11/28/00 6:00 p.m.
Times Falls Back in Line
Back flacking for Gore.

Elizabeth Arens, assistant editor, Policy Review

hroughout the fall, the editorial page of the New York Times took every possible opportunity to hoist the flag for Gore/Lieberman. Whatever the topic, by the third paragraph the editorial was diverted into a lecture on Al Gore's fitness for the presidency and the inadequacies of his opponent. But in the immediate aftermath of the election, the editors showed an unmistakable wariness about Gore's aggressive strategy to attack the legitimacy of the Florida election results. In fact, their November 10 editorial, portentously titled "A Fateful Step Toward Court," was sharply critical of Gore. By deciding to go to court, the editors wrote, "Vice President Al Gore has escalated the atmosphere of combat surrounding the presidential election results." While admitting certain irregularities in the Florida vote, the Times warned against "a protracted legal challenge that paralyzes the succession process, undermines the finality of presidential elections and makes nervous a world that looks to the United States as a model of political stability."

What relief, then, to see that the Times has fallen firmly in line. This week, the paper has given its blessing to Gore's continued lawsuits and new contests against what is now Florida's officially certified result. What was once a dangerous precedent and "treacherous path" are now Gore's "important legal challenges to [Florida's] incompletely counted vote." And the editors attack George W. Bush for voicing the same hope for finality they themselves had so recently expressed, sighing "it was disappointing to see the Texas governor embrace that disputed certification and call upon Mr. Gore to drop his plan" for a contest.

The Newspaper of Record has an astonishingly short memory. Fearful "a scorched earth legal strategy" was unlikely to "serve the broad national interest," the Times had at first maintained that neither candidate should turn to litigation. Instead of filing suits, the two men should be "finding a way to resolve electoral matters in the political arena." In the intervening weeks, however, the editors have found new faith in the wisdom of our legal system. "The courts need to look at this count," the editorial desk asserts; "Once the courts have spoken, the time for argument will be over." Back on November 10, the editors' anxiety about Gore's legal challenges was tempered by their relief at the existence of a natural boundary for the resolution of the suits. "There is a time window for both political and legal combat," the Times argues; "The deadline for absentee ballots in November 17." But the editors now seem unconcerned that this date has passed, as has November 26, the deadline established by the Florida supreme court for the extended manual recount. The Florida courts have "ample reason" to order continuing counts, they declare. After all, "Florida's electors need not be selected until December 12." What's the big hurry?

The Times has also adopted the Gore camp's strategy of maligning each Republican involved in the electoral dispute as a narrow-minded partisan, while wrapping a mantle of neutrality and public spiritedness around the Democrats. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris becomes, of course, "an eager partisan who worked for the Bush campaign." Florida's representative body is the "restive, Republican-led Legislature," which threatens to "meddle with the election." And the editors remind us, in case there were any doubts, that Gov. Jeb Bush is "Florida's Republican governor." But the Times editorial discusses both Florida's courts and the canvassing boards without any mention of their overwhelmingly Democratic makeup.

If there was any time to call for the Gore campaign to give up its lawsuits and concede the election, it is now. Gore has demanded and received hand recounts in selected counties most likely to produce additional Democratic votes. These recounts were overseen by boards dominated by Democratic party members, officials who continually expanded the boundaries of what inscrutable markings would be considered a legitimate vote. Gore sought and was granted an extension of the deadline for the recount specified by Florida law. But this ordeal is now over, and the count is certified. For the Times to support Gore's continuing efforts to overturn the Florida results goes against reason, fairness, and the national welfare, not to mention their own infallible pronouncements.