« | »

NYT Lies About Coulter’s Views On Gays

From the ‘Fashion & Style’ section of the New York Times:

Ann Coulter at Homocon 2010, a fund-raiser hosted by gay conservatives.

Outflanked on Right, Coulter Seeks New Image

October 8, 2010

“I WROTE a new speech for the gays and I don’t have it memorized yet!” said Ann Coulter, as she ducked into a hallway in the Union Square apartment of the venture capitalist Peter Thiel on a recent Saturday night, flicking a half-empty packet of Habitrol gum between her fingers. She was there to speak at Homocon 2010, a party for the one-year anniversary of GOProud, the Washington-based advocacy group for gay conservatives.

For a right-wing, evangelical Christian who has made fun of homosexuals and opposes same-sex marriage, Ms. Coulter seemed awfully … game

Ann Coulter has made a lucrative career out of being the outspoken, sometimes outrageous Cassandra of the far right, denouncing a group of New Jersey 9/11 widows for what she saw as enjoying their husbands’ deaths too much; using an anti-gay epithet to describe Senator John Edwards; and blaming the mainstream media for conspiring against God-fearing Christians. Now that members of the Tea Party movement have stolen much of her thunder, Ms. Coulter is taking some surprising new positions. She called the decision to send more troops into Afghanistan “insane,” warning that it could be a new Vietnam. She has decried fellow Republicans for continuing to insist President Obama is Muslim. And perhaps most startling, she wants to bring more gay Republicans into the conservative fold

It’s funny how the New York Times never seems to write about Ms. Coulter, except to print lies about her. But this is pretty outrageous mendacity, even by the standards of The Times.

Let’s take these last three charges in order. 

First, regarding the claim that:

[Coulter] called the decision to send more troops into Afghanistan ‘insane,’ warning that it could be a new Vietnam…

Ms. Coulter has been shockingly consistent about the war in Afghanistan.

Understandably, Ms. Coulter didn’t have a position on the Obama policy of pouring more troops into Afghanistan until Obama became President and starting pouring more troops into Afghanistan. But she has always been clear that she thought Iraq was more important than Afghanistan geopolitically. And she has often stated that Afghanistan was an insane country in which to be ‘nation-building’ — for years.

As for the charge that:

[S]he has decried fellow Republicans for continuing to insist President Obama is Muslim.

Again, Ms. Coulter has been shockingly consistent. She has always contended that Mr. Obama is an atheist.

In fact, she was saying Mr. Obama is an atheist even before anyone began claiming he is a Muslim. She has said it repeatedly on TV (on Sean Hannity’s show and Geraldo Rivera Live, for instance). And she even mentioned it in a joke in her 2007 CPAC speech, which made headlines because of her excellent joke about John Edwards.

(Larry King even replayed that joke on his TV show. Even two and a half years ago, it is still the most famous speech Ms. Coulter has ever given.)

As for the third "and most startling" claim from The Times, that:

[S]he wants to bring more gay Republicans into the conservative fold…

Ms. Coulter has once again been shockingly even "startling" consistent in her views here. She has always contended that the GOP should be open to homosexuals.

Back in 2005 – a five full years ago – she defended the conservative White House reporter, Jeff Gannon, who was attacked for being a homosexual. She was even quoted in Vanity Fair, defending Mr. Gannon’s right to be treated like any other reporter in the White House press corps — adding that Gannon’s "creditable interviews in his own defense" proved "our gays are more macho than their straights."

Later, in 2007 Ms. Coulter also defended Larry Craig from charges of hypocrisy in her speeches and columns. She argued that no one wanted to outlaw being gay, just ‘gay marriage.’ So unless Mr. Craig proposed to the undercover cop, he wasn’t being hypocritical.

Indeed, immediately after the aforementioned 2007 CPAC speech in which she made her Edwards joke which effectively ended his campaign, she held a Q&A in which she said plenty of nice things about homosexuals. 

She said, for instance, that gays should all be Republicans. Though of course she also noted that she was personally against ‘gay marriage.’

Not only that, Ms. Coulter devoted an entire chapter of her book “Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans” to the argument that homosexuals should be Republicans. The title of the chapter was: “No Gay Left Behind.”

Lastly, Ms. Coulter has been signing books for the Texas Log Cabin Republicans’ charity auctions for years now.

So it would seem that the New York Times was simply factually wrong in all three of their claims. Sadly, there is nothing "startling" about it. For when have the Solons of the New York Times ever let such details get in the way of a personal attack?

By the way, isn’t The Times engaging in a little "stereotyping" to have put this article in their ‘Fashion & Style’ section?

This article was posted by Steve on Saturday, October 9th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

14 Responses to “NYT Lies About Coulter’s Views On Gays”

  1. Coco Q. Rico says:


    Thank you so much for posting this. As a recently out bisexual conservative, I have been struggling to sort through all the misconceptions on all sides.

    If not for Ann Coulter, I might have never come out of the closet. As a closeted, married bisexual, I often read her columns and stumbled on hidden pep talks — like her 2007 piece, “Cruising while Republican,” which did a wonderful service by articulating a realistic position on homosexuality, by revealing the homophobic assumptions in the Left’s usual tactic of winning elections by calling Republicans fags.

    I have never known her to be a voice for homophobia, ever. And this is incredibly important to say, because there are many, many conservatives who hate not only gay marriage, or homosexual behavior, but the mere existence of “homosexual impulses” (to use Ann’s word) in people. And Ann has always been a counterweight to this.

    I wrote this essay recently: http://colorfulconservative.blogspot.com/2010/10/half-dozen-ragingly-annoying.html , in which I tried to illustrate that most gays in America, though Democrats, have been surprisingly supportive of my conservative values, and it is a mere handful of loud gay celebrities who tend to feed the Democrats’ bad-faith rhetoric.

    I respect Ann and try to reveal, as much as possible, how much the Left is guilty of misogyny and homophobia, more than the Right — not because that’s a political tactic, but because I think it’s true.

    • David says:

      As for myself (and probably many other conservatives), it is difficult to dissect how I react to “gay issues.” Partly there is a world view difference that can not “accept” homosexual behavior in the same way I can not accept pornography. There is no getting around this part. However, a second strong factor is the closeness of the progressive movement and the larger block of homosexual’s political views. Friend of my enemy is also my enemy, type of thing.
      However, I see no conflict when we both want a country with the freedom for me to stand on a soap box and call it sin and for them to walk down the street holding hands.
      Liberty makes us more tolerant, government enforced behavior (religious or secular) results in social bigotry.

    • proreason says:

      Liberal ‘support’ for gay rights has nothing whatsoever to do with support for sexual preference or liberal attitudes toward sexuality.

      It is simply another way to Balkanize the country, which is one of the left’s primary means to overthrow the US.

      You can see the strategy in attitudes toward race, religion, the family, abortion, unions, welfare, and on an on. They select an issue. Rather than find common ground or trying to resolve differences, the left exagerates and demonizes one side of the issue in order to enrage both sides. Then they engage in a media campaign to shame the “wrong” side into giving in. Another important aspect of it is to make the people on “their” side believe that only big government can protect the “abused minority” from violence from the other side (which is why they have no interest in any group that is not a “minority”).

      In the end, the leftist coalition consists of dozens of groups, all of which have only one thing in common….their belief that only leftist government can save them. The classic example is radical feminists and Muslims. If Muslims ever get their way, radical feminists will be eliminated. Yet they are allies in leftism. It’s really quite extraordinary. Gays and black people are another example. Blacks are probably the least tolerant towards homosexuality of any ethnic group. Yet they are allies in leftism.

      This would never happen in a sane world, or one that wasn’t populated with professional marxists bent on destroying the nation.

    • canary says:

      CoCo, what did your wife think, when she learned you were bi-sexual. Is it just a love of sex, period that leads to someone to being bi-sexual? I’m trying to understand a gay relative who is bi-sexual. I think she uses men sometimes when she needs a roommate, or to get a girl jealous. She may grow out of the phase, I’ve been told.

  2. tranquil.night says:

    Typical recycled NYT hitpiece. It really burns them that Gay’s are hip for Republicans since the Liberal elite invested so much in their cultural brand, thinking they had them in their hand like the blacks and hispanics (which I officially contend is a myth we can overcome). That is, while they were metrosexualizing America over the past couple decades.

    My question from the beginning has always been what do sexual choices have to do with political issues? The schism only grew because Leftists started preaching the false gospel of gay marriage ‘civil rights.’ This from the group who gave us Bill Clinton, whose infamous escapades, they lectured us, were irrelevant to his duties as president.

    The government’s involvment in the institution of marriage legally comes down to a matter of protecting the best interests of the country. The difficult premise to understand here is the idea that America has a bright future so long as we have a robust society of healthy families raising generations of their own children. So they SUBSIDIZE families with joint-filing laws, exemptions, and child tax breaks. Crazy idea right?

    But the Left submits that this subsidization amounts to a REGULATION of the homosexual community’s right to enjoy such entitlements. So ‘civil unions’ come along and it isn’t good enough. Which is to say of course as it is with any Leftist cause, it’s a lie. They’re never actually about achieving the goal but inciting as much agitation and vitriol into the demagogues as possible. Gays are savvy to it now, especially since the Left branded them with the same “We don’t give a damn about what a majority or the law says” in their attempts to get state courts to overrule the voters’ will.

    Here’s what the meat of it is and I’m sorry if this cuts a little as it’s not meant to offend. To many, ‘sexual freedom’ and its extremes in homosexuality, pansexuality, polygamy, etc. are mindless self indulgences that speak to a particular character flaw that present questions about maturity (or maybe psychological health). The counter-view usually is that repression of sexual inhibitions in unnatural and unhealthy. So it’s not an issue of human rights, which is infuriating, but one medicine and mores, two topics Liberals hate to debate with you but love to control over you.

    But today’s twilight zoned world is a painfully confusing one and I think a lot of people have come to learn there is much greater sin out there than pursuing your own private sexual narcissim, and doing so doesn’t necessarily speak to one’s professional competency. I mean, just look at the disaster we have in Washington. Surely ANYTHING is better than this.

    I personally have been tickled by Greg Gutfield’s Gay Bar across the street from the Hamasque. So to all fellow social cons, let go of the animosity and steel yourself to fighting real evil. Because it’s here.

  3. Mithrandir says:

    There shouldn’t be an issues about gays because:
    A: It is for the states to decide these things.
    B: Gays have been telling us for decades that “What we do in privacy is our own business!”
    —you forfeit that right when you: seek legislation in favor of gays (hate crimes, life-partner benefits)
    march around PUBLICLY
    vote for sympathetic PUBLIC politicians
    seek to halt institution like the Boy Scouts for existing
    take PUBLIC money for prevention initiatives
    institute learning initiatives about gays in PUBLIC SCHOOLS

    The only reason there are gay issues, is because, they don’t live up to their own privacy codes, and they seek to sneak public money out of the rest of us for their purposes.

    • Right of the People says:

      I’m with you on this. As long as it was in the closet nobody seemed to mind. It’s only when you get it thrown into your face that people begin to object.

      The thing is it’s not just homosexuality but anything where people decide they have a “right” to display it in public, the Klan, communism, cross-dressing, gun control the list goes on. As long as somebody thinks they are the only ones who are right and decide to get up in the grill of anybody who disagrees.

      If you don’t want people to react to something, don’t flaunt it in public. I could really care what you do in private as long as nobody is harmed but I don’t want to know about it and don’t try and convince me what you’re doing is “right”.

    • wardmama4 says:

      You can change the ‘gay’ with many other words (ERA, abortion, blacks, hispanics etc) and that is because it is about CONTROL – the Left is so busy attempting to control each and every aspect of life through legislation. Which can’t be done (Proof, has turning our schools into the peon of ‘public’ education improved any aspect of education in America? – hint that there will be a new show (Extreme Makeover (type): School Edition) is proof that the answer is a resounding NO. But more over – shouldn’t be done.

      It is simply a tool that the liberals use to enact legislation to piece by piece remove any/all Liberty and Freedom every citizen has – Social Justice done by the force of taxes and ‘hate-crime’ and ‘fairness doctrine’ legislation is revenge, control and violations of the Constitution.

      And no one, no matter what there race, gender, religion (or lack thereof) or personal beliefs/lifestyles should support a single encroachment on Freedom, Liberty and most importantly the Constitution – no matter how flowery and ‘pie-in-the-sky’ pretty the Liberals dress it up.

      God Help America
      A Proud American Infidel

    • Adam Moreira says:

      However, at the same time, you need for there to be a uniform policy nationwide…and the 14th does come into play vis a vis the Equal Protection Clause.

      Seeking legislation for life-partner benefits does not favor gays; it simply puts homosexuals on equal footing with heterosexuals. Take away religion and the argument against it falls apart.

      As for what is done in privacy being their business, that wasn’t the law of the land before 2003—Texas being an example.

      I disagree with wardmama here about there being a control issue vis a vis gays…it’s simply to put them on equal footing with heterosexuals. Granting them equal rights is absolutely not an encroachment on the Constitution, unlike the other issues of the left.

    • hushpuppy says:

      Mithrandir, I hope you don’t mind my asking, but in reading many of your comments I get the distinct feeling that English might not be your first language. Your phraseology sometimes reads as if your words are a transliteration. Perhaps French?

      Please understand this is not a criticism, and it’s not meant to belittle you or insult you, or to make you uncomfortable. That’s not my intent. My intent is just plain, old fashioned, curiousity. :)

      To the rest of ‘the gang’ here: thanks for your patience for my being off-topic.

    • proreason says:

      Were it not for community organizers, the vast majority of homosexuals would be more than happy to just be left alone…..just like the vast majority of everybody else.

      In the past 30 years, attitudes toward homosexuality have changed at lightning speed. Any homosexual looking at today from the vantage point of that period would be astonished and delighted about that change.

      Yet, there is a tiny fringe of homosexuals that are so filled with fury at the world that they have achieved such an outsized influence that, imho, angry queers dominate political discource on a wide range of topics, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with their sexuality. Drooling Barney is the classic example.

      ‘Gay marriage’ shouldn’t be an issue at all. Why on earth should the institution that has been the bedrock of thousands of cultures for thousands of years be changed to allow homosexual marriage, particurly since the legal rights of marriage can be granted in many other way? The very concept is so extreme and so foreign to human life that it is simply unimaginable.

      Yet, it has been turned into one of the most polarizing issues in modern life. As always, you should ask yourself who benefits? Well, I’ll tell you who DOESN’T BENEFIT in any way….homosexuals.

      The people who benefit are radicals who want to destroy this country.

  4. wardmama4 says:

    Wow forgive my lack of proof-reading – blame it on the cat who hit submit before I got a chance. Yeah, that’s it. . .peon should be paragon and there should be their. Oops.

  5. DoctorRock says:

    Pro nails it – their Balkanization of the electorate has always gotten my Irish up. In effect, they promise “I will take away from them and give to you”. I don’t mean to insult, but that’s an idea that can only appeal to the dim-witted and mean-spirited, which evidently is the Democratic base.
    As for “abused minorities”, I’m a gun-owning divorced father who drinks, smokes, works for a living and enjoys off-color jokes. They’ve been “taking from” me all my adult life, so there’s never been any love lost between me and big government. Perhaps that’s why I’m so looking forward to this election day.

  6. canary says:

    The idea of Bush’s attempt to focus on Iraq & keep troops in Pakistan is because of nuclear weapon countries like Iran who would share with Afganistan. Bush focused on missions into Afgan, then soldiers were based in Pakistan where they can watch over their nuclear weapons. Going to Iraq allowed to be close to Iran.
    This rebuilding Afganistan and helping them update their technology is a waste of our soldiers lifes.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »