Blogoland

Look, I know this is Rush, but I think it illustrates an earlier point of mine about the Roberts-adoption-NYT angle:

This is the kind of stuff floating around out there, and this is the kind of stuff that if you [say] it to a New York Times reporter they'll go, "Oh, really?" and they'll conduct and begin an investigation into it, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, just supposition, just presumption, and now we know "it's a dirty little secret; everybody does it, Democrats, Republicans, everybody. Nobody wants little babies of color.

Can we be clear here? Just for the record? The NYT has never published a single thing on this matter. Rush is reporting something he read on Drudge. He is attacking a phantom. He is the one publicizing it. He is the one exploiting the Roberts children for whatever political gain he thinks he's achieving.

Interesting philosophy on reporting Rush has, though. See, the only time you investigate something is when you're absolutely sure of the result. I think that tells you a lot.