Coulter falsely claimed NY Times op-ed "outed" gays (Media Matters)

In her March 3 nationally syndicated column, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter accused The New York Times of being anti-gay, falsely claiming that a recent Times op-ed "gratuitously outed the children of prominent conservatives." She also claimed that the Times ignored once-prominent atheist William J. Murray's embrace of Christianity in 1980. In fact, the children of conservatives mentioned in a recent Times op-ed had already publicly disclosed their homosexuality, and the Times did cover Murray's conversion at the time.

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. 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."

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. <snip>

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503040001

She's raking in the $ from the mentally challenged (GOP).

CIA Agents being outed by hypocrite conservative gays. If they were already "out" of the closet, they can't really be outed, can they now??

She is a classic anti-social personality. Project, rationalize, reason, minimize. The same rules shouldn't apply to democrats as conservative, except when she thinks the dems have the better deal.

She thinks if it calls itself republican or conservative, it is a good thing. Well, you can paint a turd but it will still smell. This neo-conservatism has nothing to do with hands off, smaller government. The government is growing, only to help those who don't need the help.

When I was young, I used to be a "yellow dog" democrat. I thought if it was democrat, it was good. It didn't matter what they did, it was better than republican. With life experience, I have seen that every group has it's good and bads. Bush 41, crummy president, not as bad as Bush 43, who is just totally fucking things up. Eisenhower, good man, somewhat decent president. Carter, very good man, perhaps he tried too hard at his job to do everything a president needs to do with efficiency, so he was an average president in my book. Clinton, well, he got sperm on a dress, but he was a damn good president.

When people don't see or understand grey areas, people like Coulter and Bush 43, they become dangerous.

I am glad I have seen enough to understand the spectrum in between black and white. However, the more I see in the Republican party like Bush, the less likely I will ever vote for one of them again. I am hoping there will be more Republicans and Democrats speak out against Bush's policies. Republican Congressman Ron Paul is sponsoring a bill agains the New Freedom Mental Health Initiative to insure that children aren't screened for mental illness without parent's consent. Possibly the more scandals that come out against this administration, the more everyone in the house and senate of both parties will want to distance themselves from Bush. That would be best for the country.

I suppose only time will tell.