A story in the "Counting the Vote" section of this morning's New York Times runs under the headline, "In Stress of Recount, Complaints Get Bizarre." The article reports that "on Saturday, some accusations turned just plain wacky. Matthew C. Rhoades, 25, a research analyst for the Republican National Committee, said that on Friday he saw a Democratic counter in the room eating a chad, the piece of the punch-card ballot that is supposed to fall out when a voter punches in his choice." The Times quotes Mr. Rhoades as saying that "a Democratic counter put one on his finger, joking around, held it up and then threw it in his mouth."
The Times interprets this incident as evidence of the "wacky" and "bizarre" complaints that are cropping up in the "stress" of the recount. But it could just as easily be viewed as serious evidence that the Democrats are trying to steal the election. What are loose chads doing in the recount room, anyway? Who punched them out? And why would a Democrat be trying to make them disappear? In the stress of the recount, the Times coverage is getting wacky; instead of dealing with these issues seriously, it treats them as some sort of entertaining sideshow. Imagine the Times running a similar headline about Democratic reactions to Republican behavior: "In Stress of Recount, Florida Supreme Court's Order Gets Bizarre." There's nothing wacky or bizarre about a Republican complaining about the fact that Democrats are eating chads. What's wacky is not the accusation or the complaint but the behavior that is being complained about -- the apparent lengths that the Democrats are willing to go to destroy evidence.
Partisan Digs: Today's New York Times features a "Public Lives" profile of Newt Gingrich that runs in the national section. The article says, "Still, Mr. Gingrich felt compelled to make partisan digs that characterized his 20 years as a congressman from Georgia. Reiterating his call for Democrats to reach out to conservative white suburban communities and for Republicans to reach out to Latinos and African-Americans, he could not resist the qualifier: 'not to the left-wing political leadership.'" Talk about your partisan digs. A partisan dig is what the Times is engaging in by characterizing as a "partisan dig" Mr. Gingrich's accurate description of the African-American and Latino political leadership.
War Process: Times columnist William Safire, who is usually sensible on Middle East issues, gives Israel's prime minister, Ehud Barak, some bad advice today. Mr. Safire says Mr. Barak "must not use too much firepower, lest he fall into Arafat's wider-war trap." Mr. Safire suggests that "a new Middle East war" is in Mr. Arafat's interest. In fact, a wider war would serve Israel's interests and America's better than would a continuation of the current low-level clashes between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Israel has a qualitative military edge and strategic superiority; a wider war would allow it to degrade the military capabilities of Iran, Iraq, Egypt and Syria and thereby pave the way for the emergence of free and democratic regimes in those countries. It would also put the spotlight on the fact that it is those undemocratic regimes that are coordinating and supporting the terrorist war against Israel and against American interests in the Middle East.