« Selected readings from the sickbed | Main | PM Blair's big talk »

August 04, 2005

Desperation at the Grey Lady -- Get Roberts' Kids!


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.

Previously the WASHINGTON POST Style section had published a story criticizing the outfits Mrs. Roberts had them wear at the announcement ceremony.

I just don't have enough swear words at my disposal to adequately express my utter contempt and outrage at such clearly despicable and indecent behavior on the part of the NYT editorial staff.

May they rot in Hell.

UPDATE but of course, never let it be said that ::gag::choke::puke:: Conservatives ever adopt children save for the most puerile of reasons. TBogg is on the case (h/t Jeff Goldstein)

I'm waiting for an article that questions a man and his wife building high-powered careers, marrying late, and then, in their mid-forties, adopting infants to accessorize their public profiles. When these kids are graduating from high school, their parents will be in their sixties. I'm all for adoption, but I cringe when I see middle-aged successful couples adopt children to decorate their lives in an effort to "have it all".
Hmmm ... a cursory mucking through Bogg's dementia fails to reveal a daily dose of snark towards John and Elizabeth Edwards who also "decorated their lives" with a couple of young ones when they hit their 50's.

Posted by Darleen at August 4, 2005 09:46 AM


Maybe we should look into the NY Times' owners' ancestry. Probably quite a few bastards.

Posted by: Kevin Murphy at August 4, 2005 10:15 AM

I don't understand what they hope to find.


Posted by: rightwingsparkle at August 4, 2005 10:45 AM

We are adoptive parents, and, granted, our adoptions are open. But, if any entity felt that they needed to know the details of our adoptions, the first person I would call is our lawyer, as much as I dislike lawyers.
This is appalling.

Posted by: Ted Ketterer at August 4, 2005 11:41 AM

Followed the link from Brian's site :)

It used to be that wealth and success was considered a good thing for raising a family. That this person sees it as "decorating their lives" says more about him than about Roberts... or even John ("gonna get up out of that wheelchair and walk again") Edwards.

Posted by: RD at August 4, 2005 04:22 PM

Sadly, I am not surprised. There isn't an ounce of decency or intellectual honesty in the MSM or the US Senate.

Posted by: Gene West at August 4, 2005 08:34 PM

Damn it, and after all the trouble the White House went through to print out the "Fun Facts" sheet for the press. I've gotta say, looking into someone's history before a month ago is a new low for the entire press corps.

Posted by: Mi-how at August 4, 2005 08:45 PM

And of course, "looking into someone's history before a month ago" is progressive speak for "figuring out a loophole through which your paper's lawyers can try to force open private adoption records on the outside chance something might be amiss."

Posted by: Jeff G at August 5, 2005 01:00 PM

This TBogg idiot would certainly cringe when he sees my husband and me with our perfect son whom we adopted from an orphanage in Russia. Thank God for infertility or we never would have found him. Gee, we would have loved to have had him before we were 41 but the ol'fertility treatment didn't work.

And The Babe is such a lovely decorative accessory to our already complete lives when he's screaming and vomiting at 0300.

I'm more than happy to make the likes of TBogg cringe. Certainly he cringes at the sight of puppies, sunsets, and children recovering from leukemia.

Posted by: Barbara at August 5, 2005 01:56 PM

a daily dose of snark towards John and Elizabeth Edwards who also "decorated their lives" with a couple of young ones when they hit their 50's.

How nice of you to mock the loss of the Edwards' son in an auto accident. Why don't you spit on his grave while you're at it?

Oh, and there was plenty of speculation from right-wing blogs and media sources over whether the two young Edwards children were 'naturally' conceived. Can't remember that? Oh, hypocrisy truly is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.

Posted by: ahem at August 5, 2005 04:30 PM

OK, "Ahem": So it's all right to conceive children in your 50's if you've tragically lost a child in an auto accident, but it's NOT ok to adopt a child in your 40's when you've been unable to conceive? TBogg was criticizing rich public people decorating their lives with little ones. He's a moron. Mocking the pain and misfortune of others is pathetic.

How people design their families is no one else's business. Let others "cringe" if they feel so inclined. Do the likes of TBogg cringe when they see an 18 year old on Medicaid having her third kid out of wedlock? Probably not. But people who waited til they could afford to raise children, couldn't have them naturally, then adopted ORPHANS are to be mocked.

Posted by: Barbara at August 5, 2005 08:21 PM

ahem, or is it WHT?

My statement about Boggyboy's insipid hypocrisy does not constitute an attack on Edwards.

BTW, please provide me the links to the "right-wing" media attacks on the Edwards children's conception.

Was the Washington Times trying to get hold of the ferility clinic records?

Posted by: Darleen at August 6, 2005 08:12 AM