Between the Lines

An editorial in the New York Times about Al Gore’s Nobel Prize begins:

One can generate a lot of heartburn thinking about all of the things that would be better about this country and the world if the Supreme Court had done the right thing and ruled for Al Gore instead of George W. Bush in 2000.

When did the New York Times decide that if the Supreme Court hadn’t blocked the full recount of Florida’s votes in the 2000 election, Al Gore would have been President?

Because that’s not what they were saying after the full review of the ballots by the National Opinion Research Center:

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore.

I’ve never seen them acknowledge what some of us have known all along: If the Florida ballots in the 2000 election had been counted in accordance with Florida’s election laws, Gore would have received Florida’s Electoral College votes.

In this editorial, they tacitly acknowledge their remorse over the outcome of the election, and its consequences. They’ll probably never acknowledge their complicity in making that outcome seem legitimate.