In an editorial entitled “A Grand New Republican Party,” the New York Times gives New York State’s Republicans a bit of advice:

A pragmatist like Mayor Michael Bloomberg could serve as the vanguard of a new New York Republican Party. He won twice in a heavily Democratic city by adding probity and managerial expertise to Mr. Pataki’s issues list. Some upstaters regard Mr. Bloomberg as too independent — their term is RINO, or Republican in Name Only. That’s a self-destructive attitude for a party on the ropes. New York’s G.O.P. should embrace the city’s dynamic mayor as its guiding star.

Asking Republicans to be more like Mayor Bloomberg is akin to asking Republicans to be more like Democrats. In fact, until shortly before deciding to run for Mayor, Mike Bloomberg was a Democrat. One theory to explain his party change is that it was borne out of political expedience.

In a city where the Democratic primary is usually the election that determines who will fill a given office, Mayor Bloomberg’s late switch to become a Republican enabled him to sidestep the competition in the Democratic primary. So, while five Democratic candidates were bashing each other in the primary campaign, Bloomberg sat on the sidelines, unbloodied by the primary fight, and used his fortune to edge out Mark Green, the Democratic opponent who barely survived a run-off just weeks before the general election.

Bloomberg’s been a decent mayor, and I probably would have voted for him regardless of party affiliation, but if he’s the future of the Republicanism, then there really is no difference between the two parties. Party labels should represent something more than a mere brand name; they should tell you something about the candidate’s underlying philosophy. Parties should stand for some defining and distinguishing ideas.

But what’s laughable is that the editors of a paper that hasn’t endorsed a single Republican presidential nominee in over fifty years would decide, out of the kindness of their hearts, to try and help Republicans with some unsolicited advice.

Still, maybe we should give the Times the benefit of the doubt. Maybe there are some well-placed Republicans at the paper using the editorial page to try to righten a ship that has clearly veered off course.

How do we find out? Check the voter database maintained by the New York City Board of Elections. It’s a matter of public record, so anyone can conduct their own search.

For simplicity, this search was limited to Manhattan, and in cases where there was ambiguity (multiple identical names, wrong professions listed, etc.), the results were ignored. Nine Times bigwigs showed up:

Arthur Sulzberger, Publisher: Democrat

Bill Keller, Executive Editor: Democrat

Gail Collins, Editor: Democrat

Eleanor Randolph, Editorial Board: Democrat

Dorothy Samuels, Editorial Board: Democrat

Carolyn Curiel, Editorial Board: Democrat

Frank Rich, Editorial Columnist: Democrat

“Automatic Bob” Herbert, Editorial Columnist: Democrat

Believe it or not, one Republican was found, although as an associate editor, he isn’t exactly the highest man on the totem pole. And whereas the Democrats listed above voted in nearly every special election, primary and general election, our lone Republican—who shall remain nameless lest it jeopardize his job—is much less active in his political involvement. According to the Board of Elections, he’s voted only 3 times since 1985. I guess that’s the only kind of Republican tolerated on the editorial board of the New York Times.

So, here’s the recap: out of nine people found, one is a Republican. Keep that in mind when you read Times editors. You may not be getting a balanced view of the world, but at least now you’ll know where they’re coming from (mostly the Upper West Side, according to the voter database).

And if you’re a Republican official in New York State trying to figure out whether to heed the advice of the Times, perhaps my friend Marcus put it best: “It’s like George Steinbrenner giving pointers to the Boston Red Sox.”