Interlock PrayerNet

One of the concepts of my Ideal Leadership Model is that those who find themselves in leadership positions are not always the wisest or most courageous, but rather those at the right place, at the right time, doing the right things, with the right people.  The Senator Joseph McCarthy was a buffoon and a shameless publicity hound who stumbled on the find of the century – Communist infiltrators in the US State Department.  To this day, no one knows exactly how many there were, but they did exist.  By raising the Communist canard at everyone, however, McCarthy seriously jeopardized American civil liberties. 

At the height of his powers, he attacked the United States Army and demanded hearings be held on them.  From April 22^nd to the 17^th of June in 1954, the Army-McCarthy hearings were conducted on live television.  These were the first nationally televised congressional inquiry and they became a landmark in the merging of American politics and television.   The two principle characters were Joseph McCarthy, of course, and a small, seemingly frail lawyer by the name of Joseph N. Welch of the Boston law firm of Hale & Dorr, representing the United States Army.  

It was the afternoon of June 9^th that brought the emotional climax of the hearings. The prelude was a pre-hearing agreement between Welch and Roy Cohn, McCarthy’s chief counsel, to exclude any reference to a certain Fred Fischer, a young lawyer at Hale & Dorr, who had once belonged to the National Lawyer’s Guild, an organization that was known to have Communist ties.  McCarthy had agreed with this decision since Fischer had absolutely nothing to do with the Army nor was he in any way connected with those hearings.  But after being wounded by Welch’s clever rebuttals in recent days, McCarthy decided on this particular afternoon, to sting Welch where he knew it would hurt. He specifically mentioned Fischer and alleged that he harbored communist sympathies.

Welch responded with a righteous outburst that hit all the hot buttons: "Until this moment, senator, I think I never gauged your cruelty or recklessness....Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" When McCarthy tried to strike back, Welch refused to even listen and demanded the chairman to "call the next witness."  Pausing just a beat, the hushed gallery erupted in applause.  And it was all captured on television.  McCarthy, stunned by this turn of events, turned to Cohn and stammered, "What happened?"

What happened was that McCarthy was defanged on live television.  The issue of decency countered all others – and McCarthy had crossed the line – and the American people agreed.  There is a limit and those limits are defined by decency.  It is what makes us a civilized people. 

It is the same indignation that I felt when I heard that the New York Times  was investigating the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts.  When I heard this I wanted to cry out, “Have you sense of decency, sir, at long last?  Have you left no sense of decency?” 

Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: "Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue. We did not order up an investigation of the adoptions. We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions." 

For the record, Judge Roberts and his wife adopted two children, Josie, now age 5, and Jack, age 4, from Latin America.  Roberts’ young son Jack delighted millions of Americans during his father’s Supreme Court nomination announcement ceremony when he would not stop dancing while the President and his father spoke to a national television audience.  The Washington Post could not help themselves, though, when they published a story criticizing the outfits Mrs. Roberts had them wear at the announcement ceremony. 

Okay, criticize their sense of taste if you want, and even their behavior in public if you must, but delving into adoption records is something else entirely!  One top Washington official with knowledge of the New York Times action declared: “Trying to pry into the lives of the Roberts’ family like this is despicable. Children’s lives should be off limits. The Times is putting politics over fundamental decency.”  (There is that word again!) One top Republican official when told of the situation was incredulous. “This can’t possibly be true?”

Oh, but it can.  It can be true when a major media outlet is so consumed with partisan politics that it intrudes in one of the intimate aspects of any family – their adopted children.  Obviously this is an area that I have some personal interest in that I am the father of an adopted child.  Many of my friends have also adopted children, all from abroad.  It is a torturous procedure and extremely expensive.  What in the name of all that’s holy did the New York Slimes, excuse me, Times, expect to find out in their ‘investigation’? 

A reader on one of my favorite websites offered a suggested article for the Times:  (Note: This is a parody…)

“It seems clear to me that the goal and hope of the Timesfolk was to find the birth mothers of the two Roberts children; send a reporter (and photographer!) to some poor Latin American village and interview the two women. After some coaxing and editing the following would appear on the front page of the (Sunday) NY Times:

Maria Sanchez earns twenty five cents a year and survives without medical care and in a cardboard shack. Four years ago an American helicoptered into her poor mountain village (there are no roads) and offered her the equivalent of four year's salary to hand over her newest child, one month old Jose. Eighteen year-old Maria, who couldn't feed her other six children went to her local Priest who advised her that it would be best for all the children if she accepted the ‘Gringo's generous offer.’

The New York Times has now learned that Jose is Jack, the adorable adopted son of John Roberts, George Bush's nominee to the US Supreme Court. The Times was able to interview Maria who has never forgotten the day that Jose waved goodbye from the window of the departing helicopter.

"Maria, do you want your son back?"

"Maria: Si."

"Maria, do you think that fellow Catholic, ultra-conservative Supreme Court nominee John Roberts stole your baby?"

"Maria: Si." (End of parody – which so easily could be true!)

FOX News reported that unfortunately for the New York Times, they found that even with their “great care” and “sensitivity” about this issue – they asked lawyers who specialize in adoption cases for advice on how to get into the sealed court records of John Roberts’ two adopted children.  The fact that they were turned down flat by everyone they approached might have something to do with their editor reporting that the issue was not pursued after the initial inquiries.  They could not find anyone willing to get as low as they would.   

I simply do not have words to describe how irresponsible and reprehensible I find this action. Knowing first hand the amount of time, commitment, love, and yes, money it takes to adopt a child, not to mention two, I have nothing but the highest praise for John Roberts and his wife.  On this issue alone, they should be praised for their selflessness.  They should be held up as family role models.  That as prestigious an institution as the New York Times would stoop into the gutter this far to attempt to find some stain on this family is beneath contempt. 

Joseph McCarthy lost his moral authority after that memorable exchange with Joseph Welch.  As far as I am concerned, the New York Times has lost all credibility with me.  They have no decency – and decent people should want nothing to do with them.