…so we’re all, “Nuh unh, girlfriend, you better not go there.”
You’ve got to hand it to the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, they’ve managed to take all of that pent up rage that they would normally release (if only they weren’t complete hopeless chickenshits) on those Islamofacist evildoers and find something at home to get all het-up about because, gol-durn it, they’re old-fashioned common sense kinda folks who don’t cotton to our citified ways. At least that’s what The Loon and The Virgin Ben seem to think.
Anyway being the good little packhounds that they are, every creature big and small, has heard the siren call of Matt Drudge and now they’re baying at the moon in unison about what I’m sure they’ll eventually get around to calling Adoptiongate. Warning: before we leap into the fray, keep in mind that these are people who find typing out mainstream media absolutely exhausting, so don’t expect to see any advanced mental gymnastics here.
Let’s start with the leader of the pack and professional ball-licker, Hugh Hewitt:
UPDATE: Memeorandum has not yet posted a link to the Drudge story, but I am preciting(sic) blogosphere reaction will be intense. I do not know how many bloggers are adopting parents, or disappointed would-be adopting parents, but my guess is that the group will be well represented. I cannot imagine that anyone who has been inside the process will look kindly on the New York Times’ attempt to pry open this family’s most personal details, creating a public record that these children will no doubt be reminded of for decades to come.
Because it’s not really about the parents. No it’s about the children and who can ever forget Mary Cheney’s heartbreak when, at the tender age of thirty-five, she found out that she was…a lesbian.
Hugh then reveals that the 101st immediately unholstered their biggest gun: the letter to the editor.
One e-mail to the NYT on which I was cc’d:
As one who has represented the media as a lawyer for two decades, including newspapers, magazines, and network news divisions, and thus count myself a supporter, I am nonetheless deeply embarrassed and disturbed that Ã¢â‚¬â€œ assuming accuracy of the Drudge report today Ã¢â‚¬â€œ the TimesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ investigative reporter is Ã¢â‚¬Å“investigatingÃ¢â‚¬? [read: digging for dirt into] records pertaining to the adoption of Mr. and Mrs. John RobertsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ two adopted children.
This is unconscionable. Whatever alleged Ã¢â‚¬Å“newsworthyÃ¢â‚¬? value might reside in these records is vastly outweighed by considerations of simple decency. I understand that your reporters want a story, and no doubt would like to further a political agenda, but young children are off limits. Period. End of issue.
I sincerely urge you to countermand this egregious violation of privacy immediately. If the Times should publish a story based on information obtained from these files, I for one will lead the charge to castigate the Times publicly, widely, and often.
Faced with almost certain castigation (which can leave a nasty bruise) the NY Times fired back:
Thanks for writing to us.
While the public editor does not usually get involved in pre-publication matters, Bill Keller, the executive editor of the paper, told us that he would not stand for any gratuitous reporting about the Roberts’s children. He said that as an adoptive parent he is particularly sensitive about this issue.
In addition, a senior editor at the paper wrote, “In the case of Judge Roberts’s family, our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue. We did not order up an investigation of the adoptions. We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions.”
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
When, what they really should have done is write back: “Fuck off and let us do our jobs, wanker”. But they didn’t and this is what they got for their pains from Hewitt:
What is “gratuitous” as opposed to “appropriate reporting” on a nominee’s children. Who were the “initial inquiries” made to and for what purpose? What does with “great care” mean, and how did that “sensitivity” end up on Drdge.(sic)
Looks like some staff got ahead of Keller and way ahead of public opinion, and the cover up is under way. But there’s a lot of admission in the response –admission that the paper did indeed think it appropriate to dig into the adoption, and all the scurrying in the world won’t obscure that.
What does Hewitt mean by “some staff” “admission” “appropriate” “in” “scurrying” and “that”? Hmmm. He’s got a lot of explaining to do when he gets back from having his new improved neuticles installed. Like Hugh, they’re almost life-like.
Moving down the food chain (yes…it is possible) we get to Captain Cubicle who has expanded his earlier post with:
Brit Hume reports at his Fox blog that the Times reporters wanted to look into the sealed adoption records, and that they had no particular reason for asking:
The New York Times has been asking lawyers who specialize in adoption cases for advice on how to get into the sealed court records on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ two adopted children.
There is no indication The Times had any evidence there was anything improper in the family’s adoption of five-year-old Josie and four-year-old Jack, both born in Latin America. Sources familiar with the matter told FOX News that at least one lawyer turned the Times down flat, saying that any effort to pry into adoption case records, which are always sealed, would be reprehensible.
Well, we have anonymous sourcing, which doesn’t make for a definitive statement. I’d prefer that the attorneys who heard this come forward and say exactly who did the asking. If the Times has asked attorneys to find a legal way to do something unethical and downright despicable, then we should hear who at the Times has made those calls.
Because there is never anything that is even remotely intriguing about a sealed record involving a public official. Any editor in America would probably just throw up his hands and send the intrepid, but clearly disappointed, journalist off to cover something important like college students wearing flip-flops to the White House or “Condi Rice: The Brown Sugar of Foggy Bottom.”
Now for creatures small.
Chris Battles, a nineteen year-old who is currently studying Political Science and Business at OSU because we already have enough soldiers in Iraq, writes:
This is the last straw. Matt Drudge reports that two of our country’s most ‘respectable’ newspapers are digging much too far into the life of SCOTUS nominee John Roberts. Drudge reports that “the New York Times is looking into the adoption records of [Roberts’] children” and the Washington Post “published a story criticizing the outfits Mrs. Roberts had them wear at the announcement ceremony” (click title for article). This makes me livid. In their unquenchable thirst to find something against this guy, the liberal media is invading this man’s privacy instead of just recognizing his qualifications.
Here’s my take. Where is the outcry over this? The fact that I needed to read a third-party news compilation to get this story makes me lose faith in our elected officials. Doesn’t anyone want this man on the court? It seems that members of the the GOP, who Roberts will help ideologically if confirmed, are sitting on the sidelines while the media invades his privacy and takes potshots at this cultured, educated, competent judge. There is more scutiny here than in the 2004 presidential election. Did anyone question the motives of John Kerry when he married Mrs. Ketchup? Did anyone want a paternity test for George W. Bush’s daughters? No. Families are off-limits in politics, and these newspapers are crossing the line when it comes to Roberts. Will someone speak out against this injustice? I’m waiting.
Actually some one did question Kerry’s motives in regard to marrying Teresa Heinz and as for the Bush paternity test question: where the fuck did that one come from and why didn’t I think of it, not that Jenna didn’t inherit some of her presumptive father’s traits. Anyway, Chris is waiting for someone else to fight this fight…just like that other one that always harshes the Kappa Kappa Kappa kegger.
And then there is Darlene:
UPDATE but of course, never let it be said that ::gag::choke::puke:: Conservatives ever adopt children save for the most puerile of reasons. TBogg is on the case (h/t Jeff Goldstein)
I’m waiting for an article that questions a man and his wife building high-powered careers, marrying late, and then, in their mid-forties, adopting infants to accessorize their public profiles. When these kids are graduating from high school, their parents will be in their sixties. I’m all for adoption, but I cringe when I see middle-aged successful couples adopt children to decorate their lives in an effort to “have it all”.
Hmmm … a cursory mucking through Bogg’s dementia fails to reveal a daily dose of snark towards John and Elizabeth Edwards who also “decorated their lives” with a couple of young ones when they hit their 50’s.
As a mom, I’m sure that Darleen has played “Which of these things is not like the other?” with her kids. Let’s try that approach:
John G Roberts, Jr. was born on January 27, 1955, in Buffalo, New York. He grew up in Long Beach, Indiana.
Jane Marie Sullivan was born c. 1955.
Ages at Wedding:
Both John and Jane were 41 when they married.
John and Jane were married on July 27, 1996 at St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic Church in Washington, D.C. The ceremony was performed by Msgr. Peter Joseph Vaghi.
One of their groomsmen was Michael Luttig.
John and Jane have two adopted children, a son and a daughter, Jack, born c.2001 and Josie, born c.2000.
Senator Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, whom he met when both were law students at Chapel Hill, were married in 1977. They have had four children, including: their eldest daughter, Catharine, a student at Princeton University; five-year-old Emma Claire, and a three-year-old son, Jack. Their first child, Wade, died in 1996.
I guess the big question is: are they outraged at The New York Times because:
•They feel this an invasion of privacy unlike say, contraception or a woman’s right to choose.
•They’re afraid of what the Times will turn up
•They hate the New York Times and this is just another outrage that would cause them to cancel their subscription if they actually subscribed but they don’t.
•Everyone else is doing it. Lookit meeee!
Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.