If the New York Times were to write an editorial, the premise of which is the cynical politicization of judicial appointments, you might think that the Newspaper of Record might want to compare or contrast the Bush Administration to other (recent) Administrations. Say to the Clinton Administration, which started out its tenure at the Department of Justice with the appointment of future felon Webster Hubbell and the mass firings of all 93 Federal Attorneys, several of which were engaged in investigations of Democrat wrong-doing, and specifically, possible Clinton wrong-doing.

Instead, breathlessly, the Times reports that the Bush Administration considered replacing all Federal Attorneys, rather than the 8 they replaced:

Harriet Miers, the White House counsel whom Mr. Bush tried to elevate to the Supreme Court, originally wanted to replace all 93 attorneys with Republican appointees.

The Bush Administration opted against the much more expansive personnel changes, quite unlike the Clintonites, who gave all US Atttorneys 10 days to vacate their offices, to be replaced by loyal Democrats.

You might think the Times would try to present their readers with context, or perspective.

You’d be wrong. But really, is this about the height of mainstream media bias, to say nothing of hypocrisy?

C’mon, would you really think they might try to find some objective basis for their opinions? The only sense of the word objective the editors at the Times comprehend, are those associated with their partisan leanings, as in a political objective. In this case, the goal is to injure the Bush Administration in any way possible. If it helps to make the rather ironic case that Bush 43 is more political than Clinton 42 (or a hoped for Clinton 44), all the better, objective-wise.