In a rare endorsement of a Republican in a race for U.S. Senate, the New York Times today throws its editorial support behind Rep. Bob Franks of New Jersey in his campaign against a wealthy Democrat, Jon Corzine. It's a truly bizarre editorial: the newspaper's main complaint against Mr. Corzine seems to be that rather than spending his money on the baubles advertised in the pages of the Times, he is investing his own money in the American political process. "By spending an estimated $60 million on his campaign, Mr. Corzine effectively smothered the ability of Mr. Florio and later Mr. Franks to get their messages out. As election day nears, Mr. Franks has been pummeled with negative, misleading campaign ads that he does not have the money to answer," the Times editorializes. It leaves unsaid how it would prefer that Mr. Corzine spend his money, which is, after all, his.
What's amazing here is that the Times' antipathy toward the non-Sulzberger rich (a group that Mr. Corzine, by virtue of his career at Goldman Sachs, is a member of) seems to trump the newspaper's views on all other political issues, from gun control to education spending. The editorial even acknowledges this, saying, "If political philosophy were the only consideration, we'd be for Mr. Corzine."
The editorial is just plain wrong when it says that Mr. Corzine's spending has "smothered" the ability of his rivals to get their messages out. For one thing, his rivals' messages have gotten out; witness the news coverage of the campaign, today's Times editorial, and polls showing that even while being massively outspent, Mr. Franks is still competitive in the race. If anything is smothering Mr. Franks' ability to get his message out, it is the unreasonably low limits on campaign contributions. The Times supports those limits as part of its advocacy of campaign finance "reform," but the limits have the legal effect of allowing Mr. Corzine to fund his own campaign but preventing a right-wing counterpart to Mr. Corzine from funding Mr. Franks' campaign.
Queens Arsenal: The New York Times today reports in an unbylined, 5-paragraph brief inside its metro section the arrest of a Queens man. The man kept at his home an arsenal that included, according to the Times, "15 rifles, 18 handguns, two military fuses, brass knuckles, assorted swords, a pint of black powder and thousands of rounds of ammunition." The radio station 1010 WINS and the TV station New York One both reported that the arrested man was a member of the National Alliance, a white supremacist group. The Times omits that information, which, if true, could well elevate the story beyond the level of an inside-the-section, unbylined brief.
Wrong Name: What is it with the New York Times that it can't spell names correctly? Today's wrong-name victim is the press secretary to Richard Cheney. Her name is Juleanna Glover Weiss, which the Times might be familiar with because she served as the press secretary to Mayor Giuliani during the mayor's campaign for the U.S. Senate. The Times, in a story about Mr. Cheney's stock-market profits, today renders her first name incorrectly as "Juliana."
Gore's Fingernails: This information, from an article about Al Gore's health in today's Times, bears highlighting: "He is also a nail-biter. In the interview his nails were bitten to ragged edges. Asked if this was a lifetime habit, Mr. Gore said he did it 'every once in a while' and did not link it to nervousness or anything else." Sometimes, every once in a while, the Times comes through with a little fact like that that actually is enough to make the paper worth buying.