Ann Coulter is still a liar, but this time she has some help

It's worth telling the story of how I got to the most recent Ann Coulter column.  Looking over at Powerline, they tell us:

It's no secret that the left in this country is becoming increasingly desperate. Ann Coulter points to one of the more deplorable manifestation of this desperation -- the "outing" of gay children of conservatives. The New York Times op-ed page serves as a primary vehicle for this practice. As Coulter points out, the left's message is plain --"stop opposing our agenda or your kids will get it."

Wow, outing the gay children of conservatives would be really outrageous, wouldn't it?  Would be, I say, because of course it's not what anyone's doing.  Unfortunately, our friends colleagues over at Powerline didn't do their fact checking, and just took Ann's word for it.  This seems to be a problem they have, as we've pointed out before.  Maybe don't repeat claims without finding out, ya know, if they're true or not.  Clicking over to Ann's column, we find this:

So now liberals are lashing out at the gays. 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. Conservatives don't want gays to die; we just don't want to transform the Pentagon into the Office of Gay Studies.[...]

In addition to an attack on a website reporter for supposedly operating a gay escort service and thereby cutting into the business of the Village Voice, another Times op-ed article the same day gratuitously outed the children of prominent conservatives.

These are not public figures. No one knows who they are apart from their famous parents. I didn't even know most of these conservatives had children until the Times outed them.

First of all, let's get one thing straight.  Both Ann and Powerline use the verb "to out."  Here's what Merriam Webster has to say about the verb "out" (click where it says out[2,verb]):

2 : to identify publicly as being such secretly <wanted to out pot smokers>; especially : to identify as being a closet homosexual
intransitive senses : to become publicly known <the truth will out>

So in order to "out" someone, there must be something that is known in secret, which is then made public.  Though Merriam-Webster doesn't say it, it seems to me that it's usually done against someone's will in the transitive sense.  See where I'm going with this?

Well, I did some LexisNexising.  Sure enough, two weeks ago today, on Feb. 17, 2005, the NYTimes ran Maureen Dowd's column, and a column by Dan Savage of the The Stranger. 

Let's deal with the Maureen Dowd column first, because it's easy.  It's pretty unremarkably, and recounts widely known facts about Jeff Gannon: about his domain name registration, about a web designer who designed a site for Gannon.  Nothing new.  No outing there.

Dan Savage's column is much more interesting.  Here's the link to the column on the NYTimes website.  You'll notice that the link takes you to an abstract.  The column, now being more than 7 days old, is archived.  So you can't read it unless you pay the NYTimes $2.95 or have a LexisNexis subcription. 

That is, of course, if you can figure out which column Ann Coulter is talking about.  In her piece she never mentions the column's title or the author's name.  Or the actual date that it ran, saying only "two weeks ago."  Never does she quote the column that she speaks of.  If you read Savage's column you understand the reason for this incredible sloppiness.  She's lying about what Savage says, and if she quoted it to you, that would be clear. Savage mentions four gay relatives of prominent conservative.  Unlike my friends colleagues on the right, I'll quote the relevant passages to you:

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?

Alan Keyes is the Republican who moved to Illinois last year to run against Barack Obama for the United States Senate. To describe Mr. Keyes as an opponent of gay rights is putting it mildly: during his campaign Mr. Keyes described homosexuality as ''selfish hedonism.'' When asked if he thought Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, was a selfish hedonist, he replied, ''Of course she is.''

As you can see, Maya Keyes outed herself; she "officially declared herself a lesbian," at a gay rights rally no less, as Savage makes clear, and as anyone with a brain can find out by reading a news paper (here's one; here's another; or you can peruse Maya Keyes' blog).  That's #1.  Here's #2 and #3:

Learning that a prominent conservative like Mr. Keyes (or Randall Terry, the anti-abortion-turned-antigay-rights crusader whose son revealed last spring he is gay) has a gay relative is nothing new. Newt Gingrich, for instance, has a lesbian half-sister.

Randall Terry's son "revealed last spring he is gay."  Again, he outed himself.  If you'd like to read Jamiel Terry's take on, you can do so here.  As for Candace Gingrich, she was outed by her mother, as Candace recounts here.  Wow, that's a funny irony, isn't it?  Ann Coulter is writing a column about lefties outing prominent relatives of gay conservatives, and in one of the cases, the person was outed by her own mother.  That's hilarious.  Here's #4, toward the end of the paragraph:

Sadly for Maya Keyes, her father apparently has more affection for his ideology than for his daughter. She says her parents kicked her out of the house and have refused to pay for her education. (Thankfully, some of those evil gay people have come forward to pay her tuition at Brown next year through the Point Foundation.) Perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Cheney could find the time to call Mr. and Mrs. Keyes and explain how parents who actually value their families react when they learn one of their children is gay.

Now, anyone that doesn't know the Cheneys have a lesbian daughter is surely living in a cave.  Mary Cheney must one of the most widely known homosexuals in the country.  Given that the Cheneys have spoken about it publically, and it was widely discussed just before the election, there's no secret there. 

That last quoted paragraph also contradicts another statement in Coulter's column:

No outsider can know what goes on inside a family, but according to the public version of one family matter being leered over by liberals, a prominent conservative threw his daughter out of the house when he found out she was gay.

The "public verison"?  Is that some sort of sick linguistic trick?  Let's put it this way: Maya Keyes says her father kicked her out of the house.  Ann doesn't mention that this "public version" comes from Maya Keyes herself, and Ann has no reason to doubt that it's true.  But because Ann is a sad excuse for a writer, she intentionally tries to cast doubt on it by saying "no outsider can know what goes on inside a family."  Unbelievable. 

Sometime liberals hesitate to use the word "lie."  I do not here.  The verb "to out" has a commonly accepted meaning, and the dictionary definition reflects tha.  Ann Coulter surely knows what it is.  She accuses someone of outing homosexuals.  She is verifiably wrong.  She is a liar.  Powerline is lying too, though they may not know it.  In a way, their lie is worse, because they didn't even bother to verify Ann's claim, which combines dishonesty with laziness.  I do hope that if they read this they will correct the record.

-- Michael

Comments

[Incertus]

Every once in a while, I wonder if people like Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilley--hell, all of them--lie deliberately and with a purpose, or if they lie just because that's all they know how to do. The more I hear from these people, the more I'm convinced that it borders on pathological, that they lie automatically, that they have invented their own little worlds where what they say actually reflects reality. These types of people aren't uncommon--we all probably deal with someone like this in some facet every day of our lives. But these people have a serious effect on the public discourse, and that makes them dangerous.

The worst part is that they've got so many people convinced that they actually are describing the world in truthful terms, that no matter how much we debunk them, they'll still be believed. Scary.

[Ed Drone]

Actually, they don't lie, they bullshit. They have NO qualms about putting out something that's a lie, or the truth, because it makes no difference to them whether it's factual, actual, or just plain wrong. It doesn't matter; the meme is the theme.

So call "BS" on them when they do it. It won't stop them, but it might keep the readers/listeners/audience from stepping it it.

Ed

[Musing Michael]

Considering this came via PowerLame, I wonder if the lunkhead lawyers are up to their old "Let's criticize the lefties for something we think they're thinking about doing" schtick again?

[Cheryl]

The fact that so many people tell blatant lies and so many others join suit, all the while pretending to be bastions of morality, merely points out the complete moral bankruptcy of the right.

We have hypocrites like Gingrich, three time divorcee, cheated sexaully on his wife, cheated on his alimony, writing books about morality.

It is time to call these people what they are - religious zealots and bigots. Just use those words. Tell it like it is.

[Maya]

Wow. There is so much blatant lying in that column it's astounding.
Do you have any idea how I could contact Ann Coulter and ask her to please not lie about us?
Even about random details like Jamiel Terry being adopted at 8, not 15 as she says... it seems like it's just lying for lying's sake!

I think I might have to write a blog about this article >.< My girlfriend had mentioned that Coulter had mentioned me (albeit not by name) but until now I hadn't found the article, so thanks!

-Maya Marcel-Keyes

[eric fleegal]

What Lies?

You clearly missed the point of Ann’s article: that when discussing Gannon’s qualifications for getting a one-day pass to a White House press briefing, the Left attacked Gannon on his qualifications for getting a permanent pass, and then proceeded to attack his private life. Their reference to a “double life” was clearly meant to impugn his character as a pervert and possible closet homosexual, not as an independent reporter.

As far as Ann’s use of the term “outing”, surely you can see the difference between being out to your family, friends, and colleagues and being outed on the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times. Your point is therefore moot.

Your terse dismissal of Ann’s claims regarding the Feb 17th Dowd piece makes me wonder if you actually read the opinion piece or if you only read the abstract on the NYT’s website.

Furthermore, Ann clearly refers to “another Times op-ed article the same day”… which is obviously the Savage piece that ran on the same day as the Dowd piece, both on page 29 no less! That you seem to be confused by this makes me wonder if you actually read Ann’s Feb 23 and Mar 3 columns.

When Savage wrote about understanding Keyes’s “desire not to see his children grow up to be gay”, trust me here, he’s not commiserating with the poor Reverend. Savage quite clearly intended for the Left to read, “Keyes is a damn hypocrite—see, his kid is gay”, and for the Right to read “Keyes is a miserable failure as a father—see, his kid is gay”. Ann’s point is that Savage wields the sexuality of Keyes’s daughter as a double-edged sword, despite the fact that the subject of her lesbianism is totally irrelevant.

With increasing frequency, the Left attacks those on the Right by very publicly discussing the sexuality (often homo) of their children, friends, relatives and associates. Ann’s point is this: The argument ad hominem, though expedient, is still a fallacy. This is true when the Left calls Gannon a smut peddling, homosexual, shill for the Right, and its true when you call Ann Coulter a Liar, Liar, pants on fire.

[sean]

Ann Coulter might not be the friendliest person,,,at the same time she is right concerning abortion(child killing),,,,,,,this is an absolute curse in the united states,and we intend to bring on an end to the torutre and killing of the innocent unborn.

[sean]

One further comment,,,,,as Ann fights the leftists obnoxious defense of the choice they so embrace concerning in their word "termination",,,of an unborn child,,,,in reality,,,abortion,,,killing an unborn child,,,,in a most grisly fashion,,,,torn out,,no painkillers,,,,!!!,,,,no excuse to the left for upholding this practice,,,,at the same time shame to the rightists,,,for embracing this immoral occupation and warfare on the innocent of Iraq,,,,,bloodshed of innocent in Iraq,,,,,and to the leftists,,,bloodshed of the innocent unborn!,,,,please stop all of the bloodletting!!!,,,,and be human and protect all life,,,,except heinous murderers,,,,,for them ,,,pull the switch!!!!

[Fionna]

The unborn child issue, I can understand. While I don't believe that an unborn foetus is a human being until such time as it has developed into a complete human (I'm not talking a 2 centimeter human here I'm talking the whole 24 weeks)I do understand. If I considered these cell groups as humans I would be fighting their "genecide" every inch of the way.

The gay issue however, I don't understand. It is VERY important for whoever! Right or left (or human to be more precise), to point out such hypocracy as one man who claims to hate homosexuals as they are the scourge of the earth, while loving and coddeling a gay child/sibling/associate.

Hatred in ANY form is an awful crime, but you can atleast admire the conviction of a man who hates homosexuals so much that he will turn his own daughter out on the street for being gay. I personally would like to punch him in the face. However that shows that he really does believe in what he's saying.

Ann Coulter makes some (very rare) good points. She makes a whole load of worse ones however. And anyone who promotes hatred, whether it be the "lefties" hatred of religion or the "right wings" apparent hatred of anyone who isnt a white christian, should be taught a lesson in loving their fellow man.

Free speech is a powerful thing. And we have to understand those people who say things that offend us, even something as awful as homophobia, before we can begin to show them that not everyone is out to get them. And the people they hate or fear are just that, people.

Anywho thats my 2 cents

[Andrea D Smith]

HI,
My name is Andrea.I am a gay black male whose partner is a gay white male. He is a special education teacher. I am an artist who went to a very prestigious art school in AMERICA!!!!! I am responding to the comments you made about the 9/11 widows. You stated your opinions so proudly in front of the American public. Now, let me express mine. You are no better than Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini. It's so easy for people like you (who grew up on the Upper East Side, never had to work for anything in their life, and were given every opportunity that life could give them)to look down on the working class proletariat, who make your life possible, while getting rich from feeding into their fears and insecurities. I think you are an embarrassment to the United States of America, her people, and dominatrixes everywhere. I am embarrassed you are even a citizen of this great country. Those men and women who died that day, and their loved ones, deserve the utmost respect from all Americans. I never heard you call any of the 9/11 victims' family members who came out in support of "W" any nasty names or accuse them of trying to cash in on their grief. I guess that wouldn't play so well on FOX "News". I know YOU, of all people, want to be "fair and balanced". Basically, you may not care about what I've said or even give it a second thought (if you can call what you write and say "thinking"); however, I just believe that we, as Americans (not just you and the Aryan Nation),have every right to express our opinions, just as you have expressed yours. However, you express yours in the guise of an "educated, informed, attractive" female(?). When I hear you and people like you, I feel like I am no more than trash on the street and a 2nd class citizen. I know this.....I am 27 years old and no amount of money can buy you this: class, integrity, and human decency. Can you honestly say the same? In conclusion, when I hear you speak or see you on TV in that same black dress (which you should really dry clean...and is SO two seasons ago), I want to be the best, most politically incorrect person I can be and still be me. And still stand up for people who feel as though their voices will not be heard.

[bobbyjay]

to save america and help ann coulter regain her humanity and self esteem i will perform cunnilingus on her,providing she is willing.peace

[Stephanie Kranes]

Ann coulter is a stupid fucking cow

[AMERICA HATES ANN COULTER]

RE: ANN COULTER
This bitch must be a relative to Lilith's character from Cheers and Fraiser.
Only if homosapien mothers ate their young, although she would have been a bad case of indigestion.
We could solve this Iraq lie by sending her there, I'd bet insurgents would slit thier own wrist instead of listening to her negative bitchful rants.
ANN GO AWAY,
Signed America

[Jim S.]

This woman represents a new low in American politics which I thought had already bottomed out. She is not only a cruel bitch but she has empowered the Edwards campaign and damaged the Repubic hair party. This idiot should be made to shut up if she can't act in a civil manner or join the Democratic party. What a concept?