Leftist Northern California federal district judge Marilyn Hall Patel has written an open letter to John Roberts. (Via How Appealing.) In the letter, she asks him to request his supporters to stop running ads:

The president asked for dignified confirmation proceedings. The very next day the ads began. So much for dignity. Perhaps the president or even the so-called Gang of Fourteen could intercede. But you more than anyone have it in your power to persuade. I am sure that a phone call or a public statement from you imploring cessation of these ads by those who support you would have a puissant effect upon this crass exploitation.

But what about the idea that Judge Roberts’s detractors would continue running ads against him, and would thereby attain a disproportionate influence over the public discourse concerning his nomination? Judge Patel addresses that issue in the next paragraph:

Whether those who oppose you would respond to your entreaties is another question. However, they would be hard pressed to pursue a one-sided campaign. I, and I am sure many of my colleagues would, implore all proponents and opponents to refrain. These groups have never suffered from an inability to reach and influence the Senate. They have the ability to use traditional forms of lobbying and to testify before the Judiciary Committee.

I have emphasized the word “would” for a reason. The tense Judge Patel uses indicates that she has not yet asked anyone to refrain from doing anything. Just as Roberts’s entreaties would sway only conservatives (and probably not even them), entreaties from the famously liberal Judge Patel could not possibly sway anyone but like-minded liberals. But she apparently hasn’t made the request, because she doesn’t want leftists to unilaterally disarm — the exact thing she is asking conservatives to do.

And if I’m wrong, and Judge Patel already has requested leftists to back down — well, it had a hell of an effect, huh?

Sorry, Judge Patel. Conservatives, including Judge Roberts, are not that stupid. But nice try.

P.S. If the nominee were female and the open letter were from a male judge, how would it play for the male judge’s open letter to call the female nominee “easy on the eyes” — as Patel calls Judge Roberts in her letter?

I love Winston Churchill quips. This is a good one.

The Dallas Morning News reports that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has denounced the New York Times‘s decision to investigate, to some degree, the adoption of John Roberts’s children.

P.S. Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin prints letters from some of her readers on the topic. The letters are eloquent, insightful, and appropriately angry.

P.P.S. And from Malkin’s trackbacks, I see that Wonkette mocks Malkin’s outrage — gee, all they did was investigate. If the story never runs, then no harm, no foul.

Let the investigation of Wonkette’s personal life begin. (That is, if anyone really cares.)

Nancy Who? Well, that’s part of the point. Nancy Clark is apparently some sportswriter who recently wrote a column slagging bloggers:

Today I’ll be talking with Dan McCarney. The bloggers won’t.

I’ll also be posing questions during Iowa State’s media day to Bret Meyer, Todd Blythe and Jason Scales.

The bloggers won’t.

Monday, I’ll be chatting with Kirk Ferentz.

The bloggers won’t.

I’ll also get in a word at Iowa’s media day with Drew Tate.

The bloggers won’t.

Tuesday, I’ll interview Mark Farley at Northern Iowa’s media day.

The bloggers won’t.

Now, I have no earthly idea who Dan McCarney, Bret Meyer, Todd Blythe, Jason Scales, Kirk Ferentz, Drew Tate, or Mark Farley are. But that just might reflect my utter lack of sports knowledge. Let’s just assume that Dan, Bret, Todd, Jason, Kirk, Drew, and Mark are the biggest stars to hit the sports scene since DiMaggio.

There are still a few things Nancy Clark hasn’t done that bloggers have. For example, Captain Ed says to Nancy:

Oh, and by the way, I interviewed Lynn Swann and J. C. Watts last year. I interviewed Bernard Goldberg and Rep. Mark Kennedy. You didn’t.

My examples aren’t as good as Ed’s, but here are a few:

I interviewed TankerKC, the first known person to express any doubts on the Internet about the authenticity of the forged CBS National Guard documents. Nancy Clark didn’t.

Other than his posts on Free Republic, I published the first statements on the Web from Harry W. MacDougald (aka Buckhead), who is generally credited with breaking that scandal, about how and when he formed his suspicions about the forged CBS documents. Nancy Clark didn’t.

I interviewed Bob Sipchen, editor of the L.A. Times Sunday Opinion “Current” section. Nancy Clark didn’t.

And I interviewed Senator Carl Levin — or at least pretended to. Nancy Clark didn’t even try to fake that one.

But it’s not just about the interviews. I provided the tip for a front-page story about Justice Ginsburg in the L.A. Times. Nancy Clark didn’t. I had an op-ed piece published in the L.A. Times. Nancy Clark didn’t. I have been mentioned in books by Dan Gillmor and Hugh Hewitt. Nancy Clark hasn’t. I caused a panel from the Ninth Circuit to issue a correction to one of their opinions. Nancy Clark didn’t.

You might start to get the impression that it’s all about me. Well, maybe in my mind. But in the real world, other bloggers can play this game — much more effectively. Just a few off the top of my head:

Dean Esmay interviewed Swift Vets Steve Gardner, Van Odell, and George Elliott. Nancy Clark didn’t.

Bill from INDC Journal interviewed CBS Evening News reporter Richard Schlesinger about the forged documents scandal. And he helped break that story to begin with by interviewing a forensic document examiner named Dr. Philip Bouffard. Nancy Clark didn’t.

Jeff Goldstein from Protein Wisdom has interviewed, or at least pretended to interview, individuals ranging from Ted Kennedy to Karl Rove’s breakfast burrito.

Nancy Clark hasn’t.

And Nancy Clark sure as heck didn’t do any of the stuff described here.

Need I go on?

I don’t think so. But I am counting on commenters and other bloggers to fill in for me. What have you done that Nancy Clark hasn’t? (With your blogs, I mean.)

P.S. If I were writing irony as fiction, I couldn’t do better than to juxtapose this actual passage from Clark’s column:

Know that if the information is coming from the mainstream media – the accredited reporters, broadcasters and photojournalists – they are following strict professional guidelines that the looser outlets don’t require. The information has been verified, has been scrutinized by editors, has been fact-checked and proofed.

with this editor’s note from the beginning of the column:

Editor’s note: A column by Nancy Clark published in Thursday’s newspaper included the incorrect use of the word “voracity”, instead of the word “veracity”. Clark submitted the column without the error. The mistake was generated by an editor after she filed the column.

Man, this stuff just writes itself.

UPDATE: Thanks to Ed for the link as well as the pointer to Sister Toldjah’s excellent post on the same topic.

I just can’t bring myself to care. Every time I see a post about it, my eyes glaze over. If someone can explain it to me in 20 words or less, have at it. 10 words or less would be even better.

UPDATE: Okay. I get it. I see and agree with the media bias angle. Probably the reason it doesn’t grab me is because Air America seems so inconsequential. I find it hard to believe that more than a few dozen people listen to Al Franken and Co. anyway.

I don’t think I’m going to become Air Scamerica Central. But it looks like the blogosphere doesn’t need my help to cover the story. At least I’ll stop skipping other people’s posts on the issue.