Back when dissent was patriotic, the New York Times editorial board slammed the Bush administration for “acting lawlessly” and swooned over congressional contempt votes. In 2012, the fish wrap of record is singing a different tune.

Byron York points us to a tale of two contempt votes:

In a 2007 editorial titled “Defying the Imperial Presidency,” the New York Times praised the House Judiciary Committee for holding Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten in contempt.

The House Judiciary Committee did its duty yesterday, voting to cite Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff, for contempt. The Bush administration has been acting lawlessly in refusing to hand over information that Congress needs to carry out its responsibility to oversee the executive branch and investigate its actions when needed. If the White House continues its obstruction, Congress should use all of the contempt powers at its disposal.

The committee really had no choice but to hold Ms. Miers in contempt. When she was subpoenaed to testify about the administration’s possibly illegal purge of nine United States attorneys, she simply refused to show up, citing executive privilege.

Following yesterday’s House Oversight Committee vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for, ahem, “refusing to hand over information that Congress needs,” the Times published an editorial titled “A Pointless Partisan Fight.”

The political feud between the White House and Congressional Republicans has now culminated in a House oversight committee vote to cite Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. for criminal contempt. His supposed crime is failing to hand over some documents in an investigation of a botched gunrunning sting operation known as “Fast and Furious.”

A “pointless” fight over Holder’s “supposed” crime?

Anybody have a mop? President Obama’s lapdogs are drooling.