I can just imagine it. Everyone was in an ugly mood.
Your people had just been Bush whacked by the Supreme Court of the United
States. It had come down to this, after putting so much on the line. The
grief was palpable. There is no joy in being around these political animals
after they have lost an election.
How could their man lose to Bush? How do things like that happen in America?
How did the Supreme Court have the audacity to rule for the wrong president?
This verdict can't be right? How could they do that to The New York Times
Publishing Company? Don't they realize that we can write about them in
the Boston Globe? Don't they realize that our syndicated 'news' at the
Times and the Globe will nail them hard on this one?
Well, the Goristas at the Times don't lose an election and just quit.
Being angry is not enough. At The New York Times they do not concede elections,
they get even. Be assured of this. Chief Justice Rehnquist has not heard
the last word from the Times.
The Times warns Rehnquist in a post-election editorial that "the court
risks appearing blatantly partisan." Since when do Sulzberger's minions
at the Times worry about being "blatantly partisan"?
The arrogance at the New York Times glares through almost every article
of the paper they printed on Thursday, December 14, 2000. This self-styled
'international' newspaper has decided that they will not accept Bush as
president. Gore can concede all he wants, Sulzberger and his minions will
The first page headline was innocent enough. "BUSH PLEDGES TO BE PRESIDENT
'ONE NATION,' NOT ONE PARTY; GORE, CONCEDING, URGES UNITY". Now it was
time to get down to the business of writing the articles and editorials.
They sometimes confuse the two at the Times, where pamphleteering and news
are readily thrown into the mix.
If you must read this paper, read their editorial page first; just to
get a feel for the marching orders of the day. Here is a sample "Mr. Gore
cast his acceptance of defeat as a patriotic duty. But he was within his
rights to disagree firmly but respectfully with the Supreme Court's rejection
of a full recount of all votes in Florida." Forget all that talk of unity.
That was just the 'Headline' department. The New York Times would continue
to press for a recount of the vote.
In the meantime, Sulzberger and his crew would impose strict limits on
this impostor who would be President. Their tone was that
of Marine Sergeant setting straight a fresh recruit. "Mr. Bush must know
that he is only at the beginning of what has to be an effort to define
himself at a time when many citizens are angry and others simply worn down
by conflict and uncertainty". Well, truth be told, half that anger was
on 43rd Street, the other half was at Gore's headquarters. The
rest of the nation is simply worn out by the arrogant media gorillas of
the fourth estate who will not give it a rest, already.
The pungent odor of vengeance was in the air in the Times editorial room.
They would finesse the words that would trim Bush down to size. This self-inflated
municipal paper is not just the Daily News. They would give Bush some stern
advice. "Indeed, his message must be that he will be more engaged because
he reached the White House by a contentious route and without a numerical
mandate." Damn, I thought all the contending was done with. And didn't
Clinton get something like 42% of the vote in 1996. They would never tangle
themselves with the facts at The New York Times. The daily ruse refuses
Sulzberger's publishing company is never short of advice for presidents,
domestic or foreign. More advice for Bush, "Once the public sees that kind
of progress from Mr. Bush, they will press even the most recalcitrant Democrats
to recognize his presidency as legitimate." That is high brow New Yorkese
for "we, the Sulzberger minions, will remain stubbornly defiant and continue
to call for a fourth Florida recount".
According to Sulzberger's boys, Bush needs to do the following before
being anointed by the Times. He needs to be like LBJ "at his best. and
consult with the president he succeeded and the man he defeated". Bush
needs to take the opportunity "to push ballot reforms to eliminate the
errors that helped Mr. Bush in Florida". Really? Isn't that the responsibility
of the State of Florida or shall we just drag all the lawyers and pundits
back to the courts. Is Sulzberger trimming the wrong Bush or what?
The whining losers at the Times are not finished with their advice. "Mr.
Bush needs to proceed quickly to assemble a cabinet that looks like the
.. We think the nation will be willing to grant him
great flexibility in doing so, provided it sees steady effort, good will
and the kind of humility that ought to be stirred by the circumstances
of his victory."
What exactly does the New York Times know about humility? And about this
'American Family' business; does it include the Arab-Americans who where
shunned by both Hillary and Lazio while Sulzberger's minions cheered them
It is clear that campaign 2000 has not ended at The New York Times. "Here,
on the threshold of the holiday season, we are at long last, at the end
of an election season that was not what Mr. Bush or the American people
expected or wanted. But this is the one he and we have been dealt and he
must now show that he comprehends the gravity of the task left to him by
the lawyers, the vote counters and the judges."
Comprehend this, Sulzberger. Bush was elected by the people, in a manner
consistent with the constitution of the United States of America, a flawed
but near-perfect document that gets grander with every amendment.
And another thing, the election should have been over
after the second machine count because the counting of the military ballots
proved, beyond a doubt, the potential mischief of a hand count. As for
the lawyers, I recall it was Gore who took that gaggle of election theft
specialists to Florida. I have to assume that the 'vote counters' you are
referring to are the same ones who demonstrated that both Republicans and
Democrats have the system in a 'lock box' down to the precinct level. Was
that news at the New York Times?
By the way, the editorial was titled "Mr. Gore's Farewell, Mr. Bush's
Task". I noticed that Gore got the first nod. It didn't occur to the New
York Times Publishing Company that a word of congratulation might be in
order. A few days earlier, Friedman had written these words "the definition
of a legitimate election outcome is the same definition as pornography
- you know it when you see it." You know something, Friedman, I know I
might get exposed to some pornography every time I pick up a copy of the
New York Times.