Ann Althouse weighs in on what she is calling “Plaidgate.”
To her credit, Ann isn’t backing down:
But you have to see the sequence of photos of Roberts grouped with lots of men and not one woman. The overall picture of enthusiastic male comradery is quite strong. Yet, of course, the NYT has complete deniability. Shame on me, they can say, for reading anything into it. That’s why I considered it “subtly constructed.”
That’s key, the “complete deniability.” That’s what caught my attention, the question: Was the piece hardball politics? Bob Sikes, wrote in Ann’s comments, that the Times profile was “a fine, well-crafted ‘dog-whistle’ piece.”
No, they don’t [have deniability]. What [the NYTimes has] is a long track record of brilliantly written but biased hit pieces. And they’re the only ones getting “outted” in the dust-up.
Yoest . . .led with the pants and emphasized them by including the picture. She reinforces your point, . . .but has also selected a single detail to highlight in order to expose or accentuate how ludicrous and contrived the implied insinuations truly are.
He gets it. Funny how the Lefties in their rush to brand me humourless, missed the joke right in front of them.
Bill Kristol says that the confirmation will be a battle. The Americablog throws a
dud bomb, Is Supreme Court Nominee Roberts Lying Already?