I subscribe to the newsletter of the Media Resource Center, which is a conservative political advocacy group which aims to prove there is liberal bias in the media. I try to evaluate it objectively. I often don't share their enthusiasm for the issues they pursue but there is some useful stuff.
The head of the organization recently published this piece about the attorneys general firing by the Bush administration. In general I have been sympathetic to the attorneys, who apparently did nothing wrong. It smells of politically motivated firings, and I don't mean the good kind. The administration's handling of it is disturbing as well.
Bozell wrote this piece comparing the eight attorneys general fired by Bush versus 93 fired by Clinton. Oh gosh, you're inclined to say, Clinton fired ten times as many, and the liberals didn't complain! The problem is that Clinton fired all of the attorneys, and did so shortly after his inauguration. The first fact proves that he had no bias — he wasn't singling out a small number of attorneys for retribution. The second fact proves the first: As I understand it it is customary for a new president to replace his attorneys on his accession, in fact a wide set of civil servants lose their jobs at the beginning of a new administration. So Clinton was doing exactly what was expected.
The fact that Bozell overlooks this apparently obvious fact disturbs me greatly, and does not commend him.
Am I missing anything here? Have a reasoned wrongly? Leave a comment and let's discuss it.
