I can just imagine it. Everyone was in an ugly mood. Your people had just been Bush whacked by the Supreme Court of the United States. It had come down to this, after putting so much on the line. The grief was palpable. There is no joy in being around these political animals after they have lost an election.

How could their man lose to Bush? How do things like that happen in America? How did the Supreme Court have the audacity to rule for the wrong president? This verdict can't be right? How could they do that to The New York Times Publishing Company? Don't they realize that we can write about them in the Boston Globe? Don't they realize that our syndicated 'news' at the Times and the Globe will nail them hard on this one?

Well, the Goristas at the Times don't lose an election and just quit. Being angry is not enough. At The New York Times they do not concede elections, they get even. Be assured of this. Chief Justice Rehnquist has not heard the last word from the Times.

The Times warns Rehnquist in a post-election editorial that "the court risks appearing blatantly partisan." Since when do Sulzberger's minions at the Times worry about being "blatantly partisan"?

The arrogance at the New York Times glares through almost every article of the paper they printed on Thursday, December 14, 2000. This self-styled 'international' newspaper has decided that they will not accept Bush as president. Gore can concede all he wants, Sulzberger and his minions will not.

The first page headline was innocent enough. "BUSH PLEDGES TO BE PRESIDENT 'ONE NATION,' NOT ONE PARTY; GORE, CONCEDING, URGES UNITY". Now it was time to get down to the business of writing the articles and editorials. They sometimes confuse the two at the Times, where pamphleteering and news are readily thrown into the mix.

If you must read this paper, read their editorial page first; just to get a feel for the marching orders of the day. Here is a sample "Mr. Gore cast his acceptance of defeat as a patriotic duty. But he was within his rights to disagree firmly but respectfully with the Supreme Court's rejection of a full recount of all votes in Florida." Forget all that talk of unity. That was just the 'Headline' department. The New York Times would continue to press for a recount of the vote.

In the meantime, Sulzberger and his crew would impose strict limits on this impostor who would be President. Their tone was that of Marine Sergeant setting straight a fresh recruit. "Mr. Bush must know that he is only at the beginning of what has to be an effort to define himself at a time when many citizens are angry and others simply worn down by conflict and uncertainty". Well, truth be told, half that anger was on 43^rd Street, the other half was at Gore's headquarters. The rest of the nation is simply worn out by the arrogant media gorillas of the fourth estate who will not give it a rest, already.

The pungent odor of vengeance was in the air in the Times editorial room. They would finesse the words that would trim Bush down to size. This self-inflated municipal paper is not just the Daily News. They would give Bush some stern advice. "Indeed, his message must be that he will be more engaged because he reached the White House by a contentious route and without a numerical mandate." Damn, I thought all the contending was done with. And didn't Clinton get something like 42% of the vote in 1996. They would never tangle themselves with the facts at The New York Times. The daily ruse refuses to lose.

Sulzberger's publishing company is never short of advice for presidents, domestic or foreign. More advice for Bush, "Once the public sees that kind of progress from Mr. Bush, they will press even the most recalcitrant Democrats to recognize his presidency as legitimate." That is high brow New Yorkese for "we, the Sulzberger minions, will remain stubbornly defiant and continue to call for a fourth Florida recount".

According to Sulzberger's boys, Bush needs to do the following before being anointed by the Times. He needs to be like LBJ "at his best. and consult with the president he succeeded and the man he defeated". Bush needs to take the opportunity "to push ballot reforms to eliminate the errors that helped Mr. Bush in Florida". Really? Isn't that the responsibility of the State of Florida or shall we just drag all the lawyers and pundits back to the courts. Is Sulzberger trimming the wrong Bush or what?

The whining losers at the Times are not finished with their advice. "Mr. Bush needs to proceed quickly to assemble a cabinet that looks like the American family….. We think the nation will be willing to grant him great flexibility in doing so, provided it sees steady effort, good will and the kind of humility that ought to be stirred by the circumstances of his victory."

What exactly does the New York Times know about humility? And about this 'American Family' business; does it include the Arab-Americans who where shunned by both Hillary and Lazio while Sulzberger's minions cheered them on?

It is clear that campaign 2000 has not ended at The New York Times. "Here, on the threshold of the holiday season, we are at long last, at the end of an election season that was not what Mr. Bush or the American people expected or wanted. But this is the one he and we have been dealt and he must now show that he comprehends the gravity of the task left to him by the lawyers, the vote counters and the judges."

Comprehend this, Sulzberger. Bush was elected by the people, in a manner consistent with the constitution of the United States of America, a flawed but near-perfect document that gets grander with every amendment.

And another thing, the election should have been over after the second machine count because the counting of the military ballots proved, beyond a doubt, the potential mischief of a hand count. As for the lawyers, I recall it was Gore who took that gaggle of election theft specialists to Florida. I have to assume that the 'vote counters' you are referring to are the same ones who demonstrated that both Republicans and Democrats have the system in a 'lock box' down to the precinct level. Was that news at the New York Times?

By the way, the editorial was titled "Mr. Gore's Farewell, Mr. Bush's Task". I noticed that Gore got the first nod. It didn't occur to the New York Times Publishing Company that a word of congratulation might be in order. A few days earlier, Friedman had written these words "the definition of a legitimate election outcome is the same definition as pornography - you know it when you see it." You know something, Friedman, I know I might get exposed to some pornography every time I pick up a copy of the New York Times.