Three Way News: Sometimes you just know

Monday, August 08, 2005

Sometimes you just know

Sometimes you read something and you just know it's phony. Or, if not phony, ginned up beyond all belief. Here's the latest from the FRC on Roberts:

Late last Thursday, it was reported that the New York Times had opened an investigation into the adoption records for the children of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. This is on the heels of a Washington Post article that criticized the clothes Judge Roberts' wife and children wore the night of his nomination. ... What kind of people would publish vicious attacks on his little boy and little girl for how they were dressed? What kind of people would try to get at a judicial nominee because of the occupation or work of their spouse? Or attempt to dredge up damaging material through private adoption records? The unfortunate answer is they are the kind of people who have been picking our judges for years. They are also the people who will be picking our future judges unless we stay active today.

Before I could get to an answer on the Washington Post story, I had to browse through the same accusation in different forms:

This is in contrast to how the media (in this case the Washington Post) criticized the clothes that the two tiny Roberts children were wearing while the President introduced their father as nominee. Can you imagine what the fall-out would have been had a member of the press made unflattering comments about Chelsea Clinton, either before or after the cosmetic enhancements? The reporter or columnist who dared to make such a statement would be fired on the spot!

Instead of imagining, let's recall what happened to Rush Limbaugh after he called Chelsea Clinton the White House dog. On national TV. Well, it was less trouble than the oxycontin.

Here's something I don't get to say very often: Human Events has the most informative take on this fiction:

Next, enter one Robin Givhan via her Washington Post column July 22, p. CO2, a more subtle hit-piece somewhat reminiscent of fashion designer, Mr. Blackwell. But Mr. Blackwell only poked fun at celebs with tasteless, flamboyant wardrobes who deserved his barbs -- never little children.

Givhan, a fashion writer, takes some bargain-basement, cheap shots at "John, Jane, Josie and Jack" because of their attire at the White House the night President Bush announced his nomination of Roberts. She found it "syrupy nostalgia."

That's right: the Washington Post's fashion writer wrote about clothes! Now, let's go back to the start of this little chain, from the FRC email: "What kind of people would publish vicious attacks on his little boy and little girl for how they were dressed? ... The unfortunate answer is they are the kind of people who have been picking our judges for years. They are also the people who will be picking our future judges unless we stay active today."

Who picks our justices? According to the FRC, it's fashion writers at the Washington Post. But I guess we all knew that, deep down inside.

(Also, Givhan viciously wrote that the children were adorable. Odd that the FRC didn't quote that part, isn't it?)

2 Comments:

"Can you imagine what the fall-out would have been had a member of the press made unflattering comments about Chelsea Clinton,

either before or after the cosmetic enhancements?"

Nice

By Robin, at 10:29 AM