The New York Times vs. The New York Times on Presidential Prerogatives.

This story via the New York Times is… this is one of those times when you have to take the long view, perhaps. “The White House will try to block the release of a handful of emails between President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, citing longstanding precedent invoked by presidents of both parties to keep presidential communications confidential, officials said Friday.”  See, the problem here is that the White House has a point: Presidents from both parties have indeed long taken the position (I think, fairly) that they should be able to get unvarnished opinions from their advisers without having to worry about whether it’d be used for partisan purposes.  After all, as the New York Times goes on to note:

President Bush has said that Karl Rove, his closest adviser, and Harriet Miers, his former White House counsel, among others, do not have to comply with Congressional subpoenas because “the president relies upon his staff to give him candid advice.”

This may well end up in a constitutional showdown. If it does, there is no question about which side should prevail. Congress has a right, and an obligation, to examine all of the evidence, which increasingly suggests that the Bush administration fired eight or more federal prosecutors either because they were investigating Republicans, or refusing to bring baseless charges against Democrats. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Watergate tapes case, and other legal and historical precedents, make it clear that executive privilege should not keep Congress from getting the testimony it needs.

…Oops.  Sorry, that was what the New York Times argued in an ‘editorial’ in 2007.  My bad.  This is what the NYT says now:

White House officials said Friday that their refusal to release the emails between the two officials is not based on their content, but rather is intended to defend the principle that presidents must be free to receive advice from their top aides without fear that the conversations will be made public during their time in office.



But by refusing to release the emails, Mr. Obama is following a well-worn precedent that he and his predecessors have established.

Because now it’s apparently absolutely vital that the President be allowed to get freely-offered advice. Back in 2007 I suppose that that sort of thing was simply less of an issue. Or simply one that would have intervened with the Left’s driving need to attack George W. Bush for being a better President than the Left wanted to admit.

It must be difficult, having to constantly trim your ethical and moral positions to fit the current political landscape and the requirements for raw partisanship.  At least, I assume so: after all, I wouldn’t actually know. I’m a Republican, you see.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: No, I don’t particularly distinguish between the ostensible news section of the NYT, and the opinion section.  Why?  Do you?  And if you do… again, why?


One thought on “The New York Times vs. The New York Times on Presidential Prerogatives.”

  1. that was 8 *years* ago, Moe. things can change. just ask Hillary!…. something can go from a fundamental bedrock principle to an expression of hate and bigotry in that length of time. would you expect that the NYT would print something today expressing support for the idea that blacks should be subservient to their white political masters? that was a long time ago!

Comments are closed.