Redstate

for the day the New York Times finally announces that it was bought by George Soros in 2001.  That's the only good explanation for its daily acts of idiocy.

clearly show that the NYTimes was investigating the pre-schoolers before the fit hit the shan with the Drudge report.

I hope that puts to rest the mumbling I've been hearing that the Drudge just made it up.

All the news we see fit to print

What exactly does he mean, he won't tolerate "gratuitous" reporting on them? What kind of reporting on the children might he consider non-gratuitous?

In the comments on the related diary post, we've already seen vile speculation of the type rabid leftists might throw out to justify inquiring into the adoptions. And if, heaven forbid, those speculations take a foothold, then there would be no way to undo the shadow it would cast across those innocent children's lives.

The Times should have said that no reporting on innocent children, or the circumstances of their adoption or conception would be acceptable in any circumstances, so no investigation should have been done to begin with. When a whacko journalist started printing bizarre claims about the circumstances of Chelsea Clinton's conception, it was properly denounced by every right-wing blog out there, who said it was wrong to write about that, whether it was true or not. This should be denounced by every left-wing blog (as well as the right-wing ones) for the same reason.

word got out, and the letters started pouring in.

I think most people tolerate a little mud slinging when it comes to the main people involved, but most people don't respond well to dragging children into the matters.

This sort of reminds me of the gratuitous comments about Cheney's daughter during the debates.  Kerry and Edwards both got burned on that one, and the NYTimes is feeling similar heat.

We know our own's spoor. This couldn't be more brazen if someone had typed edited by Solomon B. Watson, IV, Esq., and maybe beneath that, and seconded by external counsel.

It seems like a dozen high-level presidential appointments have been derailed over the last several years because of the candidates' associations with recent Central & South American immigrants. These kids are from Central America . . . you connect the dots.

My bet is that when the Times rips the lid off the next Roberts scandal - - Jack's Lemonade Stand - - they'll find that the sales tax records are suspiciously "missing".

to the comment above  "...cause family strife for two young kids the Washington Post has already ridiculed"....  Can't seem to find anything, but it's getting late.

As parents of two natural and three adopted kids, this really gets my dander up, up, up...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR200507210
2347.html

How dare the family dress in modest, formal attire on the most important night of their lives?

Wa-Po wont stand for that.

This hurts my head.

A DailyKos poster was attempting a dig at the hypocracy of Dick Cheney and Alan Keyes. Responding to a previous post, which joked that Jack Roberts had something to hide, he/she wrote:

"He's probably gay. Of course, this is how ridiculous rumors get started, but extreme conservatives seem to have a lot of gay children..."

Attack the point or attack the appropriateness of using a 4-year-old to illustrate the point. But direct that attack towards the AUTHOR. Implying that the scope of the "speculation" was anything beyond one person is just dishonest.

I can say is "Geccccccccccch" ---  long, hot summer and nothing to do...........reminds me of a Miss Admiral Prissy-Pants - and totally classless!

Anyone remember the divorce records of Peter Fitzgerald and Geri Ryan that both wanted to remain sealed?  Remember how they both wanted to spare their children pain?  Remember how little concern the MSM showed in pursuit of a story about Fitzgerald's ahem indiscretions?

Well, it worked in that instance.  They got Barack Osama Obama..err. Obama Bin..err Obama Osama elected.

'Course, having Alan "Don't Call Me A Wingnut" Keyes opposing him didn't hurt either.

bottom for the Illinois GOP, that is one state where the party is in deep trouble, and can't seem to figure out how to get out of it.

Calling in Alan Keyes was stupid-did they really think the way to beat Obama was to haul in an African American carpetbagger?

Does this mean it's fair to say that 'The Right' compared the Senator from Illinois to Osama Bin Laden.  According to the standards used here I think it would.  Am I incorrect?  

It is pretty silly to take one comment on a liberal blog and assign it to 'The Left'.

who got the names mixed up.

Nice try though.

that's how Ted Kennedy referred to Obama.

They don't know about that. The verbal gaffes of Democrats are not reported, except in the biased right-wing media.

the problem is they don't bother to read then news or much of anything else before posting.

here

Kennedy also mangled the name of the Democrats' new star, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, calling him "Osama bin ... Osama ... Obama."

remember every possible gaff ever done by a GOP member, but convieniently forget anything done by the dems.

It happens all the time with Dean gaffs as well.

Last summer, Slate.com thought it was appropriate to discuss the circumstances surrounding Elizabeth Edwards' late-in-life pregnancy and the wrote, "It's likely she used donor eggs." (Story here)

Basically, the media (as a division of WaPo) outed that Elizabeth Edwards is not the biological mother of her little kids. Given their age, I'm sure this isn't a discussion that happened around the Edwards household yet, if they ever wanted to have it in the first place. Isn't this the kind of family matter that doesn't need to be posted on the Internet and later repeated in a WaPo story?

The media is pretty rotten, but this isn't just a case of a bias-induced partisan smear job - it's reflective of an attitude of tabloid journalism on all public figures.

The problem is that context doesn't seem to matter in this case.  And regardless do you really think I couldn't go over to LGF or Free Republic or even here and find something despicable in the comments?  Would it be fair to attribute that to 'The Right'.  

My problem is that I am left of center but I never said a thing about Roberts son.  And neither did 99% of the other people on the left.  So lets just be honest about it.  

So what matters? Your embarassment at making an off the wall criticism and being called on it?

All of this righteous indignation and no mention of Rove skewering McCain on this very same topic in South Carolina? Quite amazing.

I frankly fail to see what could come out of adoption records that might be considered intrusive or gratuitous, or even newsworthy. What are they going to report, that the kids were adopted? My God, what a horrible attack.

mentioned but on Lexis-Nexis I can't find a single quote by Karl Rove on McCain's child. Can you help me out?

What matters is that attributing things to the great umbrella boogeymen of 'The Left' and 'The Right' is silly and counterproductive.  The lack of critical thinking required to believe that 'The Left' is accusing Roberts son is gay or 'The Right' advocates murdering abortion doctors is dangerous and divisive.

you don't start the whisper campaigns and push polls yourself, silly, you let someone else do it. This stuff didn't come out of thin air.

is that you are just sliming someone for the heck of it.

.....that it doesn't take a genius to figure out that opposition campaigns are usually responsible spreading rumors about a particular candidate. Except of course when Rove feels like accusing the other side of dirty tricks, then he inflicts them on himself. Given Rove's well-documented history, it isn't hard to see where it all originated.

Rove has denied this, and there of course isn't proof, so I guess it could technically be considered "slime," but then that's politics.

comes right back to my short answer.

You have gossip, innuendo, guilt by association, dislike, fear, hate... but no substantiation.

Thanks for the insight into your thinking, not enlightening but it certainly validated a lot of assumptions.

This is the type of comparative morality to which secular liberals have to resort because they have no core values of right and wrong. Citing some other wrong, injustice, error, sin, etc. to ameliorate the effects of the subject is the lamest form of argument. Either support the issue or argue against it, but do so on the merits of the subject, not by raising comparisons and trying to change the subject.

That is one of the sleaziest things I have heard...to make that comment about such young children. On the other hand, because his children are adopted and he is a judge/lawyer (I am putting the two things together) wouldn't you think it is something you would want to check out to make sure everything was on the up and up? Actually the White House should have already done that in the vetting process--and could shove it in the Dems face as a useless point to bring up in order to sabotage his confirmation.

adoption is well over the top.

Sorry, but I just don't think this is a needful route to take when seeking dirt, unless you are a sleazeball.

Because the only way to be satisfied that nothing was wrong is to look at what was actually done, talk with the birth parents, etc. And that is PRIVATE, and not our business.

Suppose, for example, that the father was never notified of the adoption, without any knowledge by Roberts. And the sordid NYT investigation uncovers this tidbit. That may be enough to void the adoption but sheds no light whatsoever on Judge Roberts' qualifications.

NOTHING about the adoption is relevant to his qualifications, unless he did something criminal in the process. And neither judicial nominees nor anybody else in this country have to PROVE their innocence of charges, especially in the absence of any evidence WHATSOEVER.

How are these guys escaping the Rove Mind Control Aparatus?  

Someone's booster phaser is not functioning properly.

We need to call in the technological Big Gun.  Where's Clayton?

He's our little angel then. Got it.

I was merely asking for you to produce something substantive but apparently the bar was set too high.

You're off topic. Cease and desist. Thanks.

I know it was an honest mistake, but retired Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL)is impeccable in his personal character, and was not married to Jeri Ryan. She was married to Jack Ryan (a good guy from a good family who didn't deserve to have his divorce files opened up).

But your larger point is accurate - - it was a terrible development for the Republicans in Illinois, who are now wishing they treated Fitzgerald a little bit better.

Rumours are flying today that much of the interest in the adoption is based on the fact that the children are blond-haired and light-skinned. Don't know if there's any truth to that but it seems the Loonies do define so much by skin color. It wouldn't surprise me if they weren't outraged that the children look too American. That, of course, would point to the privilege of John Roberts, who obviously must have manipulated the system to have achieved such a thing.

McCain did accuse the Bush campaign (read: Rove) of this act. He's the one you're calling a sleaze. Is McCain a sleaze?

Message for you here

From what I understand, Roberts children are of latino ethnicity. Every time I bring that up, people say, "but they are so blong!"

So? Don't you know that there are a LOT of latinos who are light-skinned and blond? I myself am considered a "dough boy" among my hispanic friends. I had to come to Colorado to get called dark-skinned. LOL

There has to be a line somewhere. NYT could care less of course.

by their works.

When this type of stuff happens you look to prominent members across the Ditch for their reaction.

What has anyone on The Left said about this? Nada. Well if you don't criticize this behavior you condone it.

So while you may have the time to conduct a Vulcan Mind Meld with every person on the Left, many of us don't.

Well, I think the motivations behind the investigation are still a rumor, but it just rings very true to me. The Dems define everyone by their "disability". And in the democrat world it is a disability to be latino, black, female, asian, etc. I think that they will find some way to accuse Roberts of being racist for adopting kids that don't "look" latino. They've already been criticized for their clothing, next, I'm expecting  the accusation that they don't dress ethnic enough.

Never mind that the beauty of all races is the variation that makes for so much distinction.

Thomas Sowell explains the bigotry of the liberals so much better than I could, but I do love GWB's phrase the "soft bigotry of low expectations." I think it says it in a nutshell.

Your opinion LEADERS did this.  Not some newsletter in Kansas...not a blog... THE New York Times tried to snoop into adoption records.  You don't like being associated with people who can stoop this low?  Then challenge them.  Change the culture on the left, because right now it resembles a toxic sewer.

--I'm adopted, I have a dog in this fight and I am furious.  I may be vandalizing the next NYT box I see.

So if I don't immediately challenge every kook on the left then I automatically agree with them?  In that case you guys might want to check out Free Republic and LGF because you have so serious apologizing to do.  

But just so it's out there I don't think his kid should be an issue or even be photographed.  Now if people on the right like Rush, Savage and the Freepers could have extended that same courtesy to Chelsea Clinton it would have been nice.  But I'm sure everyone here thoroughly criticized them for their disgusting behavior.