The New York Times puts its view of the Republican ticket on full display today in a front-page "man in the News" profile asserting that George W. Bush "will have, if elected, one of the thinnest resumes in public service of any president in the last century." In fact, Mr. Bush's experience as the two-term governor of a large state, Texas, is probably more substantial than Bill Clinton's experience as the governor of a small state, Arkansas. And we don't recall much handwringing at the Times back in 1992 over how thin Mr. Clinton's resume was.
The same profile describes Mr. Cheney as "a rich, white relic of his father's administration." These are the Times' news columns, remember, and that is how the article refers to Mr. Cheney on its first reference. The reference to the shade of Mr. Cheney's skin is another indication that the Times won't let the Republicans win no matter what they do on the race issue. If the Republicans appoint blacks like Clarence Thomas or Condoleezza Rice, the Times accuses the Republicans of using them as "props." If the Republicans appoint whites, the Times snipes about that, too.
An editorial in today's Times shows the policy views that underlie these kinds of attacks. It suggests that Mr. Bush "could start by laying out exactly why the economy needs the proposed 10-year, $1.9 trillion tax cut that would start in 2002 and eat up the federal surplus." Such a tax cut would probably stimulate the economy, but by framing the issue on those terms the Times misunderstands the moral underpinning of the tax issue, which dates back to the Boston Tea Party and the American revolution. That moral underpinning says that the money earned by a free man's labor belongs to that individual; if the government wants to take any of it in taxes, the burden of proof should be on the government. It isn't Bush who should have to justify why a tax cut would be good for the economy; the money belongs to the individuals who earned it to begin with, and the default position should be that the money stays with them. It's Al Gore who should have to justify why he supports keeping the tax burden as a percentage of American GDP at a historical peacetime high.