Amusing article this morning in USA Today, about how Bush has quietly appointed an administration that is racially and ethnically very diverse. And yet—surprise—the Left is for some reason not falling all over itself to praise him: “Critics … say there’s a shortage of diversity on at least one measure: diversity of opinion. Bush’s appointments, especially for his second term, have put a premium on loyalists who are more likely to endorse and carry out his policies than to press alternatives. … Another reason Bush hasn’t gotten as much credit as Clinton: The interest groups most likely to praise diversity of personnel generally disagree with Bush on policy. Leaders of the NAACP and NOW opposed Bush’s re-election and criticize him for curtailing affirmative action and other programs designed to help women and minorities. ‘There’s diversity of color, but it’s the policies that one would be more interested in,’ says New York Rep. Charles Rangel, a Democrat who is one of the senior black members of Congress.” Oh, so now the Left thinks that it’s really not skin color that is so important; it’s diversity of opinion? Funny, you never hear this when the discussion is about academia—even though it’s a lot more reasonable to want diversity of opinion there than in a unitary Executive Branch.