The Devils That Made The NYT Do It

The American Spectator prowler reports today that the inspiration behind the New York Times' vile and vicious slander of Judge John Roberts' adoption of his two children is just the demonspawn you might have suspected:

It was opposition research generated by pro-abortion group NARAL - and distributed to Democratic operatives working against the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John Roberts - that spurred these operatives to encourage reporters in Washington to look into the Roberts' adoption process.

"They [NARAL and other anti-Roberts groups] went into this with a laundry list of things, and the idea that given what was at stake nothing was out of bounds," says a Democratic lobbyist who is part of the Roberts fight. "That's why you saw that ridiculous Roberts-is-gay thing spinning through the blogosphere, and why you had serious reporters looking at the adoption issue."

Another Democratic operative said that NARAL officials hit on the adoption issue because "Some of these NARAL and really aggressive pro-choice groups see political motivations behind everything. They see people who adopt children - beyond the desire for children - having an ideological predisposition against choice issues. It isn't just about kids, it's about politics." [emphases added]

All the psychological elements of the contemporary hard left are present here that we have been discussing recently - their utter ruthlessness, amorality, and solipsistic projection of their own such traits onto their foes, thus justifying, in their minds, this "anything goes" mentality. And, as they ought to have gotten used to be now, it backfired badly.

How badly did they backfire?

Seemingly sensing that the left was organizing a whispering campaign about Roberts, the White House through back channels encouraged the leak of information that Roberts through his law firm did pro bono work on behalf of a gay-rights lawsuit before the Supreme Court. "That story just killed us," says the lobbyist. "How do you push back on that?" [emphasis added]

When the other side gets so ridiculously extreme, it leaves your own nearly the entire field of play on which to maneuver. Which may mean, in this case, that a SCOTUS nomination that was going to get through regardless will with the left's remaining tattered credibility as a needless casualty.

This, however, is not an unmixed blessing for the good guys, as the article's punchline disquietingly reveals:

The White House and Roberts supporters saw little downside to encouraging the gay lawsuit story to get out, according to Republican sources. "The guys who normally would have gone out there and really blasted Roberts were already out there backing him. They could criticize him, but not pummel him the way they might have were the story released before the nomination was made," says a GOP surrogate on the Roberts nomination. "If this continues, this nomination fight will be the model for future nominations."

For us "once bitten, twice shy" types who would prefer to know we're getting another Scalia/Thomas-class nominee instead of having to cross our fingers and hope for the best every time, this will not be welcome news - at least not until Dubya improves the GOP appointment track record dramatically.

But that outcome sure looks like it is precisely what NARAL and the gang fear is going to happen. Which makes one wonder what other public relations IEDs are still waiting to be set off as the Roberts convey rolls on toward Mount Olympus.

But not which media organization is embedded with the "insurgents."