With the impeachment of Bill Clinton, our long national nightmare of the self-contradicting New York Times editorial board is mercifully brought to a conclusion. Originally, the Times editorialists ardently promoted censure of the president, but only if he admitted his lies. Then -- as we noted here recently borrowing from the superb expose of Daniel Seligman in the New York Post -- they backed off. Then the Times worried that people would notice they'd backed off, and started sounding tough again.
Here, last week, is how the final Times editorial on the subject tried to explain the shifting sands of high principle at the nation's newspaper of record:
"In advocating censure, we have consistently urged the House not to offer it in the absence of an admission of lying by the President. But now that the decisive moment is at hand, we urge the moderate Republicans who hold the balance of power to vote against impeachment even if Mr. Clinton does not confess."
Let's see if we can summarize: We flinch. Principles are fine things. Sort of like those collapsible umbrellas, except in reverse. At the first sign of a storm, you will want to be able to fold them up and stuff them in the pocket of your overcoat and forget you have them. Then you can just flap with the breeze, or something.