A front-page "Man in the News" profile of President-elect Bush that runs in this morning's New York Times says, "Indeed, it is hard to see how Mr. Bush can claim any mandate at all." It may be hard for the Times news staff to see Mr. Bush's mandate, but they are being more blind than even the Times editorial writers, who endorsed Al Gore.
The Times editorial today says Mr. Bush reached the White House "without a numerical mandate," ignoring the numerical mandate that attends the majority of electoral votes, which, when the electors gather, now seems almost guaranteed to go to Mr. Bush. That numerical mandate is the only one that matters under the Constitution. The Times editorial at least says, "We believe that the vast majority of Americans are ready to be led by Mr. Bush." Apparently that "vast majority of Americans" does not include the ones that were responsible for that line in today's front-page story about how "it is hard to see how Mr. Bush can claim any mandate at all."
A news analysis in today's New York Times goes so far as to say that the Supreme Court's "muddled, if decisive, ruling on Tuesday night gave Mr. Bush his long-sought victory, yet denied him clear, unclouded title to the Oval Office."
Well, Mr. President-elect, get ready for four years of this. The New York Times has decided you can't claim any mandate at all and your title to the Oval Office is clouded.
Defending Hillary: The New York Times this morning runs a news story critical of Senator-elect Clinton's effort to sell a book about her experiences as first lady. "Some government watchdog groups suggested that such a large payment might create the appearance of a sweetheart deal or make her beholden to a publisher," the Times reports.
Oh, come on. This line of criticism was ridiculous when the left used it against Rep. Newt Gingrich when he sold a book. And it's ridiculous now that the same "watchdog groups" are using it against Mrs. Clinton. The Gingrich book and the Hillary book aren't, by all appearances, sham efforts that were devised for the purpose of making bulk sales to lobbying groups with business before Congress. They are genuine trade efforts designed to sell to individual consumers who want to read what the politicians have to say. If the Times or the watchdog groups can find an instance of Mr. Gingrich or Mrs. Clinton using their political power to intervene improperly on behalf of their book publisher's commercial interests, that might be a story. But the mere "appearance" of a conflict is the sort of ridiculous nitpicking standard that drives good people out of public service.