Obama famously said in 2010 that corporate funding of elections was devestating to the public interest.

However, I'm not commenting on this. I'm commenting on the comment by Jim Messina (at the 2012 event - that is him in the right image) that,

“With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules. Democrats can’t be unilaterally disarmed.”

I don't understand the 'unilaterally disarmed' comment although it was presumably supposed to be a metaphor. However, there are literally two (actually more than two) sets of rules. The official Obama for President will play by one set of rules and the Priorities USA Pac will play by another set of rules. So technically Messina is a hypocrit. However, this is simply because he used the wrong cliche. If he had said,

"With so much at stake, we will campaign as hard as it takes for as long as it takes",

he would have gotten the same message across without the hypocrisy.

I don't very many people are very disturbed by Messina's hypocrisy by the way. He is just a flunky.

NYTimes 2012 article on the Obama Campaign containing Jim Messina's comments is here.

Huffpo 2010 article containing Obama's "...devestating to the public interest' comment is here.

NYTimes 2008 article on the Obama Campaign rejecting public financing restrictions is here.

The NY Times changes their filibuster rhetoric again

The NYTimes Realizes Their Policy Change

Back in 1995, when a Democrat was President and the Senate was majority Republican by 53-47, the NY Times had an editorial entitled, "Time to Retire the Filibuster".

In 2005, when a Republican was President and the Senate was majority Republican by 55-44 (with one independent), the NY Times had an editorial supporting the Filibuster. Within the editorial (which had the title, "Walking in the Opposition's Shoes") was the following language (in which they admit to changing their position),

"...A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the "nuclear option" in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide."

In 2012, again with a Democratic President and a Senate that is 51 Democratic (with 2 independents who frequently join with the Democratic Party) the NYTimes again admits to changing their position (they are now against the filibuster) in an editorial titled "Filibustering Must End". Here is their admission of a change in policy,

"...This is a major change of position for us, and we came to it reluctantly. The filibuster has sometimes been the only way to deny life terms on the federal bench to extremist or unqualified judges. But the paralysis has become so dire that we see no other solution..."

The NYTimes here is not acknowledging the obvious, namely, that they seem to oppose filibusters when filibusters will hurt Presidents who are Democrats but support filibusters when filibusters will hurt Presidents who are Republicans. Given that the policy re: filibustering is editorial and editorials are opinions, there is no reason I can see why they don't simply say this.

I think this is actual hypocrisy, although they admit that they are changing their policy. This is because I think they are being disingenuous about their actual reasons, that is I think the editors can't possibly believe the actual logic of their editorial position (and I think this is obvious to most of there readers who also mostly agree with the editorial position and also agree that it would be best to be disingenuous while writing it up).
1995 NYTimes editorial here.
2005 NYTimes editorial here.
2012 NYTimes editorial here.

Jesse Jackson adds to the Civility Hypocrisy Issue

Back on July 6, 2008, Rev. Jesse Jackson, thinking the microphone (and camera - the image is from that event) was off, famously said about then Senator Obama "I want to cut his nuts off." Jackson gestured during this in a way to demonstrate such an action. The footage and audio was captured and shown by Fox News Network beginning July 8, 2008.

On January 28, 2012, Jackson criticized Arizona Governor Jan Brewer for pointing her finger at now President Obama during an argument (or heated discussion) the previous week (the argument/discussion was filmed and shown beginning January 27.

So gesturing about cutting off someones genitals is OK but finger pointing isn't. Eh.

Actually, it is difficult to get around labelling Jackson a hypocrite here. However there are two mitigating facts.

1. Jackson did apologize for the 'cutting off genital' comment.
2. Jackson's comment was when Obama was a Senator. Brewer's is when Obama is President.

On the other hand, no one else has criticized Brewer for this (that I can find) and Brewer hasn't seen fit to apologize (she probably doesn't realize Jackson has called for it).

So, given that the apology was only after it was shown on TV and that the difference between a Senator and a President, while significant, isn't that significant, I'm going to have to call Jesse Jackson a hypocrite here.

Jackson 2008 remarks and apology here.
January 2012 remarks by Jackson here.

Henry Waxman: It's terrorism when they do it but not when I do it.

Representative Henry Waxman (the unflattering image of him is on the left) has been in the House of Representatives for a long time (since 1975) and represents west Hollywood and Beverly Hills (and some of Santa Monica).

Yesterday, he accused Republicans of Terrorism for attaching a 'must build the Keystone Pipeline' rider to payroll tax extension legislation (this bill has not passed the full house of representatives as I type this). The Republicans can do this as they hold a majority on the Energy and Commerce Committee (the ECC) and of the full House of Representatives.

Back in 2009, Waxman's party (Democratic) was in the majority by a bigger majority than the Republicans have now. At that time he threatened the more conservative members of his own party that he would have health care legislation (am altered version of that bill eventually became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(aka Obamacare) bypass the ECC if they didn't go along with what he and the Speaker of the House (at the time Representative Nancy Pelosi) wanted.

Is this hypocrisy?

Well, he was referring to parliamentary tricks in both cases. However, there is enough difference between the types of tricks that someone could argue that one trick is OK but the other is not.

Here is the MSNBC article on Waxman accusing Republicans of terrorism.
Here is the Hotair article on Waxman threatening Democrats in 2009.
Here is a post comparing the image of Waxman with an image of a bat.

Anti Santorum website Accuses Santorum of Hypocrisy

Apparently there is a website specifically dedicated to criticizing former Senator Rick Santorum. One of their criticisms is that, while a Senator (he lost his seat in the 2006 election), Santorum supported a cap on pain and suffering in torts of $250,000. Some years later, Santorum's wife is the plaintiff in a lawsuit in which she is requesting $500,000 in pain and suffering.

Leave aside the fact that the vote was years before the lawsuit.
Leave aside the fact that Santorum and his wife are different people who do not necessarily agree.

It still isn't hypocrisy anymore than Warren Buffet's failure to voluntarily pay the tax rate he recommends (about twice the current rate) for his income (related issue discussed concerning Mr. Buffet in my Aug 29,011 post at this site).

Santorum says the law should be X. However, as long as the law is not X, he acts in conformance with the current law. Same for Buffet. Same for me for that matter.

The site of the 'Santorum hypocrisy' charge is here.

Marianne Implies Newt was a Hypocrite

The 2nd Mrs Gingrich gave an interview in which she said that upon her husband's confession that he had been cheating on her for 6 years with a woman (who is now the 3rd Mrs Gingrich), her husband (then former Speaker of the House of Representatives) indicated he wanted a divorce or an open marriage. This is an "Eeeewwww" moment but has nothing to do with hypocrisy. However, Marianne says in the interview,

"... The day after, Marianne noted, Gingrich gave a speech on “The Demise of American Culture.”

“How could he ask me for a divorce on Monday and within 48 hours give a speech on family values and talk about how people treat people?” she told the Post."

This implies hypocrisy. However, to fully investigate this, I would have to actually listen (maybe more than once) to the 2 hour+ speech and Q&A of "The Demise of American Culture".

I won't do it.

It is likely however, that during this entire time, Gingrich does not praise any great Americans for their marriage fidelity and if this was the case, the hypocrisy charge couldn't stick. The reason I think this likely is because we suspect some great Americans of the past were not faithful marriage partners (for example Benjamin Franklin acknowledged having an illegitimate son early in his life). Furthermore, it would be essentially impossible to prove marriage fidelity where every possible witness was long since dead.

Irwin suggested I might take this issue on.

Article on Marianne's interview about Newt (also where the image was taken) here.

Kerry Kennedy; Is she a hypocrite?

Kerry Kennedy is the daughter of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy. She is also the ex wife (they divorced in 2005) of current Governor of NY, Andrew M. Cuomo (per image).

A post on the Powerline blog accuses her of hypocrisy. The Powerline post references an article in today's NYPost.

The NY Post provides evidence that Kennedy is advocating for a large ($18B) judgment in favor of Ecuador and against Chevron (full disclosure: our family owns some Chevron stock).

Kennedy has apparently appeared on a number of TV shows without disclosing that she is being paid to be an advocate and furthermore stands to make money (some $40M) if the judgment she advocates is awarded and paid (the merits of the case are beyond the scope of this post but interestingly, Chevron has never been active in drilling for oil or gas in Ecuador and is only being sued because they bought Texaco who, 7 year previously, was; furthermore, Chevron paid many millions to carry out a clean up approved by the Ecuadorian govt at the time).

But back to hypocrisy. Nowhere in the NY Post article does Kennedy say that, for example, "advocates of a cause should disclose their financial interests" or anything similar.

Thus, even though Kennedy may be violating some general ethical rules, I don't see the hypocrisy.




Post on Powerline is here.
Article in NY Post is here.

The Recess Appointment

Back when the President was George W. Bush, many Democrats did not like recess appointments. Here is what the NY Times said back in 2006,

"...It is disturbing that President Bush has exhibited a grandiose vision of executive power that leaves little room for public debate, the concerns of the minority party or the supervisory powers of the courts. But it is just plain baffling to watch him take the same regal attitude toward a Congress in which his party holds solid majorities in both houses.

Seizing the opportunity presented by the Congressional holiday break, Mr. Bush announced 17 recess appointments ...".

Here is what the NY Times said in 2012,

"... Last year, Senate Republicans refused to consider any nominee to run the bureau unless the White House first agreed to drastically curtail the bureau’s powers... After Mr. Obama nominated Mr. Cordray, the Republicans blocked a confirmation vote.

Congressional Republicans are calling the appointment “unprecedented” and “illegitimate” — that is rich given that they are determined to use any and all tactics to thwart the bureau and the Dodd-Frank reform law that created it.

Mr. Obama also appointed three new...

Announcing the appointments, Mr. Obama also asserted a welcome new credo: “When Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

Hear. Hear."

Others (many Senators and Obama himself when he was a US Senator) opposed one or more of Bush's recess appointees but typically in terse language (unlike the NY Times).

So is the NYTimes being hypocritical? Not quite. Here is an additional sentence they used by in 2006,

"... Mr. Bush's record in this area owes less to unreasonable Democrats than to the low caliber of some of his choices..."

So the NYTimes has a defense (although maybe it should be called a "defense") against the charge of hypocrisy, namely that recess appointments are bad when the NYTimes thinks the appointee is bad but OK when the NYTimes thinks the appointee is good.

Of course, the above discussion leaves out the problem that in the 2012 situation the Senate was not technically in recess by recent definitions. The NYTimes (two days after the quote earlier noted) has a news story on this in which they pretty much admit that Obama seriously broke precedence and presumably violated the constitution. They excuse this by saying that the situation, " compelled Mr. Obama to escalate matters further on Wednesday, making recess appointments even though the Senate was technically not in recess." This issue is interesting but is not a hypocrisy issue (unless you count that 'uphold the constitution' oath thing).

NYTimes statement in 2006 is here.
NYTimes statement in 2012 (Jan 5) is here.
SeattleTimes report of an Obama quote mildly criticizing a recess appointment in 2006 is here.
NY Times news piece in 2012 (Jan 7) is here.

Is Newt a Hypocrite on Health Care?

Back in 2006, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had a business and one aspect of that business was the creation and distribution of a newsletter.

According to reports, these two sentences was he said regarding the Health Care Act passed in Massachusetts under then Governor Romney.

"The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system," said an April 2006 newsletter published by Gingrich's former consulting company, the Center for Health Transformation."

and

"We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100 percent insurance coverage for all Americans."

More recently (in 2011), Newt said this about Health Care

"Your [that is Romney's 2006] plan [presumably the same plan he said nice things about in 2006] essentially is one more big-government, bureaucratic, high-cost system,"

Is that hypocrisy?

One of the problems in this analysis is that the RomneyCare plan changed between the time it was sent to the Massachusetts legislature and the time it was signed and even after that. Romney sent legislation to the Massachusetts House and Senate in 2005 and there was considerable debate as changes were made to the bill. Eventually the State legislature sent Romney a bill. Romney vetoed 8 sections of the bill but the legislature eventually overrode all 8 vetoed sections. Thus, Gingrich could possibly be praising early versions of the bill and criticizing later sections.

In addition, the 2006 comments by Newt come with caveats, e.g., "...has tremendous potential for..." and "...our goal should be...". Thus the 2006 'endorsement' really isn't an endorsement at all.

In addition, Newt might simply have changed his mind (although if so, this should have been made explicit) or simply have made a mistake. On the latter point, Newt has admitted (in Dec 2011) that an appearance he made with then Speaker of the House Pelosi (in 2008) regarding the concept of 'cap and trade' for greenhouse gases was a dumb thing (the admission that something you've done was dumb is charming and is something I like in Gingrich possibly because I can't think of many other things I like about him).

No hypocrisy.

FoxNews article containing Newt's comments (both in 2006 and in 2011) is here.
More on the Romneycare bill is here.
More on the Gingrich policy on 'cap and trade' between 2008 and 2011 is here.

Paul: Gingrich - Serial Hypocrite

US Rep Ron Paul's campaign has released a video entitled, "Newt Gingrich, Serial Hypocrisy" (the image includes Mitt Romney between Newt and Gingrich because I couldn't find an image of just the two of them shaking hands).
The video (which is in black and white for some reason) brings up the fact that former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has taken money from Freddie Mac and an organization supporting the Affordable Healthcare Act of 2009 (aka Obamacare) while denouncing the problems presumed to be caused by Freddie Mac and those presumed to be caused in the future by Obamacare. Both of these sets of fact show Gingrich as being sleazy do not show hypocrisy. The video also shows Gingrich as supporting mandatory health care insurance and as supporting climate change action in a video with then (2009) Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Assuming that Gingrich is now against both of these, a case could be made for hypocrisy but the video does not show Gingrich making the 'contrary' statement. To complicate the situation, Gingrich has now stated that the video with Pelosi was a dumb mistake. This does show (to conservatives) Gingrich as an unreliable conservative but that's not the same thing as hypocrisy.

The video is available here.
The Gingrich 'Pelosi statement a mistake' is here.
Irwin has suggested I might analyze this.