Ann Coulter Lies Again

[Dancing David]

From Media Matters

Coulter accused Savage of "outings" and claimed that liberals were engaging in "ruthless intimidation" of conservatives by "digging through the garbage cans of conservative's family members." According to Coulter: "Outing relatives of conservatives is nothing but ruthless intimidation: Stop opposing our agenda -- or your kids will get it. This is a behavioral trope of all totalitarians: Force children to testify against their parents to gain control by fear." [Emphasis is Coulter's.]
Savage's op-ed identified three prominent conservatives with homosexual family members: former Illinois Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes, whose daughter Maya is a lesbian; former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, whose half-sister Candace is a lesbian; and Christian activist Randall Terry", whose adopted son Jamiel is gay. All three had publicly revealed their homosexuality long before Savage's column appeared.

And why would it be ruthless intimidation, she must be a bigot , besides a liar.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Ann's just not bright, picking a fight with that guy. He made "santorum" a household word. I shudder to think what "coultering" will come to mean.

 

[Ladewig]

"Outing relatives of conservatives is nothing but ruthless intimidation: Stop opposing our agenda -- or your kids will get it. This is a behavioral trope of all totalitarians: Force children to testify against their parents to gain control by fear."

It has been a while since I have had a formal logic class. Would someone explain to me how outing gay children of conservatives is related to forcing children to testify against their parents?

 

[peptoabysmal]

It has been a while since I have had a formal logic class. Would someone explain to me how outing gay children of conservatives is related to forcing children to testify against their parents?

It's not. It's simple extortion, if it's anything.

From the article:

Dan Savage, who edits the Seattle-based weekly publication The Stranger, authored the February 17 Times op-ed reflecting on the significance of prominent conservatives with gay relatives.

Now, could someone explain to me just exactly what is the "significance of prominent conservatives with gay relatives"?

 

[SezMe]

Now, could someone explain to me just exactly what is the "significance of prominent conservatives with gay relatives"?

Lemme give it a try.

"prominent conservatives" typically (but not always, to ward off that diversion) condemn homosexuals as sinners. The existence of these "sinners" within their own extended family gives lie to the very notion that conservatives like to promote.

 

[Upchurch]

Now, could someone explain to me just exactly what is the "significance of prominent conservatives with gay relatives"?

His prominence is questionable, but the The Daily Show ran a clip of Alan Keyes berating Dick Chaney (I think) for not raising his lesbian daughter "correctly" and that if his own daughter were a lesbian he would give her a good talking to. I guess he got his chance.

In addition to what SezMe said, prominent Republicans who actually know and love a gay person seem to soften their harsh take on gays in general. Remember when Dick Chaney made his little announcement about his daughter and how he supported the states' right to make their own decisions concerning same-sex marriage? Correct me if I'm wrong, but soon thereafter the gay marriage amendment plank of the Bush/Chaney campaign platform all but disappeared. It certainly isn't being pushed by the adminstration now.

The significance is that it is much easier to be critical of a group when they are a faceless abstract. It's much harder when that abstract has your child's face.

 

[DaChew]

I'm not sure I understand what Coulter said that is a lie.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm not sure I understand what Coulter said that is a lie.

She said that Dan Savage outted various people. This is not true because the people Dan mentioned were already out.

It would be equivalent to saying that I broke the story that Nixon was behind the Watergate break-in. I can't break it because it was broken 30 years ago. Dan can't out someone who has already been outted.

 

[Upchurch]

I'll admit, I'm a fan of Dan Savage's advice column,Savage Love (warning: link contains adult themes and language). If anything, I would say doesn't have a pro-Democrat or anti-Republican agenda as much as he has a pro-gay agenda, which just happens to coincide with one aspect of liberalism. I have trouble believing he is being directed by the Democratic party to make personal attacks on various Republicans.

 

[Thanz]

Now, could someone explain to me just exactly what is the "significance of prominent conservatives with gay relatives"?

Why don't you read the article yourself? Here is a link to the original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/o...=cef96f6f0e465d66&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

And here is a link to Coulter's response:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20050303.shtml

I think that Coulter's reaction is extremely loose with the facts and simply doesn't deal with the substance of the article at all. Which was, in case you missed it, that people should not be gloating too much or making too much of a deal of prominent anti-gay conservatives having gay family members.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Ann's just not bright, picking a fight with that guy. He made "santorum" a household word. I shudder to think what "coultering" will come to mean.

... if Rick Santorum wants to invite himself into the bedrooms of gays and lesbians (and their dogs), I say we "include" him in our sex lives by naming a gay sex act after him... "We fooled around, and then I Rick Santorumed all over his face"

Dan Savage

Can't detail it here, but I believe Coultering would involve a Cleveland Steamer followed immediately by the chili dog.

A hint

 

[Upchurch]

I think that Coulter's reaction is extremely loose with the facts

I'll say. I just reread her article and noticed that she accused Savage of lashing out against gays. That would be like someone accusing Coulter of lashing out against conservative propogandists.

 

[DaChew]

She said that Dan Savage outted various people. This is not true because the people Dan mentioned were already out.

It would be equivalent to saying that I broke the story that Nixon was behind the Watergate break-in. I can't break it because it was broken 30 years ago. Dan can't out someone who has already been outted.

Thanks. I guess it depends though on what really constitutes "outing". Someone might tell their friends and family they're gay but not want it announced on the Op/Ed page of the NYT. Still, she could've used different language to describe what Savage was doing.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I think that Coulter's reaction is extremely loose with the facts and simply doesn't deal with the substance of the article at all.

What? Anne Coulter play loose with the facts?

That never happens.

 

[Lurker]

Thanks. I guess it depends though on what really constitutes "outing". Someone might tell their friends and family they're gay but not want it announced on the Op/Ed page of the NYT. Still, she could've used different language to describe what Savage was doing.

I don't know about Terry, but Cheney and Keyes both outed themselves by publicly announcing it. That is a bit more than confiding in family and friends.

Lurker

 

[Ladewig]

How could anyone read both columns and not conclude that Ann Coulter is a pinhead. The point of Dan Savage's column is to NOT take pleasure in learning that the children of prominent conservatives are gay because eventually the children of prominenent gays will come out as being conservative.

The reason that it is newsworthy that jackasses like Alan Keyes have a gay child is that Keyes has stated in public that incest was "inevitable" for children raised by gay couples because the children might not know both biological parents
(JREF thread).

Ann Coulter
There is not a single mention of this gay poster boy in the Lexis-Nexis archives since the last sadistic mention of him in an article from October 2004. Liberals ruin a family and then moveon.org.

Coulter equates public knowledge of a family member as being gay to "ruining" a family. As long as people don't take her to task for turning gay relatives into something to be ashamed of, hatred will reign and equality will be out of reach.

 

[DaChew]

I don't know about Terry, but Cheney and Keyes both outed themselves by publicly announcing it. That is a bit more than confiding in family and friends.

Lurker

I just think there must be a difference between being openly gay and having the fact used in an Op/Ed in the NYT. I think the term "outing" is a bit too vague and probably shouldn't have been used. I don't think it was lying to say they were "outed" by I don't think any of them were entirely "in".

 

[Magyar]

Thanks. I guess it depends though on what really constitutes "outing". Someone might tell their friends and family they're gay but not want it announced on the Op/Ed page of the NYT. Still, she could've used different language to describe what Savage was doing.

You are kidding right?!
Chenney, made a living being "The Lesbian" rep for Coors!
After one of the Coors made some negative comments about gays and gay bar owners responded by boycouting Coors.

Coors made a PR effort by hiring a gay man and a lesbian woman
CHENNEY to go around the country assentially saying I am gay/lesbian and I drink coors.

As for why it's important, Anti gay reps scream at the top of their lungs that being gay is a "choice" and that it is do to a lack of moral upbringing and character. That if one was raised properly and had good moral fiber one would NEVER be gay. Thus gays should not have equal rights - as in the marriage and other civil rights - BIT this ONLY applies to children of other people!

The Chenneys ofcourse have been STRONG advocates for THEIR daughters civil rights whose moral fiber and patriotism is never questioned and is a taboo subject for some reason.

 

[Upchurch]

I just think there must be a difference between being openly gay and having the fact used in an Op/Ed in the NYT. I think the term "outing" is a bit too vague and probably shouldn't have been used. I don't think it was lying to say they were "outed" by I don't think any of them were entirely "in".

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).

 

[BPSCG]

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...?