Faithful husband, soccer dad,
basset owner, and former cowboy
Return to TboggHomePage
100 Monkeys Typing
Ain't No Bad Dude
Attytood (Will Bunch)
Better Inhale Deeply
Brilliant At Breakfast
Creek Running North
Crooks and Liars
Down With Tyranny
Echidne of the Snakes
Edicts of Nancy
Failure Is Impossible
The Group News Blog
Hairy Fish Nuts
Hammer of the Blogs
I Am TRex
If I Ran the Zoo
I'm Not One To Blog
King of Zembla
Kung Fu Monkey
Lawyers Guns and Money
Main & Central
Making Light (Nielsen Hayden)
The Next Hurrah
No More Mr. Nice Blog
One Good Move
Pam's House Blend
Right Hand Thief
Seeing The Forest
Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
The American Street
The Left Coaster
The Road To Surfdom
The Talking Dog
The Talent Show
Amazon Wish List
The Washington Post
The New York Times
The Raw Story
Talking Points Memo
THE VAST WASTELAND
Captain Corndog & Friends
Cheerleaders Gone Spazzy
Corner of Mediocrity and Banality
Village Idiots Central
Darwin's Waiting Room
News for Mouthbreathers
Your e-mail may be reprinted sans name and e-mail address. Think about how stupid you want to appear.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
I'm gona have to call "bullshit" on Matt again.
It's not siren-worthy, but Matt Drudge is in full fake outrage/facts mode. Again.
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX
NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN
The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.
Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.
Both children were adopted from Latin America.
A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper's "standard background check."
Roberts’ young son Jack delighted millions of Americans during his father’s Supreme Court nomination announcement ceremony when he wouldn’t stop dancing while the President and his father spoke to a national television audience.
Previously the WASHINGTON POST Style section had published a story criticizing the outfits Mrs. Roberts had them wear at the announcement ceremony.
One top Washington official with knowledge of the NEW YORK TIMES action declared: “Trying to pry into the lives of the Roberts’ family like this is despicable. Children’s lives should be off limits. The TIMES is putting politics over fundamental decency.”
One top Republican official when told of the situation was incredulous. “This can’t possibly be true?”
First off, I think the kids are from Ireland, not Latin America.
Secondly, Dancin' Jack didn't "delight millions of Americans" while his dad and the President Guy were speaking to America. He was off camera and people only knew about it after the AP pictures came out later.
Thirdly. The unidentified Washington official and top Republican official quotes are as bogus as a Scottie McClellan denial. No "top Republican official" is such a babe in the woods that he would be surprised that every detail of Roberts life was being looked into.
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".
And don't even get me started on the whole "no abortions" so that we can adopt them and raise little children of God argument.
(Added): Here is some journalisming tips from Captain Cubicle:
Speaking of news priorities, now we know why the Paper of Record has failed to report on Air America's misappropriation of city grant monies earmarked for poor kids and Alzheimer's patients. Drudge reports that the Times would rather try to dig up dirt on the adopted children of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts:
I didn't realize that Supreme Court appointees had to pass a New York Times "standard background check". Silly me. I thought that the Times' job was to report news, not dig up personal dirt about the adoption of minors by political figures.
Or any other kind of dirt on a political appointee. Right, Bernie?
And let's not forget this:
“They know no depths, do they? They know no depths,” McCain said at the time, reacting to the misleading ads being run against him. Yet the negative ads about his voting record were a minor matter compared with the smears of McCain’s family. In an article for the Boston Globe, McCain campaign manager Richard H. Davis recalled:
It didn't take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.
Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi-born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.
Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.
Fuck, Ed is stupid. But he does work kids parties, clowning being a lost art and all.