Ann Coulter Lies Again

[Silicon]

Now Mehlman, HIM they're TRYING to out!

 

[DaChew]

I don't think I understand what you are trying to say.

Like Lurker, I don't know anything about Terry, but Cheney and Keyes both made national news and talked to reporters about their sexual orientation. I don't think they had any expectations of privacy or secrecy about their being gay. It really could have only reasonably been new information to those people who hasn't been paying attention to the news. (which begs the question: why were they reading that op/ed?)

If it wasn't "lying" it was at least "deliberate misrepresentation" (if there is a difference between the two).

All I'm saying is that the term "outing" is vague. A person who confides to friends and family that they are gay can be said to have "outed" themselves. Someone who holds a press conference to announce they're gay is also "outing" themself even though they've already told their friends and family. A person who affirms to a reporter that they are gay is outing themsleves but that is obviously not the same as a reporter using that fact in an Op/Ed of the NYT.

 

[DaChew]

Whatever happened to don't ask, don't tell...?

Oh, so now it's Clinton's fault.

 

[Ladewig]

A person who affirms to a reporter that they are gay is outing themsleves but that is obviously not the same as a reporter using that fact in an Op/Ed of the NYT.

Obviously not the same? If those are not the same, then what do you expect a reporter to do with that information?

 

[BPSCG]

Oh, so now it's Clinton's fault.

Everything is Clinton's fault.

You doubtless know the Curse of the Bambino is dead, but the Curse of Hillary thrives. For the unaware:

• In 2000, Hillary Clinton ran for the United States Senate from the state of New York.
• During the campaign, the New York Yankees made the baseball playoffs.
• Hillary Clinton, who had lived in New York approximately 15 minutes, announced she had always been a Yankees fan.
• The Yankees went on to win the World Series that year.
• New Yorkers, normally possessors of some of the finest BS detectors in the world, unaccountably missed Clinton's bogus claim, and elected her to the United States Senate just a few days after the Yankees' World Series victory.
• The Yankees have not won the World Series since.

Coincidence? You be the judge.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Whatever happened to don't ask, don't tell...?

"Don't ask, don't tell" hinges on the supposition that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of. Coulter thinks it is, therefore pointing out that certain people are gay is being nasty. Dan Savage, on the other hand, sees nothing wrong with homosexuality, and therefore doesn't think there's anything mean about pointing out individuals (at least those who aren't keeping it secret) as being gay.

The position of, "oh, we tolerate it, but let's keep it quiet" is unpalatable to many, because that's a more polite but very traditional way to repress something.

 

[Upchurch]

So, how is this supposed to work? Staying in the closet is somehow shameful, but if you come out and you're related to a public figure, you become fodder for public debate?

It is fodder for public debate if being gay is in direct opposition to your public figure's political position and you make public announcements to reporters of the fact that you are gay. Especially considering Alan Keyes rather desparaging remarks concerning homosexuals (and assuming he is still planning on trying to be a congressman at some point), it is probably important for his constituants to know what is more important to him: his family or his anti-gay agenda.

What's the lesson we're supposed to draw? If you're a conservative public figure, don't have a gay child? That's helpful.

The lesson I hope these politicians would draw is that making discriminitory policies against and uninformed comments about homosexuality is both hurtful and harmful to real people, including people they care about.

Whatever happened to don't ask, don't tell...?

Hopefully, the same thing that happened to "seperate, but equal".

 

[BPSCG]

"Don't ask, don't tell" hinges on the supposition that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of.

But, but, but... "don't ask, don't tell" was a Democrat's idea! Are you saying Bill Clinton thought homosexuality was something to be ashamed of?

I get so confused...

 

[Upchurch]

A person who affirms to a reporter that they are gay is outing themsleves but that is obviously not the same as a reporter using that fact in an Op/Ed of the NYT.

Does it being in one section of the paper differ from being in another section of the paper? Savage is obviously being sympathetic to these people. Is that better or worse than the way Coulter used the fact in her Op/Ed?

 

[Upchurch]

But, but, but... "don't ask, don't tell" was a Democrat's idea! Are you saying Bill Clinton thought homosexuality was something to be ashamed of?

Which was actually a step up from "if you're gay, you're out of the military." I don't think Clinton was saying homosexuality was something to be ashamed of. I think he was saying that it wasn't relevent to military service, but wouldn't be able to convince soldiers of that.

Baby steps.

 

[TragicMonkey]

But, but, but... "don't ask, don't tell" was a Democrat's idea! Are you saying Bill Clinton thought homosexuality was something to be ashamed of?

I get so confused...

Whoever said Clinton was good to gays? That was something his opponents liked to claim, because they thought that would win them support, but Clinton didn't do any good. That "don't ask, don't tell" was a foolish attempt at compromise on an issue that cannot be comprised, and did plenty of harm. Record numbers of military were dismissed, and now it's because they "violated policy" by admitting it, not by just being gay. Clinton also signed that stupid "Defense of Marriage Act". Oh, he said a few nice things, and had one or two floating around, but did nothing.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the Democratic party is good to gays. It's just not as bad as the Republicans.

 

[DaChew]

Obviously not the same? If those are not the same, then what do you expect a reporter to do with that information?

Should I expect a reporter to do something with that information? If they do, will they be "outing" that person? Kind of depends on the person doesn't it? Vague. Subjective.

 

[gnome]

But, but, but... "don't ask, don't tell" was a Democrat's idea! Are you saying Bill Clinton thought homosexuality was something to be ashamed of?

I get so confused...

That was not a democrat's ideal. It was a compromise position, and a whole lot of fellow democrats, including myself, felt that he had "wussed out" on tackling a matter he had made a campaign issue of.

A liberal ideal would simply have been, "don't ask, don't care."

 

[Silicon]

FWIW, Maya Keyes campaigned for her father's run for Senate in Illinois, meanwhile maintianing a personal blog about her gayness. This was during the same election cycle that Alan Keyes spoke disparagingly of Cheney's daughter Mary.

Mary Cheney also campaigned for her father in 2000, including speaking to the Advocate Magazine, IIRC. It became a continued campaign issue in 2004 when gay rights groups complained of her silence as pertains to the gay marriage issue. She was again a member of the Vice President's campaign staff. Later, Dick Cheney spoke publicly of his pride and love for his daughter, and said he thought that gay marriage was an issue for the states to decide.

Newt Gingrich has publicly spoken of his love for his sister Candace. Candace is a figure in the gay rights movement, having publicly chosen to speak up against the right-wing agenda.

I don't know who Randal Terry is, but if his son is anything like the others, he probably outed himself to the public and the news media in order to make a statement or promote their political view.




BTW, the late republican congressman Sonny Bono's daughter Chastity is also gay. Not exactly a news flash.


Now I suspect that Coulter is attacking the wrong thing here. The deliberate intentional outting of Ken Mehlman is the real issue. But she can't write about that without OUTING HIM!


What? Is he gay?!! Nawwwwww....... Cough.

 

[gnome]

So, how is this supposed to work? Staying in the closet is somehow shameful, but if you come out and you're related to a public figure, you become fodder for public debate?

What's the lesson we're supposed to draw? If you're a conservative public figure, don't have a gay child? That's helpful.

Whatever happened to don't ask, don't tell...?

It is a test of character, to see if the conservative public figure will apply the same rhetoric they offer to other people's gay children to their own. It prevents them from ignoring the conflict, and they must either affirm that their principles apply to their own family as well, admit that they adopted the rhetoric for political gain rather than on personal principle, or perform some embarrasing back-pedaling and hemming and hawing.

It isn't often you have a politician over a barrel like that. If there is glee in those bringing up the issue, I suspect this is where it comes from.

 

[DaChew]

Does it being in one section of the paper differ from being in another section of the paper? Savage is obviously being sympathetic to these people. Is that better or worse than the way Coulter used the fact in her Op/Ed?

Yes. Savage wrote an Op/Ed using the fact that certain people had gay relatives to make a political point. You don't believe that Savage had sympathy in mind when he wrote the article do you?

 

[Upchurch]

Yes. Savage wrote an Op/Ed using the fact that certain people had gay relatives to make a political point. You don't believe that Savage had sympathy in mind when he wrote the article do you?

Yes, I do.

The article's title is "The Gay Child Left Behind". Note that Savage identifies with the gay relatives:

But there was one bright spot this week. On Monday, Maya Keyes, the daughter of Alan Keyes, officially declared herself a lesbian at a gay rights rally in Annapolis, Md. It was a bit of good news for gays and lesbians, particularly those who are connoisseurs of schadenfreude. Or was it?

Sadly for Maya Keyes, her father apparently has more affection for his ideology than for his daughter.

Read the article. Note that the conclusion of the piece is that this sort of thing should not be taken advantage of:

If we don't want the same fate to befall us - and I don't - then it's only prudent for us not to take too much pleasure in the plight of Alan Keyes. The next time someone like Maya Keyes comes tumbling out of the closet, we should all try to be gracious and not succumb to our baser instincts. Because one day it's going to be our turn.

 

[DaChew]

Yes, I do.

The article's title is "The Gay Child Left Behind". Note that Savage identifies with the gay relatives:



Read the article. Note that the conclusion of the piece is that this sort of thing should not be taken advantage of:

Why'd you leave out the intro.:

SO far 2005 hasn't been a very good year for gays and lesbians. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings slammed Buster, an animated rabbit, for visiting a Vermont girl with same-sex parents; President Bush renewed his call for an anti-gay amendment to the Constitution; and a deadly new strain of H.I.V. has surfaced.

Can't see anything political there? OK, as long as we're just quoting sections of the article, how about this:

But for gays and lesbians there's something particularly satisfying about watching a prominent antigay conservative learn that his or her own child is homosexual. It smacks of cosmic retribution:

Sympathetic is it?

I live in Seattle with my partner and son. Preventing us from marrying harms my child and does nothing to protect Jeff Kemp's. So in my darker moments I find myself hoping that one day Mr. Kemp will, like Randall Terry or Alan Keyes, find himself listening to one of his children explain that he is gay.

In any event, I'm still failing to understand how it is that Coulter could be considered to have lied in her column.

 

[Upchurch]

Why'd you leave out the intro.:

Can't see anything political there?

I left out portions that weren't relevent. I didn't say it wasn't political. I said it was sympathetic to the three people mentioned. Frankly, I think it is sympathetic to gays, in general. Savage is gay himself, remember. He is speaking from a gay man's perspective. When he says that so far it "hasn't been a very good year for gays and lesbians", he is speaking as a gay man. He is not saying it in the same way as Coulter does when she says, "It's been a tough year for Democrats."

But for gays and lesbians there's something particularly satisfying about watching a prominent antigay conservative learn that his or her own child is homosexual. It smacks of cosmic retribution:

Sympathetic is it?

The part you quoted is not Savage's position. The thought is continued later:

But I can't enjoy this news about Maya Keyes as much as most gays and lesbians. As a parent, you see, I feel Alan Keyes's pain - and Randall Terry's too. I can empathize with their desire not to see their children grow up to be one of us because I live in mortal fear of my child growing up to be one of them.

He identifies with the children, DaChew, but he understands the parents' position as well.

So in my darker moments I find myself hoping that one day Mr. Kemp will, like Randall Terry or Alan Keyes, find himself listening to one of his children explain that he is gay.

Finish it out:

Yet my better angels won't let me wish a gay child on anyone for fear of setting myself up for the gay-parent brand of cosmic retribution that Mr. Keyes brought down on his own head.

In any event, I'm still failing to understand how it is that Coulter could be considered to have lied in her column.

Coulter said something that was factually untrue. I don't see how you could not understand how it is lying.

Out of curiosity, do you think that Nixon didn't lie because the word "crook" was a bit vague? Or did Clinton not lie because "sex" wasn't the right word?

 

[Ladewig]

In any event, I'm still failing to understand how it is that Coulter could be considered to have lied in her column.

Coulter -
Two weeks ago, the New York Times turned over half of its op-ed page to outing gays with some connection to Republicans. There is no principled or intellectual basis for these outings.

One cannot out someone who is already outed!
Mary Cheney's being gay was mentioned during the vice-presidential debate. Are we to believe that Coulter didn't watch the debates?

The column wasn't about outing people. Coulter claims it was.