Susan Dudley's recess appointment is the subject of editorials in this morning's Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Let's compare and contrast. The Post editorial focuses on the recess appointment process. The Post believes Dudley "deserved confirmation" based on merit, but objects to the way President Bush went about installing her. The editorial correctly points out the Senate was moving forward with the nomination making a recess appointment unnecessary. Mr. Bush can't simultaneously complain that his nominees aren't being accorded due process and take steps to avoid due process. See, that's a logical argument. On the other hand, the WSJ editorial page beats logic into submission. The WSJ comments on Bush's "gumption" in recess appointing Dudley. Unless the meaning of the word "gumption" has recently been changed to "political trickery" or "unconstitutional behavior," the newspaper is way off base. Furthermore, "gumption" is not in the president's job description. He is supposed to lead and be an exemplar for the nation. Recess appointing Dudley — an underhanded political maneuver of the worst kind — runs counter to both of those responsibilities. The Times editorial focuses on the danger Dudley poses to public health and safety protections. Ms. Dudley has made no secret of her hostility toward government regulation, criticizing everything from fuel economy standards for light trucks to a national drinking water standard for arsenic, arguing that the market will almost always suffice. This makes her just right for this administration but wrong for consumers and the environment. The WSJ editorial defends Dudley's anti-regulatory views by making up statistics. The WSJ points to: the tens of thousands of federal rules handed down by Uncle Sam, at a cost of more than $1 trillion a year (nearly $10,000 per household) $1 trillion? A recent OMB report shows the gross costs of major rules from 1981 to 2006 range from about -$5 billion to $18 billion. Other rules are, obviously, not major and do not account for an additional $982 billion in costs. In the same report, OMB shows the gross benefits of all major regulations range from $0 and $80 billion. In the past 15 years, costs have exceeded benefits only twice, and by narrow margins at that. Net benefits in 2005, for example amounted to nearly $70 billion. In addition to being flat out wrong, the WSJ editorial also makes a baseless attack on the public interest community. Meet the Dudley opposition…Public Citizen published a 60-page jeremiad on her record. Joan Claybrook summed up the left's displeasure: "the free market [is] her guiding light." Has the day arrived that this is disqualifying for federal office? Now, Reg•Watch is not even concerned the editorial does not mention OMB Watch as an author of the report (The Cost Is Too High, check it out here). Public Citizen is a fine organization and deserves the credit. The problem is WSJ twists Claybrook's words, then uses them to characterize the left-half of America's political community. Claybrook actually stated "She has deep ties to industry, regularly referencing the free market as her guiding light." Claybrook was not deriding Dudley's belief in the free market. This is a factual statement pointing out Dudley's stated views. Furthermore, the WSJ uses this misquote to attack the left. No one is displeased Dudley believes in the free market. Employees and supporters of organizations like Public Citizen and OMB Watch are capitalists and patriots. But Dudley's motives are impure. She has no desire to grow our free-market economy (which regulations often do), only to help industry avoid changing certain harmful practices. Not surprisingly, the WSJ editorial board hasn't grasped the argument. Now that's a jeremiad!