• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the GOP

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

It’s time for the GOP to dust off that post-2012 autopsy, completely ignore it, and light the party on fire again.

The revolution will be supervised.

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

In my day, never was longer.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / The Aristocrap

The Aristocrap

by John Cole|  August 9, 200512:55 pm| 120 Comments

This post is in: Democratic Stupidity, Outrage

FacebookTweetEmail

And Duncan Black’s bottom-dwelling continues in earnest:

As I said before, I have know idea if the Roberts adoption story is newsworthy. That’s why, you know, reporters might ask questions and stuff to find out. But, there’s certainly something weird, and by weird I don’t necessarily mean “unethical” or “illegal,” about Irish-born kids being adopted in Latin America by an American couple.

What a heel.

Jeff Goldstein pens a well-deserved rant.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Dana Reeves
Next Post: More Creationist Bullshit »

Reader Interactions

120Comments

  1. 1.

    Defense Guy

    August 9, 2005 at 1:02 pm

    This is what happens when you really buy into the idea that the other side is ‘evil’. After all, there is nothing you can do that would be unacceptable when combating evil, right?

  2. 2.

    neil

    August 9, 2005 at 1:07 pm

    Defense Guy, I think you accidentally posted to the wrong thread.

  3. 3.

    Vladi G

    August 9, 2005 at 1:09 pm

    Well, there is something weird, if by weird he means “out of the ordinary”. I think you’re looking for things that don’t exist, John. I really don’t see what’s so bad about the above statement. Even the post to which he linked is pretty innocuous. They don’t even speculate as to why these particular adoptions were handled this way. The author of “Is That Legal” appears to only be interested in why the Times would even want to ask about it.

    Then again, your party is the one that flipped out when Kerry had the audacity to tell the world what Mary Cheney had already told the world, so maybe everyone is just a little too sensitive.

  4. 4.

    gratefulcub

    August 9, 2005 at 1:09 pm

    All he was saying is that it was ‘weird’ for two irish kids to be adopted in Central america, not unethical or illegal. And, that may be the reason NYTimes was investigating.

    And the post he links to includes:

    Perhaps somebody who, unlike me, actually knows something about international adoption practices can tell us how usual or unusual this scenario is. It could be that this is an entirely ordinary thing. On the other hand, maybe it’s really unusual–and if it is, then that would help explain why the Times (and other media) might have been looking for information about the adoptions.

    Sounds like they were saying, it seems weird, can someone explain. The linked post still says that the kids should be off limits, but this might explain why the NYTimes is looking into it. Then the update to the post, and a commenter on Eschaton explains why it isn’t weird at all.

    There is nothing illegal or underhanded about this. Irish law makes it extremely difficult, if not to say impossible, for non-Irish citizens to adopt Irish children. These were “private adoptions” — the children being adopted directly to a couple, rather than through an orphanage (which is very common in the U.S. these days). What likely happened is that the mothers and children traveled to a Latin country where such adoptions were legal and easy, and to which they could travel without a visa or where getting one would not pose a problem. The children could not have come to the U.S. for the private adoption, because under U.S. law they would have been seen as “intending immigrants” and thus have been refused visas/entry. Once the children were adopted, the Roberts would have gone to the local U.S. embassy to obtain the proper immigrant visa for the children. (U.S. consular officers, as part of the process, are required to investigate the circumstances of all foreign adoptions, to assure that everything is on the up and up.) The process was obivously bit convoluted, because the children were Irish. If the Roberts’ had decided to adopt in Lithuania or Norway or China, where foreign adoptions are legal, the process would have been simpler — the whole business, including getting the immigrant visas would have taken place in the local country. But fundamentally the adoption process would be no different.

    Story over. If he for some reason he keeps at this story, and tries to make something of it, then he is a heel. I haven’t heard much about this story. It hasn’t been harped on in any media I read. Simply mentioning that Irish kids being adopted in Central America is ‘weird’ and maybe that is the reason the NYTimes is investigating doesn’t seem like it makes him the heel you claim he is. I may not have posted it, I don’t think he should have, but it is quite minor in my opinion.

  5. 5.

    neil

    August 9, 2005 at 1:12 pm

    As usual, you don’t have to try very hard to find the other side pushing this sort of behavior.

  6. 6.

    Defense Guy

    August 9, 2005 at 1:20 pm

    neil

    Please. Do not try to even compare the 2 stories. If you are uncomfortable labeling al quada as evil than perhaps you would like to offer up a better term.

  7. 7.

    neil

    August 9, 2005 at 1:26 pm

    Of course, in the link I posted above, Reynolds is being much slimier than Atrios. Atrios is not asserting that these circumstances create questions for Roberts to answer; he is extending the benefit of the doubt that a man with adopted children came by them legitimately. Reynolds, on the other hand, is clearly alleging that Kerry’s medals do not warrant the benefit of the doubt, that he should be made to defend how he got them.

    The slime of swiftboat politics is beginning to splatter back onto the faces of GOP figures. If they are surprised, they should not be.

  8. 8.

    Geek, Esq.

    August 9, 2005 at 1:27 pm

    I have to admit–adopting Irish babies in Latin America does seem a bit of an oddity, in a “whassup with that?” kinda way. Something to be curious about, but certainly nothing to wield as a political club.

  9. 9.

    neil

    August 9, 2005 at 1:30 pm

    Defense Guy, I swear I didn’t mean to catch you up in that trap, you did it to yourself. Maybe I haven’t been paying enough attention, but I didn’t think you would disavow your own statement when I applied it to America’s enemies rather than the left’s.

    I thought your first comment was quite insightful, actually, and a good argument against believing your enemies to be evil.

  10. 10.

    John Cole

    August 9, 2005 at 1:33 pm

    The very idea of investgating children for anything ‘weird’is offensive. Not to mention, it isn’t weird at all.

    And the continued defense of the reporters digging into the adoption records is disgusting.

    You folks need to get a grip. There are some things that should be off limits. I wonder what Neil had to say about Rush Limbaugh’s Chelsea remarks?

  11. 11.

    Brian

    August 9, 2005 at 1:34 pm

    After the Swift Boats, anything is fair game. As if Limbaugh, Fox, Instapundit, all those guys wouldn’t be pushing stories about this being somehow “dodgy” if Roberts was a democratic nominee.

  12. 12.

    Kimmitt

    August 9, 2005 at 1:34 pm

    Um, it is a little weird, and I hope that the Times takes a look at it, decides if it’s actually hinky or just one of life’s quirks, and goes from there.

  13. 13.

    Vladi G

    August 9, 2005 at 1:42 pm

    What the hell are you talking about, John? I think most people if asked, would tell you that they weren’t familiar with this type of practice, no matter how legitimate it is. It’s just a practice that’s not particularly well known. Perhaps weird isn’t the proper term to use, but I really think you’re blowing that out of proportion.

    And good grief, no one is investigating “the children”. To the extent that the Times even asked about it, they investigated the circumstances under which the children were adopted. They were “investigating” the actions of adults.

    Good Christ, are we even allowed to mention that, by the way? Are we allowed to mention that the kids are adopted, or is that now over the line, too?

  14. 14.

    Vladi G

    August 9, 2005 at 1:44 pm

    As if Limbaugh, Fox, Instapundit, all those guys wouldn’t be pushing stories about this being somehow “dodgy” if Roberts was a democratic nominee.

    I’ll give John the benefit of the doub. I think that he would be just outraged by that behavior as he appears to be about this. But frankly, in this case, I fail to see where the outrage is coming from.

  15. 15.

    metalgrid

    August 9, 2005 at 1:44 pm

    Well the only thing wierd is why people need to go to Latin America to adopt children when there are more than enough children available for adoption right here in the US of A. Obviously the kids we have in the US aren’t good enough, or to really pee in your cheerios, aren’t neccessarily of the right color.

  16. 16.

    MrSnrub

    August 9, 2005 at 1:45 pm

    Gratefulcub: thanks for that info. It satsified my curiosity about the story.

  17. 17.

    John Cole

    August 9, 2005 at 1:46 pm

    To the extent that the Times even asked about it, they investigated the circumstances under which the children were adopted. They were “investigating” the actions of adults.

    I think it is over the line.

    Are we allowed to mention that the kids are adopted, or is that now over the line, too?

    because stating thechildren are adopted and investigating the manner they were adopted is the same thing. This from the group that insists abortion be legal because of a right to privacy. I think this comment sums it up best:

    After the Swift Boats, anything is fair game. As if Limbaugh, Fox, Instapundit, all those guys wouldn’t be pushing stories about this being somehow “dodgy” if Roberts was a democratic nominee.

    It’s slimy- but people I dislike would do it too!

  18. 18.

    Rick

    August 9, 2005 at 1:56 pm

    John,

    Not that you and I are on the same page in all things, but in this instance, let’s not interrupt our enemies while they are making yet another colossal, tone-deaf mistake.

    Cordially…

  19. 19.

    jg

    August 9, 2005 at 1:56 pm

    Seems to me someone is reaching for examples of dems acting like repubs so that we can say they ‘both do it’. This is nothing. Weak, weak, weak. Does the term RINO, really hurt that much?

  20. 20.

    Jeff G

    August 9, 2005 at 1:57 pm

    Obviously the kids we have in the US aren’t good enough, or to really pee in your cheerios, aren’t neccessarily of the right color.

    Oh, how brave of you! Didn’t know leftists were such nativists.

    But what have you. Speak Truth to Power, baby! And I’ll tell my progressive friends who adopted 2 Chinese kids recently that they’re simply anti-American!

    I’ll phrase it this way: “HEY, YOU UN-LOVING BOLSHEVIKS! WHAT’S WRONG WITH OUR OWN DOMESTIC OFFSPRING?”

  21. 21.

    neil

    August 9, 2005 at 1:58 pm

    Rush’s Chelsea comment was a political attack on the President, made via his daughter. I don’t see how the Times’ investigation constitutes a political attack on Roberts, but I don’t really know anything about the investigation other than that certain parts of the right are considering it an outrage. Seriously, though, considering their rather low threshhold of what constitutes an outrage at the Times, I need more than that.

  22. 22.

    neil

    August 9, 2005 at 1:59 pm

    Rick’s comment also makes me think that this is being spun as a political attack rather than, you know, a newspaper doing some reporting. But why? Drudge’s siren is simply not enough to prove the case to me.

  23. 23.

    Lee

    August 9, 2005 at 1:59 pm

    Actually I’m glad that they are investigating it. Simply for the fact that when I heard his kids were adopted from Latin America, then I saw the blond hair and fair skin, my first thought was “HUH?”

    Now I know.

    See that is how it works.

  24. 24.

    gratefulcub

    August 9, 2005 at 1:59 pm

    Irish kids from Cental America? Huh?
    Sounds weird, did they possibley adopt children illegally?
    Well, he is up for a job at the supreme court, we better make sure it wasn’t something fishy, we know how well these guys vet their own canidates.
    Was it legal?
    Yes.
    OK, story over.

    Nothing wrong with that. It isn’t off limits or over the line to ask if a canidate for scotus adopted his children illegally if there is reason tosuspect he may have. The situation seemed weird. It no longer does. We all learned something, the kids weren’t damaged, the family wasn’t damaged. We do have the right to privacy, but if you want a job on the SCOTUS, you will be investigated. And we want privacy from the government. We aren’t asking for privacy from the media for public figures that are going to get to make law that will affect us all.

  25. 25.

    Blue Neponset

    August 9, 2005 at 2:06 pm

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe the NYT has actually written anything on this issue.

    If that is true, haven’t the editors at the Times done exactly what editors are suppose to do?

  26. 26.

    neil

    August 9, 2005 at 2:09 pm

    Also, John, if it turns out that Roberts violated some law in adopting his children, would that be off limits too, because it’s ‘about children?’

  27. 27.

    ppGaz

    August 9, 2005 at 2:14 pm

    from bartcop.com:

    FACT SHEET:

    Bush Waged Nasty Smear Campaign Against McCain in 2000
    Bush Supporters Called McCain “The Fag Candidate.” In South Carolina, Bush supporters circulated church fliers that labeled McCain “the fag candidate.” Columnist Frank Rich noted that the fliers were distributed “even as Bush subtly reinforced that message by indicating he wouldn’t hire openly gay people for his administration.”

    McCain Slurs Included Illegitimate Children, Homosexuality And A Drug-Addict Wife.
    Among the rumors circulated against McCain in 2000 in South Carolina was that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually black, that McCain was both gay and cheated on his wife, and that his wife Cindy was a drug addict.”

    Bush Campaign Used Code Words to Question McCain’s Temper.
    “A smear campaign of the ugliest sort is now coursing through the contest for the presidency in 2000. Using the code word “temper,” a group of Senate Republicans, and at least some outriders of the George W. Bush campaign, are spreading the word that John McCain is unstable. The subtext, also suggested in this whispering campaign, is that he returned from 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam with a loose screw. And it is bruited about that he shouldn’t be entrusted with nuclear weapons.”

    Bush Supporters Questioned McCain’s Sanity.
    “Some of George W. Bush’s supporters have questioned Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s fitness for the White House, suggesting that his five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam drove him insane at the time.”

    Bush Supporters Spread Racist Rumors About McCain’s Daughter.
    Bush supporters in South Carolina made race-baiting phone calls saying that McCain had a “black child.” The McCains’ daughter, Bridget, was adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. In August 2000, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the McCains “are still seething about Bush supporters in South Carolina spreading word of their dark-skinned adopted daughter.”

    Let me put it this way: Dems are not going to hear “outrage” from the right with very much sympathy. The GOP has forfeited its moral sopabox, forever.

  28. 28.

    Another Jeff

    August 9, 2005 at 2:15 pm

    And John, if it turns out that Roberts made a snuff film while snorting a line of meth off a biker-chicks ass, can we talk about that?!?!?!

    We never would’ve worried about stuff like that until Karl Rove came along and ruined the Marques of Queensbury rules that they used to play by in Washington.

  29. 29.

    metalgrid

    August 9, 2005 at 2:19 pm

    Jeff G, first of all, sorry to keep pissing in your cheerios since I’m not a leftist, you are the leftist. See how that works? I’m rubber, you’re glue, everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you!

    You can tell all your ‘progressive’ friends whatever you like, but the biggest problem to adoption in the US is that because of the state run nature of it, it is sometimes an insurmountable hurdle to adopt in the US. It’s a sign of a larger issue with state run children services that makes it easier for people to fly to other countries and adopt children or to buy children from private adoption agencies in other countries than it is to adopt from the plethora of children available in our own country.

    In addition, you completely missed my jibe about the race issue – in general, adoption agencies, including state run ones tend to be racist and tend to discourage racial mixing in terms of parents and adoptive children.

  30. 30.

    Otto Man

    August 9, 2005 at 2:21 pm

    Also, John, if it turns out that Roberts violated some law in adopting his children, would that be off limits too, because it’s ‘about children?’

    Sure. The right didn’t raise a fuss over Zoe Baird and Kimba Woods’ nominations for Attorney General, remember? Their offenses involved not paying taxes for their nannies, which was obviously “about the children” and thus off-limits.

  31. 31.

    Geek, Esq.

    August 9, 2005 at 2:22 pm

    John:

    If those kids had been secretly kidnapped from Ireland and smuggled into Latin America where they could have been adopted by the Roberts’, would it be despicable to investigate that as well?

    This outrage is a little overdone. The Times sniffed around a little bit on what seems to most people to be an unusual situation, didn’t find anything, and moved on. Isn’t that what journalists are supposed to do?

    For fuck’s sake, they didn’t even print a story.

    But Drudge puts on his shiny red siren and some sort of Pavlovian response sets in.

    And, did you know how uncommon this was before you read that post in Atrios’s comments? There was a question, and it got answered. No one made any vicious or toxic charges. (Well, someone at Democratic Underground probably did, but that’s DU for you).

  32. 32.

    Mr Furious

    August 9, 2005 at 2:27 pm

    You could argue this is standard (if perhaps zealous) “oppo” research before you scream it’s over the line, John. I would argue it’s not even to the level of “oppo” research as much as fine-tooth comb, thorough background check.

    I think you over-reacted to atrios, and should keep your powder dry for the media or blogger who runs with this further once it seems resolved.

  33. 33.

    Matt

    August 9, 2005 at 2:28 pm

    John, in the months that I’ve been reading you, you haven’t really seemed the type to hop on the “Drudge Outrade of the Day” (all rights reserved). This is a nonstory. It was a somewhat odd situation, the Times asked a few questions, found that nothing odd actually happened, didn’t print a story. That’s it. What is there to be pissed about?

  34. 34.

    Defense Guy

    August 9, 2005 at 2:29 pm

    Sure. The right didn’t raise a fuss over Zoe Baird and Kimba Woods’ nominations for Attorney General, remember? Their offenses involved not paying taxes for their nannies, which was obviously “about the children” and thus off-limits.

    OK, you a really stretching here. In fact, I am not even sure how you equate an issue of tax evasion to being in the same category as a nominees children. Let’s be clear, a mans family is most certainly out of bounds for what is at the end of day, always a witch hunt. Unless this is a joke, in which case, nevermind.

    I am a avowed neocon, but if you start talking smack about Chelsea Clinton to prove some sort of political point, I will have none of it.

  35. 35.

    John Cole

    August 9, 2005 at 2:29 pm

    Yeah, what if the NY Times investigates and “decides if it’s actually hinky,” because that they are white and adopted in Latin America is enough for you all.

    What then? A full fledged investigation? An special prosecutor? Repatriate the kids?

    The kids weren’t “secretly kidnapped from Ireland and smuggled into Latin America,” and all this is just an attempt to start innuendo and smear the kids and Judge Roberts. And the racial undertones are disgusting. Leave the fucking kids out of it.

    This outrage is a little overdone.

    Yeah? What are your kids names? Did your wife drink when she was pregnant? Do you dress your kids funny? How can we prove you didn’t swap babies at the hospital?

    We never would’ve worried about stuff like that until Karl Rove came along and ruined the Marques of Queensbury rules that they used to play by in Washington.

    Good. I will quit pretending you guys are better than Karl Rove, and treat you with the scorn you deserve.

    You guys, excusing this stuff, are making me sick.

  36. 36.

    Vlad

    August 9, 2005 at 2:29 pm

    Given some of the things that slipped through official background checks of the administration’s nominees (like Kerik), I’m glad that the press is doing its job and checking Roberts out.

    Even if it’s not a secret that adoptions are handled differently in Ireland than they are here, it’s something that I’d never heard about before, and since I consider myself to be reasonably well-informed, I’d have a hard time blaming a reporter for not knowing it either. They looked, they saw there was nothing wrong, and they didn’t publish a story. What’s the big deal?

    I honestly don’t understand the “outrage” over this. It doesn’t even seem like it’d make a very good lever for criticism.

  37. 37.

    John Cole

    August 9, 2005 at 2:30 pm

    I am not even dealing with the Drudge story- I am dealing with ATRIOS CONTINUING TO TRY AND FIND AN ANGLE.

    Did you miss this:

    I admit I have a sick mind. But [The Boys From Brazil] was the first thing I thought of when I read this a few minutes ago. While I very much doubt either one of the Stepford’s [SCOTUS nominee John Roberts and his family] would run a stop sign let alone skirt adoption laws, one has to wonder why they would go to so much trouble to adopt such lily white kids when there are a multitude of children of color all over the US who need good parents.

  38. 38.

    Doctor Gonzo

    August 9, 2005 at 2:32 pm

    I hate to get all meta here, but what do we know about the Times’ “investigation” into the adoption? Did it really happen? Did they look at anything?

    From what I remember, the only proof that the Times was looking at them is from a unnamed senior Republican. Is there any other evidence besides that anonymous comment that the Times really looked into the adoption?

  39. 39.

    Steve

    August 9, 2005 at 2:34 pm

    What the fuck?

    It is the RIGHT who has publicized this story. The reason we are all talking about Irish children and whether or not it’s easy to adopt them is because Drudge ran a story about the NYT.

    The NYT never printed a story. They made inquiries, the exact thing reporters do every day. If they had printed a story, we could have a debate about whether it was appropriate or not, but they didn’t.

    This is yet another Mary Cheney faux-outrage episode. Yes, it seems to work, so keep it up, but don’t believe for a second that it actually gives you the moral high ground.

  40. 40.

    Matt

    August 9, 2005 at 2:36 pm

    John, I saw Atrios’ post as more along the lines of “Hey wingnuts, here’s why the Times was asking questions.” You may still think they shouldn’t have asked them, but given the (seemingly) odd circumstances of the adoption, it’s a little more than “Lefty rag looking under every rock possible to dig up dirt on nice guy,” as Drudge and much of the rest of the right blogosphere had made it out to be.

  41. 41.

    neil

    August 9, 2005 at 2:36 pm

    We never would’ve worried about stuff like that until Karl Rove came along and ruined the Marques of Queensbury rules that they used to play by in Washington.

    Good. I will quit pretending you guys are better than Karl Rove, and treat you with the scorn you deserve.

    You guys, excusing this stuff, are making me sick.

    I think the person you were responding to was actually being sarcastic.

    Also, it seems that you are applying a double standard again, since you have had 3 elections to treat Rove, his candidates and his methods with scorn, and have instead bought into the slime 3 times.

  42. 42.

    Blue Neponset

    August 9, 2005 at 2:37 pm

    You guys, excusing this stuff, are making me sick.

    What is anyone excusing? The NYT asking questions about something that appears unusual and then not writing a story after getting their questions answered?

    John, there is such a thing as adoption fraud. Should we ignore all cases of that because it may hurt the children?

  43. 43.

    Brian

    August 9, 2005 at 2:37 pm

    Atrios is just pulling a classic Glennuendo: link to something, raise an eyebrow suggesting that something dodgy is going on, drop it. It’d be nice if this sleazy stuff didn’t happen, but it happens because it works. If it didn’t we’d probably be in the second term of McCain’s presidency, but he had those difficulties with the mullato love child and all, as has already been mentioned.

    I’d love it if we’d elect people based on their qualifications, their policies and arguments, and all that. Doesn’t work that way.

  44. 44.

    John Cole

    August 9, 2005 at 2:39 pm

    The Times admitted they did a background check, found nothing, and dropped it. That is still beyond contemptible for me.

    But what is going on now is that Atrios and others are still pushing the issue, looking for another way to exploit this for purely cynical political reasons.

    You all may be naive, but you don;t travel in the same league as the scummy circles Atrios travels. He makes Rove look like a choir boy. And his commenters get what he is doing:

    Anything at all that can be done to stop the installation of this crypto/theofascist/corporate creep needs to be done…

    this is not the time for scruples, folks…

    roberts is a judicial time-bomb, awaiting only his confirmation to blow the shit outta settled law…

    and

    Yes, my dear. When the repukes, led by the Limburgher junkie, decided to start in on the First Lady at the start of Clinton’s first term, a tactic not before seen in the history of this country and then dragging a child into the fray, the rules went out the window.

    I don’t care whom we drag thru the mud. Until the repukes call uncle and decide to start acting like decent grownup human beings again, then I say we play the same game.

  45. 45.

    Another Jeff

    August 9, 2005 at 2:39 pm

    “Good, I will quit pretending you guys are better than Karl Rove and treat you with the scorn you deserve.”

    Jesus Christ, John, I was kidding, I’m on your side. Didn’t the “Marques of Queensbury” thing tip you off? Or the comment about a “snuff film”?

    Some people need a map.

  46. 46.

    neil

    August 9, 2005 at 2:41 pm

    I will now turn around and point out to a few people that John is not griping about the NYTimes, he is griping about Atrios and his Glennuendo. The Times may have let the story go, but Atrios didn’t.

    I’m glad, Brian, that I was not the only one who noticed the similarity. (I hope I wasn’t the only one who noticed the difference too. If the shoe was on the other foot, Glenn would be saying that Roberts has some tough questions to answer and Powerline would be googling Irish adoption law. Don’t try to tell me otherwise.)

  47. 47.

    Rick

    August 9, 2005 at 2:41 pm

    We never would’ve worried about stuff like that until Karl Rove came along and ruined the Marques of Queensbury rules that they used to play by in Washington.

    Another Jeff,

    You were either born yesterday, or you’re peddlin’ bulls**t.

    Cordially…

  48. 48.

    neil

    August 9, 2005 at 2:42 pm

    Sigh. Atrios makes Rove look like a choirboy? I thought ppGaz was being unnecessarily pedantic by posting that thing from bartcop, but it looks like it bears repeating.

    Bush supporters in South Carolina made race-baiting phone calls saying that McCain had a “black child.” Anyone who thinks this was just “a few bad apples” really needs to start paying attention, and now.

  49. 49.

    Geek, Esq.

    August 9, 2005 at 2:43 pm

    Yeah, what if the NY Times investigates and “decides if it’s actually hinky,” because that they are white and adopted in Latin America is enough for you all.

    What then? A full fledged investigation? An special prosecutor? Repatriate the kids?

    The kids weren’t “secretly kidnapped from Ireland and smuggled into Latin America,” and all this is just an attempt to start innuendo and smear the kids and Judge Roberts. And the racial undertones are disgusting. Leave the fucking kids out of it.

    Is the lawfulness of the adoptions a fair issue of inquiry? And by ‘inquiry’ I mean the most basic of fact-checking–asking if the records are public record or not.

    To put it another way–would it be relevant if Roberts had broken the law?

    The issue isn’t race or hair color–it’s the fact that they went to Latin America to adopt a couple of Irish kids.

    The Times discretely asked a few questions, found that everything was okay, and moved on.

    It’s the Drudge-heads who are beating on their chest about this and making all kinds of outlandish claims.

    The NY Times and the liberals didn’t make this an issue–Drudge and the rightwing blogosphere did.

    The liberals and the Times didn’t accuse Roberts of anything–the Times just did its homework and decided there as no story there.

    What in the hell is wrong with that?

  50. 50.

    Matt

    August 9, 2005 at 2:44 pm

    The Times admitted they did a background check, found nothing, and dropped it. That is still beyond contemptible for me.

    Seriously? If there was no such thing as an illegal adoption, maybe I’d understand that position, but here you had a situation that, to the layman, seemed out of the ordinary. Illegal adoptions DO happen. If the paper of record didn’t think to ask the question, I’d be critical of them. Now, if they’d found nothing, then published a story saying “we found nothing, but it’s still weird,” okay. But they didn’t.

    You all may be naive, but you don;t travel in the same league as the scummy circles Atrios travels. He makes Rove look like a choir boy. And his commenters get what he is doing:

    Come on, John, you know better than to judge a blog by its commenters.

  51. 51.

    Geek, Esq.

    August 9, 2005 at 2:45 pm

    The Times admitted they did a background check, found nothing, and dropped it. That is still beyond contemptible for me.

    Beyond contemptible? They investigated the parents’ actions, found nothing, and didn’t print a damn word, and that’s contemptible.

    This is manufactured outrage.

  52. 52.

    Vladi G

    August 9, 2005 at 2:49 pm

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe the NYT has actually written anything on this issue.

    If that is true, haven’t the editors at the Times done exactly what editors are suppose to do?

    No, you’re right. Which is why I can’t understand why John is so up in arms about this.

    The NY Times and the liberals didn’t make this an issue—Drudge and the rightwing blogosphere did.

    The liberals and the Times didn’t accuse Roberts of anything—the Times just did its homework and decided there as no story there.

    Sums it up pretty accurately.

  53. 53.

    ppGaz

    August 9, 2005 at 2:50 pm

    you don;t travel in the same league as the scummy circles Atrios travels. He makes Rove look like a choir boy.

    Well, talk is cheap. It’s one thing to talk smack on the Internet. It’s another thing to actually go out and do shitty things to people in the real world.

    I don’t know Atrios enough to really judge, but making Rove “look like a choir boy” is going to be tough. Rove is a real thug, not a verbal big-talker.

  54. 54.

    neil

    August 9, 2005 at 2:51 pm

    Sorry, I was mistaken when I said John was only attacking Atrios. Apologies to anyone who might have been misled.

  55. 55.

    Defense Guy

    August 9, 2005 at 2:53 pm

    This is manufactured outrage.

    Yeah, welcome to politics. I am curious if the NY Times is doing any ‘research’ that will show a good side of Roberts or if the conclusion is already foregone that he is the devil in an expensive suit.

  56. 56.

    Vladi G

    August 9, 2005 at 2:53 pm

    Not to pry or anything, but this really sounds like an issue that you’re taking more personally than I’d expect the average person to, John.

  57. 57.

    John Cole

    August 9, 2005 at 2:53 pm

    Yes, Geek. Beyond contemptible. Examining adoption records before a judicial confirmation is beyond contemptible. And if my side tried it, I would be pissed.

    Another Jeff- Sorry. I am pissed.

    Matt:

    Come on, John, you know better than to judge a blog by its commenters.

    I linked to Atrios, explained what Atrios is trying to do, and then showed you his commenters know what he is up to even if you don’t. I am judging Atrios for Atrios. Here he is laying the groundwork:

    I certainly have no sense of why the circumstances behind the adoption of children by a Supreme Court nominee should merit a news story (see Drudge), but this kind of typical Drudgian “try to kill the story before it comes out” play suggests that maybe there is a reason.

    The reason you kill the story is because some people like me, on top of the already floating stories about the sexuality of his 5 year old kid, find examining or attempting to examine adoptions of children beyond reproach. Here he is today, not content to let the story go:

    As I said before, I have know idea if the Roberts adoption story is newsworthy. That’s why, you know, reporters might ask questions and stuff to find out. But, there’s certainly something weird, and by weird I don’t necessarily mean “unethical” or “illegal,” about Irish-born kids being adopted in Latin America by an American couple.

    Call it ‘glennuendo’, call it what you want. It is wrong.

  58. 58.

    John Cole

    August 9, 2005 at 2:57 pm

    And while we don’t know if Rove was actually behind the SC story (it would not surprise me) re: McCain, the act itself is disgusting. And I have said so.

    You may think this sort of thing is acceptable, I would argue family is off limits. “We just want to see if anything was amiss, if any laws were broken” does not cut it on this issue.

  59. 59.

    Steve

    August 9, 2005 at 2:59 pm

    But what is going on now is that Atrios and others are still pushing the issue, looking for another way to exploit this for purely cynical political reasons.

    There would be NO STORY if Drudge hadn’t written about it. No one would have even heard of this issue.

    Drudge brought up the fact that the NYT had asked questions for “purely cynical political reasons,” I don’t think anyone can question that. He wanted to score points by suggesting that the NYT was doing something inappropriate. More power to him.

    In John Cole’s world, not only is the NYT the bad guy even though it never ran a story, but Atrios and friends are also the bad guys for commenting on the exact issue that Drudge publicized. They cannot even suggest reasons why the NYT might have asked those questions without themselves becoming “cynical exploiters” of the issue. Only Drudge gets a free pass, for reasons unknown.

  60. 60.

    Matt

    August 9, 2005 at 2:59 pm

    And we’re back to Drudge, John. Were it not for him, no one’s talking about this.

    I haven’t heard anyone questioning the sexuality of his kid. If they are, that’s dumb and reprehensible. But asking questions about an adoption that, again, to the layperson, seems odd, finding nothing, and then dropping the story — I don’t see the issue. Drudge, however, saw an opportunity to smear the Times (for doing nothing other than good and restrained journalism), and took it, drawing Roberts’ family more into the limelight than anyone else up to that point. Why isn’t your scorn aimed there?

  61. 61.

    Doctor Gonzo

    August 9, 2005 at 2:59 pm

    What did they do on this “background investigation?” If it was just a matter of going to the local courthouse and taking a look at the public records, which anybody can do, then I fail to see how that’s out of bounds. Heck, even if they used some kind of Internet information service to aggregate information from several databases, I don’t see why that is wrong. Again, if I wanted to do that, I could. Obviously any large paper is going to take these simple and publicly available steps when somebody is nominated for the Supreme Court.

    Now, if the NY Times broke in to or otherwise acquired confidential adoption records to take a look at them, then yes, that would be out of bounds. But until I hear that they went this far, I’m going to assume that they did not.

  62. 62.

    ppGaz

    August 9, 2005 at 3:00 pm

    call it what you want. It is wrong.

    Lest anyone misunderstand my position, I agree, it is wrong.

    I’d like to see the same outrage from the right when their side is pulling this kind of shit. I’d like to see leaders who don’t wink at this stuff, be they donkeys or elephants.

  63. 63.

    Blue Neponset

    August 9, 2005 at 3:01 pm

    The reason you kill the story is because some people like me, on top of the already floating stories about the sexuality of his 5 year old kid, find examining or attempting to examine adoptions of children beyond reproach.

    John, that is too much. You need to take a step back here. Michelle Malkin found two stupid comments on dKos about the sexuality of Robert’s 5 y.o. kid and she wrote a story about how ‘liberals’ are making an issue about it. I and many others told those two dKos commentors where to go. I really hope you don’t stoop to the level of Michelle Malkin. Things in the political arena are bad enough.

  64. 64.

    Matt

    August 9, 2005 at 3:04 pm

    I would argue family is off limits.

    Family members’ views off limits? Yes.
    Family members’ sexual orientations off limits? Yes.
    Family members’ affiliations off limits? In all but the most extreme cases, sure.
    Hell, family members’ illegal activities off limits? Yes.
    But if the NOMINEE in question had committed illegal acts that just happen to involve a family member? I don’t see how you can argue that’s off limits. For example, if a judicial nominee had thrown around some legal weight to get DUI charges for a wayward son dropped, would that be off limits, because it involved family?

    Now, again, Roberts did not, it’s safe to say, break any laws with this adoption. But, given the odd circumstances, it’s also fairly clear why the question would arise in someone’s mind.

  65. 65.

    Vlad

    August 9, 2005 at 3:07 pm

    “on top of the already floating stories about the sexuality of his 5 year old kid”

    What the what now? The only “story” I’ve seen about the sexuality of his five-year-old kid was a joke on Wonkette about an odd-looking photo. Little kids like him don’t HAVE a sexuality to talk about; if you asked him what he’s into, he’d probably say something like puppies or clouds or lollipops.

    As for the NYT’s research being “contemptible”, I’m just going to have to disagree. Lots of kidnapped kids are adopted illegally, often in countries with lax adoption laws/records, and if the press didn’t check to see what was going on here, they wouldn’t be doing their job.

  66. 66.

    Vladi G

    August 9, 2005 at 3:10 pm

    I am not even dealing with the Drudge story- I am dealing with ATRIOS CONTINUING TO TRY AND FIND AN ANGLE.

    Did you miss this:

    Umm, John, Atrios didn’t link to that piece. You linked to Jeff G. who linked to it. So how is that an indictment of Atrios?

  67. 67.

    Geek, Esq.

    August 9, 2005 at 3:11 pm

    Yes, Geek. Beyond contemptible. Examining adoption records before a judicial confirmation is beyond contemptible. And if my side tried it, I would be pissed.

    They’re not examining the kids’ medical or psychological records. Hell, THEY DIDN’T EVEN EXAMINE THE RECORDS.

    They asked if the records were sealed, found out they were, and that was that.

    Seriously, if the liberals are the ones conducting the smear campaign, why is the rightwing making 99% of the noise about this issue?

  68. 68.

    Vladi G

    August 9, 2005 at 3:14 pm

    In the above post, I was referring to what came after John’s “did you miss this” comment.

  69. 69.

    ppGaz

    August 9, 2005 at 3:18 pm

    Seriously, if the liberals are the ones conducting the smear campaign, why is the rightwing making 99% of the noise about this issue?

    Well, it depends on who is doing the talking. I hereby declare myself to represent “most liberals” (by blog-fiat). I don’t think most liberals are getting their shorts in a bunch over Roberts. I myself have declared him eminently confirmable since day one and nothing I’ve seen has dissuaded me.

    As self-declared Most Liberals representative, I don’t find the noise at DKos to be typical of “us”. It’s a band shell where people will come and scream over there, but that doesn’t mean that “most liberals” (like me!) give a fig.

    I think most liberals are more moderate than radical, and I also think most conservatives are more moderate than radical. Unfortunately, the middle doesn’t make most of the noise on either side.

  70. 70.

    Maureen Hay

    August 9, 2005 at 3:19 pm

    I, for one, think there are some questions to be asked here. International adoptions, to be considered legitimate (at least in my eyes), must be made following the laws of all the countries involved.

    Ireland does not allow foreign adoptions of Irish-born children. If the Roberts’ paid the mother(s) expenses to travel to Latin America (which I would assume happened) and/or any other money changed hand (which is normal in an adoption), then they aided and abetted in the birth mother(s) flouting of Irish law. Which is something that would be important to know about a Supreme Court nominee.

    Which makes the attacks on people investigating the story as “beyond contemptible” seem highly pre-emptive.

  71. 71.

    linda

    August 9, 2005 at 3:27 pm

    maybe the roberts family looked to ireland/latin america for a certified catholic child after being denied services by those poor, put upon certified christians. ah, just smell the spiritual comity.

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/15/adoption.church.ap/

    Christian adoption agency snubs Catholics

    Friday, July 15, 2005; Posted: 4:49 p.m. EDT (20:49 GMT)
    JACKSON, Mississippi (AP) — A Christian adoption agency that receives money from Choose Life license plate fees said it does not place children with Roman Catholic couples because their religion conflicts with the agency’s “Statement of Faith.”

    Bethany Christian Services stated the policy in a letter to a Jackson couple this month, and another Mississippi couple said they were rejected for the same reason last year.

    “It has been our understanding that Catholicism does not agree with our Statement of Faith,” Bethany’s state director Karen Stewart wrote. “Our practice to not accept applications from Catholics was an effort to be good stewards of an adoptive applicant’s time, money and emotional energy.”

  72. 72.

    neil

    August 9, 2005 at 3:28 pm

    I also can’t find anything about the Roberts kids being gay except on right-wing blogs. Perhaps that is the tricksy liberals’ evil scheme.

  73. 73.

    pmm

    August 9, 2005 at 3:29 pm

    The ghist of many comments here is that merely asking questions of a private nature shouldn’t be considered offensive. So it’s okay to investigate someone’s family on a fishing expedition, provided you come up dry and don’t report your findings?

    If the administration wants to trawl through library records, Amazon.com sales receipts, your garbage can, and maintain roving wire-taps and survelliance on you and your immediate family, it’s cool so long as you don’t have anything to hide, right? It’s not like media outlets or partisan activists have ever taken otherwise legal activities and cast aspersions about them in public in the hopes of discrediting a political opponent, right?

    But hey, the “other side” does it too, right? I hope you guys will be on-hand with that defense the next time Mr. Cole highlights an abuse of prisoners by U.S. military personnel.

  74. 74.

    Geek, Esq.

    August 9, 2005 at 3:32 pm

    If the administration wants to trawl through library records, Amazon.com sales receipts, your garbage can, and maintain roving wire-taps and survelliance on you and your immediate family, it’s cool so long as you don’t have anything to hide, right?

    You do understand that the NY Times didn’t see any private documents, right?

    Once they found out that the records were sealed, i.e. not public record, they lost interest.

    Or is the new position going to be that it’s beyond contemptible to review public records?

  75. 75.

    ppGaz

    August 9, 2005 at 3:34 pm

    I hope you guys will be on-hand with that defense the next time Mr. Cole highlights an abuse of prisoners by U.S. military personnel.

    Right after we declare beating people to death to be the moral equivalent of going through their records.

  76. 76.

    pmm

    August 9, 2005 at 3:36 pm

    Hey, ppgaz, I’m only pointing out that “they started it” isn’t much of a defense.

  77. 77.

    John Cole

    August 9, 2005 at 3:37 pm

    Geek- For me, yes.

    Look- I have proven I can’t comment rationally about this, so I am done with this thread. If anyone has something particularly compelling they want me to answer, email me or IM me.

    There are enough fucked up kids out there already that I don;t want people even thinking about looking into their records, public or private, for purely political purposes. You can disagree with me, but I have said my piece. You can say yours.

    And if I am inconsistent with my application, you can beat me about the head and neck. Rhetorically.

  78. 78.

    neil

    August 9, 2005 at 3:38 pm

    So far I have seen people in this thread assume that the New York Times is a branch of the Democratic Party, that they were trying to prove that the Roberts’ kidnapped their children, that the Democrats are trying to convince people that Roberts’ children are gay, that defending a newspaper’s right to investigate a story makes you slimier than Karl Rove, and that the Times has bugged Roberts’ house.

    I hereby announce that the thread is now over.

  79. 79.

    Steve

    August 9, 2005 at 3:39 pm

    I think there is a difference between the administration nosing into the lives of private citizens, and the press nosing into the life of a public figure, but I understand you’re trying to make a sort of point here.

    I understand we’d all like to return to a rosy Camelot era where JFK sleeps around and the press colludes to keep it from the public for our own good; but we’re never going to be there again, even if it really was a good thing in the first place.

  80. 80.

    pmm

    August 9, 2005 at 3:40 pm

    PPGaz,

    It’s either right or wrong–I find it amazing that this website has no shortage of progressive commenters who applaud Mr. Cole when he criticizes the GOP or elements in the conservative movement, but they rarely can bring themselves to say that their side can actually do any wrong without caveats like a Bartcop primer to show how bad the opposition is. What’s doubly amazing is that you go on to write that you consider yourself moderate and that DKos’s more outlandish commenters don’t speak for you–much as I’d say that anonymous primary dirty tricks don’t speak for me, or most of the conservatives currently p*ssed at this fishing expedition.

  81. 81.

    Flagwaver

    August 9, 2005 at 3:41 pm

    John,

    Let the idiots keep sniffing after this story – every week they push this (or make contemptible comments about the sexuality of Roberts’ son, or the clothes they wore at the press announcement, for shit’s sake!), half a dozen Democratic Senators from moderate states will line up behind Roberts.

    They are so lacking in substance that they must stoop to this kind of bullshit to oppose a nominee they can’t oppose based on his record.

    But, it OK . . . ‘CAUSE CHIMPY MCBUSHITLER IS EVILLLL!!!!

    ‘Effin maroons.

  82. 82.

    pmm

    August 9, 2005 at 3:43 pm

    So far I have seen people in this thread assume that the New York Times is a branch of the Democratic Party, that they were trying to prove that the Roberts’ kidnapped their children, that the Democrats are trying to convince people that Roberts’ children are gay, that defending a newspaper’s right to investigate a story makes you slimier than Karl Rove, and that the Times has bugged Roberts’ house.

    Neil, be sure to take your strawmen with you when you leave the thread.

  83. 83.

    ppGaz

    August 9, 2005 at 3:44 pm

    “they started it” isn’t much of a defense.

    True.

    a Bartcop primer to show how bad the opposition is

    Not to show how bad they are, although, they are. To suggest that their outrage is a little hard to take.

    Different.

  84. 84.

    Defense Guy

    August 9, 2005 at 3:50 pm

    I hereby announce that the thread is now over.

    That is so like you, Nazi.

    Now the thread is over.

  85. 85.

    Another Jeff

    August 9, 2005 at 3:59 pm

    Maybe the NYT can look into Cindy Sheehans’ financial records, to see if she’s down there in Crawford because she cares, or because she’s just trying to make a buck.

    If the financials don’t turn up anything out of the ordinary, then no harm, no foul, and don’t report on it.

  86. 86.

    Blue Neponset

    August 9, 2005 at 4:01 pm

    Maybe the NYT can look into Cindy Sheehans’ financial records, to see if she’s down there in Crawford because she cares, or because she’s just trying to make a buck.

    Drudge already has that covered.

  87. 87.

    Another Jeff

    August 9, 2005 at 4:04 pm

    “Drudge already has that covered.”

    Actually, he just reported that she’s already met Bush.

  88. 88.

    Vlad

    August 9, 2005 at 4:04 pm

    “Maybe the NYT can look into Cindy Sheehans’ financial records, to see if she’s down there in Crawford because she cares, or because she’s just trying to make a buck.

    If the financials don’t turn up anything out of the ordinary, then no harm, no foul, and don’t report on it.”

    You realize that people are probably already doing this, right?

    Never did I think I’d see the day when people were calling for LESS research on the part of the media.

  89. 89.

    Blue Neponset

    August 9, 2005 at 4:08 pm

    Actually, he just reported that she’s already met Bush.

    The issue here isn’t what is being reported. It is what is being investigated.

  90. 90.

    pmm

    August 9, 2005 at 4:08 pm

    PPgaz,

    Not a bad point, but you’re conflating “they” to mean those folks who would defend the South Carolina primary calls are also those folks who object to the Roberts fishing expedition. As you yourself noted, just because elements on “your side” do something doesn’t mean that you support them or that they speak for you. And it doesn’t actually refute Mr. Cole or others on this thread who have made no effort to defend the South Carolina calls.

    While it was not your intent, it (and similar arguments in this thread) comes across as misdirection–ignoring the original charge by redirecting the topic to something the other guys did. You wouldn’t let me get away with posting a video of a decapitation in response to the murder of a detainee in U.S. custody, nor would I expect you to since it doesn’t actually address or excuse the original action.

    I know you don’t really have a dog in this fight, but the original question is whether adoption records should be fair game in the course of a political nomination, simply because it’s a political nomination? The only “weird” elements thus far mentioned (at least in this thread) are related to the national origin of the kids, so I suppose that there’d be no questions by political partisans or queries by the NYTimes if they’d been adopted in, say, Alabama?

  91. 91.

    Defense Guy

    August 9, 2005 at 4:09 pm

    Never did I think I’d see the day when people were calling for LESS research on the part of the media.

    The problem, for me, isn’t so much that they did the research, it’s that it got out. A little more circumspection on their part and none of this would even be an issue.

  92. 92.

    Phil Smith

    August 9, 2005 at 4:15 pm

    ppGaz Says:

    Lest anyone misunderstand my position, I agree, it is wrong.

    I’d like to see the same outrage from the right when their side is pulling this kind of shit. I’d like to see leaders who don’t wink at this stuff, be they donkeys or elephants

    Ohforpetessake, the only reason you post here is because Cole has spent so much time, energy, and bandwidth being outraged at rightwing comparables. Give me a break.

  93. 93.

    Rick

    August 9, 2005 at 4:17 pm

    Rush’s Chelsea comment was a political attack on the President, made via his daughter.

    Man, if as many people had actually seen the Rush TV show where he made the tasteless comparison, as have grumbled about it for the past 12 years, the video venture would never have been cancelled.

    Kind of a Bobby Thompson homer moment for the left: millions claiming to have been a witness.

    Cordially…

  94. 94.

    neil

    August 9, 2005 at 4:22 pm

    Rick, John brought it up, not me. Ask him whether he saw it or not.

  95. 95.

    ppGaz

    August 9, 2005 at 4:23 pm

    While it was not your intent, it (and similar arguments in this thread) comes across as misdirection—ignoring the original charge by redirecting the topic to something the other guys did. You wouldn’t let me get away with posting a video of a decapitation in response to the murder of a detainee in U.S. custody, nor would I expect you to since it doesn’t actually address or excuse the original action.

    Your point is well taken.

    While it was not your intent, it (and similar arguments in this thread) comes across as misdirection—ignoring the original charge by redirecting the topic to something the other guys did. You wouldn’t let me get away with posting a video of a decapitation in response to the murder of a detainee in U.S. custody, nor would I expect you to since it doesn’t actually address or excuse the original action.

    True enough.

    Good feedback.

  96. 96.

    ppGaz

    August 9, 2005 at 4:26 pm

    Kind of a Bobby Thompson homer moment for the left: millions claiming to have been a witness.

    Well, I saw it, on the day it was first broadcast.

    I’m still floored by it. I can’t understand why a guy with a huckster racket as successful as his would do such a dumb thing. And mind you, I give hucksters their props. Michael Moore, another great huckster.

    But anyway, if Limbaugh would apologize for the Chelsea Braces episode, he’d go up about three notches on my sliding scale of non-turdness (patented).

  97. 97.

    Steve

    August 9, 2005 at 4:26 pm

    Let the idiots keep sniffing after this story – every week they push this (or make contemptible comments about the sexuality of Roberts’ son, or the clothes they wore at the press announcement, for shit’s sake!), half a dozen Democratic Senators from moderate states will line up behind Roberts.

    This is brilliant. Because Drudge runs a story, and Atrios responds, the Left must be “pushing” the issue of Roberts’ adoptions.

    I personally saw the Roberts nomination as pretty vanilla and noncontroversial. But the Right has manufactured some new controversy every single week since the nomination. “They want to ask questions about the Federalist Society!!!” “Two guys at dkos think his son is gay!!!” “The liberals want to destroy the Republic with their overbroad document requests!!!” “Some reporter is asking questions about his kids’ adoptions!!!”

    The GOP has gotten so intoxicated from electoral success that they have forgotten how they got there, and have actually come to believe this sort of whining will serve them well just because it’s the do-no-wrong GOP behind it. Good luck with that strategy.

  98. 98.

    ppGaz

    August 9, 2005 at 4:29 pm

    Ohforpetessake, the only reason you post here is because Cole has spent so much time, energy, and bandwidth being outraged at rightwing comparables.

    Well, I don’t know exactly what that means, but I can tell you exactly why I post here:

    I like John. Even though I disagree with him a great deal of the time, I like his approach to this and his style. I take him to be an old-fashioned conservative, and I like old-fashioned conservatives. I’m a liberal who is a Barry Goldwater fan. Go figure.

  99. 99.

    Defense Guy

    August 9, 2005 at 4:42 pm

    Steve

    Are you really saying that the GOP is whining about stuff that they are making up themselves, and the left is just sitting there doing what? feeding the homeless?

    It should be vanilla. I suspect everyone here knows that with this president it will never be that way. It’s going to get dirty, so let’s not pretend otherwise.

  100. 100.

    jg

    August 9, 2005 at 4:54 pm

    Are you really saying that the GOP is whining about stuff that they are making up themselves, and the left is just sitting there doing what?

    I thik he’s saying htey are blowing an issue way out of proportion. This way they avoid real issues in the press. They came to power on wedge issues. It ain’t easy to get people to start voting againsttheir interest but once you got them doing it its pretty easy to maintain. Can’t find a wedge issue( Schiavo) make one up(NYT didn’t write a story but they were thinking something).

    If you don’t want to talk about issues where you can’t win then you have to deflect the focus to something your opponent is against. Keep the opponent on defense and he can’t use his strategy.

  101. 101.

    Steve

    August 9, 2005 at 4:57 pm

    Before the nomination there was a huge media blitz by the Right arguing that the Dems are going to smear any nominee, no matter what. Since the nomination there’s been faux outrage on top of faux outrage regarding every single thing the Dems ask, or might seek to ask. I saw about 50 pro-Roberts ads on cable TV, and I still haven’t seen the infamous NARAL ad or any other ad attacking Roberts, yet somehow there is this massive left-wing smear machine out there just waiting to leap into action. Now we’re all supposed to be outraged because the liberal NYT didn’t print a story.

    What I see going on in the real world is about 1/10 attacks on Roberts, and about 9/10 GOP complaints about the Left attacking Roberts, or planning to attack him.

  102. 102.

    aw

    August 9, 2005 at 5:04 pm

    Remember when Ken Starr investigated the adoption of her son by Julie Hiatt-Steele, implying that there was something irregular about it? It was intimidating and menacing because he wanted her to testify a certain way.

  103. 103.

    Bruce from Missouri

    August 9, 2005 at 6:14 pm

    Boo frickin’ hoo… You guys have had three election cycles to make a stand against that kind of behavior, and you haven’t done it, so this is the price you pay.

    Bruce

  104. 104.

    Floyd McWilliams

    August 9, 2005 at 9:28 pm

    Bush supporters in South Carolina made race-baiting phone calls saying that McCain had a “black child.”

    I call bullshit. Sounds like an urban legend to me, especially the stuff about the “fag candidate” flyers being passed around at churches. What the hell kind of churches tolerate such slurs?

    Conservatives had ample reasons to vote against McCain without the Bushies risking a backlash by floating nonsensical stories that a six-year-old could tell were made up.

  105. 105.

    Darleen

    August 9, 2005 at 9:54 pm

    assholes

    the reason the NYTimes didn’t publish the story was because they were exposed before they got that far.

    even the Gray Lady will leave off their usual agenda when the bottom line is threatened.

    This is NOT a partisan issue. It just clearly divides the decent from the indecent folk.

    And decent people were justifiably outraged that the thought of destruction of the lives of two preschoolers never even crossed the brain of the people who greenlighted this “lets see if we can get those adoption records” not.even.worthy.of.a.tabloid sleaze attack.

    y’ll that are still making excuses? You are beyond contemptible. If I met you in person, I’d spit in your face.

  106. 106.

    wilson

    August 9, 2005 at 10:28 pm

    I’m not so sure this is legal under Irish law. The applicable law is properly the law of the domicile of the birth mom, I suspect. Then it is the law of the domicile of the baby. The domicile is where one lives with the intent to remain indefinitely. That is not (and never was) Latin America, as I unsderstand the facts.

    I am prepared to “look the other way” in this particular case, but adoption as an alternative to abortion is certainly topical.

    In my view, the only folks who can claim significant privacy interests here are the Moms in Ireland who gave up their babies for adoption. There privacy the press and bloggers can and should respect.

    There is a price of $20,000 I have heard bandied around as what it costs to “process” a private foreign adoption (aside from legal fees, I believe). That $20,000 goes partly to support the Mom, partly, I suspect, as a bounty of finders fee. Supply and demand is what it is. Some general articles on that point would serve the public interest, in my view.

    If the transit through Latin America simply skirted Irish adoption law and US immigration law, that does not make me incline against R, but it does make me wonder about any pro-lifers arguing about how adoption is going to save the country from “culture of death”.

    Since we are going to trust R to decide on private and personal questions about lives of death row inmates (with life histories of abuse, adptions, etc.), and the details of lives of women denied abortions (or proposed to be denied abortions), how is it so “beyond the pale” to inquire generally about adoption as experienced by R, without prying into the lives of those moms who gave up their kids for adoption by R?

    I am not preapred to ignore the general trends concerning adoption, though I would certainly agree that the particular facts of the case here (meaning the circumstances of the birth mothers) are properly off limits. Those facts are also not public, as far as I can tell.

  107. 107.

    Kimmitt

    August 9, 2005 at 11:18 pm

    I am curious if the NY Times is doing any ‘research’ that will show a good side of Roberts or if the conclusion is already foregone that he is the devil in an expensive suit.

    Here’s the page which links to all NY Times coverage of Roberts; I don’t think it supports your knee-jerk condemnation.

  108. 108.

    lily

    August 10, 2005 at 12:09 am

    Actually, I think it is the right wing tht is pushing this story, not the left. Why? Because this and the Volokh Conspiracy are the only two right wings blogs I read and HERE is where I learned about this story. This story isn’t on any of the twenty or so left/middle blogs I check daily. I’m a teacher on vacation with nothing to do but sit on my butt and read blogs all day –and this isn’t a biggee on the left. If you stop blogging about it, John, the story will die. If it isn’t dead already.

  109. 109.

    Krusty Krab

    August 10, 2005 at 12:25 am

    After the Swift Boats, anything is fair game.

    I get it. 250 decorated veterans who served with him questioning Kerry’s record is over the line = Anything is fair game. You people are utterly pathetic. So how do you talk to a narcissist like Kerry, anyway? Would it go something like this?

    “And how was Christmas in Cambodia, Mr. Kerry? Hope you had a good time in Paris meeting with the enemy. Too bad those American POWs reacted so badly to your patriotic speech about them being war criminals. Sorry about that accident where you lost your medals ribbons, too.”

  110. 110.

    Mason

    August 10, 2005 at 8:45 am

    Actually, I think it is the right wing tht is pushing this story, not the left. Why? Because this and the Volokh Conspiracy are the only two right wings blogs I read and HERE is where I learned about this story. This story isn’t on any of the twenty or so left/middle blogs I check daily.

    I guess you missed the fact that John’s post was directed at Atrios, one of the most popular lefty blogs?!?

  111. 111.

    Steve

    August 10, 2005 at 9:33 am

    Bush supporters in South Carolina made race-baiting phone calls saying that McCain had a “black child.”

    I call bullshit. Sounds like an urban legend to me, especially the stuff about the “fag candidate” flyers being passed around at churches. What the hell kind of churches tolerate such slurs?

    Conservatives had ample reasons to vote against McCain without the Bushies risking a backlash by floating nonsensical stories that a six-year-old could tell were made up.

    Best comment of the year. What the hell kind of churches tolerate offensive remarks about homosexuals, indeed.

  112. 112.

    ppGaz

    August 10, 2005 at 9:43 am

    So how do you talk to a narcissist like Kerry, anyway?

    “How the hell did you let that lying alcoholic smirking chimp beat you?”

  113. 113.

    Geek, Esq.

    August 10, 2005 at 10:32 am

    assholes

    the reason the NYTimes didn’t publish the story was because they were exposed before they got that far.

    even the Gray Lady will leave off their usual agenda when the bottom line is threatened.

    This is NOT a partisan issue. It just clearly divides the decent from the indecent folk.

    And decent people were justifiably outraged that the thought of destruction of the lives of two preschoolers never even crossed the brain of the people who greenlighted this “lets see if we can get those adoption records” not.even.worthy.of.a.tabloid sleaze attack.

    y’ll that are still making excuses? You are beyond contemptible. If I met you in person, I’d spit in your face.

    This vintage is a stunning combination of wild speculation and sputtering rage. Wingnut Spectator will recommend this for its readers.

  114. 114.

    Geek, Esq.

    August 10, 2005 at 10:36 am

    It’s either right or wrong—I find it amazing that this website has no shortage of progressive commenters who applaud Mr. Cole when he criticizes the GOP or elements in the conservative movement, but they rarely can bring themselves to say that their side can actually do any wrong without caveats like a Bartcop primer to show how bad the opposition is. What’s doubly amazing is that you go on to write that you consider yourself moderate and that DKos’s more outlandish commenters don’t speak for you—much as I’d say that anonymous primary dirty tricks don’t speak for me, or most of the conservatives currently p*ssed at this fishing expedition.

    Republicans are the only ones pushing this story. The Times didn’t even run a story.

    Crikey. Whining and bitching about a story that never ran is pathetic.

  115. 115.

    smiter

    August 10, 2005 at 10:53 am

    And his commenters get what he is doing:

    So now you’re responsible for everything your commenters say?

    Really, John, I come here for your normally level-headed comments, not for this sort of puffed-up outrage. Dredging for slime and trumpeting it is what lesser bloggers do.

  116. 116.

    Mason

    August 10, 2005 at 10:54 am

    Republicans are the only ones pushing this story. The Times didn’t even run a story.

    Once again, I ask, did you people completely miss the fact that John was responding to a post by Atrios pushing this story, one of the most popular lefty blogs on the Internets?

  117. 117.

    Geek, Esq.

    August 10, 2005 at 11:00 am

    Once again, I ask, did you people completely miss the fact that John was responding to a post by Atrios pushing this story, one of the most popular lefty blogs on the Internets?

    All this outrage over a liberal blogger’s single post in response to a full weekend of rightwingers frothing at the mouth?

    The wingnuts complain up one side and down another for 3-4 solid days, and then one liberal blogger has the temerity to say “well, it seems a little weird to be adopting Irish kids in Latin America.”

    Seriously, why are conservatives so angry and easily outraged? You own every power structure in the country.

  118. 118.

    ppGaz

    August 10, 2005 at 11:11 am

    why are conservatives so angry and easily outraged?

    Asperberger’s Syndrome?

  119. 119.

    DougJ

    August 10, 2005 at 2:49 pm

    I’m sorry this will offend some of you, but these extreme left-wingers like Mr. Duncan are undermining the war effort. They are literally out to get Bush at any cost, at any price, even if that price means destroying our safety and costing lives. Free speech is a right that comes with responbilities. If the left-wing bloggers can’t speak responsbibly, then this right should be taken from them. It’s that simple.

  120. 120.

    Defense Guy

    August 10, 2005 at 3:51 pm

    In terms of anger and the war. I think the anger comes from the fact that those of us who have paid attention to our history (last 50 years or so), know that our military is always 2 minutes from losing any war so long as it is allowed to politically controlled and so long as the people lose faith in the effort. What is so surprising is that our enemy is basing his whole battle plan on that fact, and around half of our country either doesn’t know it or just doesn’t care.

    If the US does not win this war, it will be because the people did not have the will to win. It won’t be the first time either.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

2023 Pet Calendars

Pet Calendar Preview: A
Pet Calendar Preview: B

*Calendars can not be ordered until Cafe Press gets their calendar paper in.

Recent Comments

  • lowtechcyclist on Tuesday Night Open Thread: ‘Bill Barr’s Image Rehab Is Kaput’ (Feb 1, 2023 @ 6:45am)
  • Llelldorin on Late Night Open Thread: The AI-nimal Wife (Feb 1, 2023 @ 6:43am)
  • lowtechcyclist on Tuesday Night Open Thread: ‘Bill Barr’s Image Rehab Is Kaput’ (Feb 1, 2023 @ 6:42am)
  • WereBear on Late Night Open Thread: The AI-nimal Wife (Feb 1, 2023 @ 6:39am)
  • lowtechcyclist on Late Night Open Thread: The AI-nimal Wife (Feb 1, 2023 @ 6:35am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Favorite Dogs & Cats
Classified Documents: A Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup

Front-pager Twitter

John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
ActualCitizensUnited

Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice   

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!