All the Contradiction that's Fit to Print

On July 26, the New York Times editorial page contained something to which all gun owners should be accustomed: another anti-gun tract penned by the Times' editorial board. This time, the board's target was NRA's support for the effort to recall a pair of Colorado legislators following their support for magazine restrictions and the criminalization of private firearm transfers.

Titled, The Gun Lobby Takes Vengeful Aim, the editorial criticizes the Colorado recall effort, stating that soon after the law was passed "the National Rifle Association was vindictively pressing for recall votes against two supporters of the stronger law," in a "vengeful recall attempt." The Times also makes clear its support for a statement by recall target Sen. John Morse, writing, "'Recalls are for unethical behavior, and not disagreements,' he properly noted in the Denver Post."

An unknowing reader might construe this editorial as a principled stand against perceived retaliatory abuse of recall procedure. However, that would ignore the Times' vocal support for the recall effort of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in retaliation for his pursuit of changes in public employee collective bargaining.

In case anyone's forgotten--after all, it's been a whole year--an April 12, 2012 Times editorial struck a different tone, noting, "Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin is struggling to fight off a determined effort to replace him in an extraordinary recall." Leaving no doubt as to its position, the Times went on to say, "every few weeks, Mr. Walker provides new grounds for becoming the third American governor to be removed by his own electorate." And what were those grounds? Policy disagreements on labor law and abortion issues--making clear that the Times editorial board's position on recall efforts is based not on principle, but on politics.