Watch Tony Perkins lie through his teeth on CBS, and then watch David Boies flat-out call him a liar:
Why doesn’t this happen more often? It is so easy to do. When someone is lying, you simply call them a liar, so there is no confusion among the viewing audience.
Tony Perkins pegs my gaydar needle all the way to
Oh, and lying liars? Don’t bullshit a litigator.
that was beautiful.
Kevin Phillips Bong
Would I be a bad person if I wanted to set Mr. Tony Perkins on fire and then not piss on him?
That whole Tony Perkins-speechless thing holds a certain appeal. Alas, too good to be true.
Only in the sense that you’d find him cruising a public park or sneaking into a gay bar when out of town, denying his urges but damned if he’s going to leave without trying to russle up some relief. Otherwise, he’s not gay at all.
I wouldn’t do him if he paid me.
Truly lovely, and at GOS, I got to see the bonus of Ted Olson schooling Chris Wallace on Faux News.
Much more of this plz.
Don’t mess with Boies. Perkins is mistaken about the 14th Amendment as well; no where in the text of that Amendment is race, class, gender, or any other population-identifying label mentioned.
@Kevin Phillips Bong: No. You would not be a bad person.
This morning on C-SPAN’s BookTV, Charles Ogletree was promoting his book about class and race, using the Henry Louis Gates arrest (Ogletree represented Gates) as the framing device. He spoke at length about the incident, using the police report for corroboration. When he opened the floor for questions, some Beck/Limbaugh dittohead took the mike and began ranting, “You ignored (some report of what the 911 caller said)! Are you saying that Officer Crowley lied? Are you saying you don’t believe him?”
Ogletree looked at him and flatly said, “Yes.” The guy was utterly flummoxed and sat down. You could see that he thought he was going to whip up a fog of confusion and qualifying language. Ogletree’s simple declaration just took all the wind out of him.
I laughed so hard, I peed a little.
I read through some of the transcripts of the trial. Boies, Olsen and their team destroyed the pro-Prop 8 witnesses. Great stuff, as was this. Perkins and his ilk have nothing but their hate and outrage – no facts, no hard evidence.
Damn, Boies was good. He clearly laid out the issues and demolished Perkins’ falsehoods.
Did Boies or Olson appear on Fox News? It would be somewhat interesting to compare the level of discussion over there, since it is pretty much Prevarication Central.
As an aside, it was curious to see Perkins pull out the Civil Rights Amendments as somehow applying only to black people and not expanding the nation’s understanding of civil rights in general.
The GOP, tea baggers and others seem to be hanging their future prospects on some despicable vision of super duper strict constructionism. Look for more of this in the future as the right try to send signals to Scalia, Roberts and Thomas.
Here’s the Olson video. Splendid stuff. More conservatives like this, please.
The carriage return bug is back. It is driving me crazy. If I am not in a position to opt out of IE at the moment, what can I do? Constant refreshing sometimes pulls up a clean page for a short time, but it isn’t really a solution.
@Omnes Omnibus: Is that the bug that could be fixed by forcing quirks mode?
@MikeJ: I have no idea. The text runs off the right side of the page through the ads and on and on.
Strange, strange video.
This man is my new conservative hero.
Wait, he’s probably my only conservative hero.
DougJ is gonna be SO pissed that you grabbed that title before he could.
Nice performance by someone who understands what it is to live with integrity. Boies II Men indeed.
@Brachiator: I’m trying to imagine what Perkins is going to say next. Maybe he’ll say that the blacks are going to harmed if the civil rights extends to all.
I still think it’s horribly telling that CBS gave Perkins the last word. Still doesn’t take away from the fact that Boies laid a total smackdown on Perkins’ arguments.
That’s not pink, that’s California Coral!
Because the knight and knave both claim they guard the gate.
Or outside of logic puzzle terminology … because it’s exactly as easy when someone is telling the truth for liars to call them a liar, so there is no end of confusion among the viewing audience.
@demo woman: I’ve actually heard that one get used already, don’t recall by whom. But they are trying to paint it as the blacks versus the gays as if it’s a zero sum game. Watch for some bogus MLK quote to come flying next.
Margins blown out again in both Opera and IE.
Bill E Pilgrim
Love the logic. So in a racial discrimination case, if a judge is openly black, that should be disqualifying. Or openly white, for that matter.
So if he’s saying that evangelicals should recuse themselves, does that mean that Clarence Thomas can’t participate in rulings about anything except copyright law or something anymore? I’ll buy that.
That is a great segment. However, at one point Boies claims that this resolution is different than Roe V. Wade because it doesn’t create a new right. That is bs. Roe V. Wade reinforced the right of privacy between a woman and her doctor. That is hardly a new right. The right to privacy is well established. I wish he would have left Roe V Wade out of his argument.
Gen. Jrod and his Howling Army
@Kevin Phillips Bong: A bad person would piss on Perkins before setting him on fire.
@Kryptik: Weeell, Boies did get more speaking time, so that’s probably a wash. Then Perkins blew it when he closed the segment with a plea for sanity. Yes, Tony, let’s hope a little sanity can prevail this time.
This is beyond foolish, although somewhat understandable. I am always amazed when people, no matter what their ideology, write or say stuff that implies that all gays are white, with a sprinkling of Asian and Latino, and that all black people are heterosexual, with a sprinkling of three brothers on the downlow. And Wanda Sykes.
I would love to see a Michael Bloomberg Moment(tm) (yeah, he earned it) from a major civil rights leader who would note the gay civil rights activists who downplayed their sexuality in order to try to minimize the hatred, scorn and distrust that was already raining down on the movement, most notably brave souls like Bayard Rustin.
Well, I guess anyone stupid enough to argue that gay marriage somehow threatens heterosexual marriage could also argue that gay marriage makes black people less black.
Thanks for posting that clip. Great stuff. Chris Wallace was getting a bit frantic there and Olson was getting some nice subtle jabs at him to stfu while he was talking. I’m glad they spent a long time on that segment. Lots of Fox viewer’s heads must have exploded before that was over.
Jeez, I really hope nobody tells David Broder about this; he’ll be incensed. That was neither civil nor bipartisan. I bet Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham would never have said those mean, mean things to poor Mr. Perkins.
MLK’s daughter came out long ago against equal marriage for same-sex partners. Via an old posting at Pam’s House Blend:
@mr. whipple: comment #4 closes a paragraph tag inside a blockquote, but there was no opening paragraph tag inside the blockquote. That might be causing errors in some browsers. The HTML Validator reports lots of errors on the page, but other than another stray closing “p” tag, I don’t know if they’d affect layout in any browsers.
@thomas Levenson: Mr. Olson was great, his best line against Wallace’s stupid point about how the judge’s ruling invalidated 7 million voters “Would you like FOX’s right to free press put up to a vote?”
Interesting that Perkins spent almost as much time railing about no-fault divorce as he did about The Gay. Why do these people get so enthusiastic about controlling other people’s sexuality and relationships?
@dmsilev: And Boies comes back with, “Objection, irrelevant” and goes about proving how it doesn’t matter one whit. And divorce rates affect gay marriage in some weird twisted way…that I can’t seem to grok.
Because if they’re not getting any, no one should get any?
@Yutsano: Let me try to think like a wingnut for a moment (trained professional at work, folks; kids, don’t try this at home).
“If gay marriage becomes legal, the only thing preventing
meregular folks from marrying another man would be the difficulty of getting a divorce. With no-fault divorce, Ipeople won’t have anything to stop them from becoming gay.”
John Cole @ Top:
I wish it were that easy. We all know that Perkins is a liar.
But the people that want to believe him all know that Boies is a liar.
We have facts, and studies, and common sense. They have … faith.
@Kevin Phillips Bong: All that would mean is that you wouldn’t want to further contaminate pre-contaminated ground.
@Matt: You’re assuming that the WP server-side code doesn’t sniff the user agent prior to building the page. That’s unlikely.
That’s what Boies did which was different. Rather that just calling Perkins a liar, he reminded Perkins and the audience that the witnesses in a courtroom sit alone and can be cross-examined. He made it clear why lying in court is a far lonelier and more uncomfortable experience.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Didn’t we all get yelled at for pointing out how some conservative opinions were wrong, even though plenty of people offered evidence?
@Jeff Spender: David Boies is not a conservative. Ted Olson is a conservative, but David Boies is not. Boies was one of the main counsel for Al Gore in Bush v. Gore.
Here’s a quote for you from one of MLK’s daughters:
@thomas Levenson: Olson kicked the living crap out of Wallace. At least Wallace, who is no more against gay marriage than I am, proved he really is Roger Ailes’s little bitch. He will literally say anything for that check
@burnspbesq: Be careful what you wish for. Olson might be a good guy here, but he’s generally pretty loathsome and was one of the masterminds of the Paula Jones case
@denverjeninpdx: It wasn’t before Roe v Wade. Basing the decision on a right one considers implicit in the Constitution (and I do) is different than properly applying an explicit right from the 14th Amendment
Since the carriage return error seems to come and go with refreshes, and it didn’t happen until after IE8 was out, and we know it happens with other browsers–as a matter of fact, it started with the ‘update’ to bj, when is it going to get fixed server-side?
Anyone have a clip of this? (Would prefer, ahem, to avoid going to that website, if they even have it up).
Watching that segment gave me a big happy.
They get so bent out of shape because they still view marriage as a man having dominion over a woman. It completely blows them away that marriage partners wouldn’t have that ready-made role distinction. It threatens their marriage in that it threatens their assumed leadership role (hense their masculinity) to think that marriage could be based on equality in the relationship. It scares them shitless to see the status quo questioned.
They also totally afraid that allowing gay marriage will result in unwanted things going up their butts. It’s all about irrational fear.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Monty Python predicted the Boies v. Perkins match up.
Crooks and Liars has the clip too.
Yes, he definitely schooled Wallace on that one.
I thought his example of the 1964 California initiative measure institutionalizing the right of landlords and sellers to discriminate based on race was spot on. That measure won by 65% of the vote.
The Olsen- Wallace segment was especially gratifying. I loved watching Olsen surgically hand Wallace his ass then apply the needles like an acupuncturist
Why is Tony fucking Perkins still getting on TV?
ETA: Thanks gbear will check it out.
Was watching Sunday Morning, and flipped to MTP during a commercial. David Gregory was trying to get Orange Julius to answer a simple question: are your tax cuts paid for? OJ gave him spin and bullshit; Gregory basically shrugged and said “Well, we’re out of time”.
I don’t suppose Anthony Weiner has time to host MTP?
@dmsilev: Let me try to think like a wingnut for a moment ….
Unpossible. Wingnuts don’t think.
Obligatory Onion link, cuz it never gets old and is so apropos of
Ted HaggardTony Perkins.
@dmsilev: Because it’s in the Bible (Old Testatment) and it’s a lot easier than helping the poor (New Testatment). The passion over abortion is similar.
kommrade reproductive vigor
@Southern Beale: Uh … Scary TalEvangical closet cases are getting harder and harder to find?
(Actually I don’t think Perkins is gay or straight. That would mean he has the ability to feel affection for, form lasting romantic bonds with, be attracted to, &c another person. I think Perkins just has things he likes to do to anyone who doesn’t run away in time. Seriously, he creeps me the fuck out.)
@Cat Lady: Somehow I’ve never seen that. VERY funny!
@Omnes Omnibus: On this particular computer, I have to read Balloon Juice on Firefox. Everything else is fine on IE.
If you can’t go there.
Here it is.
Got it! Thanks!
Orange Julius? I was (I am embarrassed to admit) confused for a moment. Then I checked the MTP lineup.
That name’s a keeper. Thanks!
The Paula Jones case was a long time ago, and he didn’t represent her – he did a moot court to help her lawyers prepare for oral argument. Not at all unusual for inexperienced appellate lawyers to hire an experienced one to put them through the wringer before they go do it for real.
My sense is that Olson had something akin to a delayed road-to-Damascus moment. Recall that his wife was killed on the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. He bailed from the SG’s office before the detainee cases started coming along (conscience? who knows?). He’s also 70 years old, and that could have something to do with a change of heart.
A little more about the Olson- Boise teaming:
A Conservative’s Road to Same-Sex Marriage Advocacy
ETA @burnspbesq: According to this article, he’s done plenty right-wing stuff in the meantime. And rather than reflecting a change of heart, I suspect he would argue that his reasoning follows a straight line from his prior stances.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN)
This is incorrect. The right to privacy was enshrined in the Supreme Court opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, which was heavily cited in the Roe v. Wade opinion.
@Bill E Pilgrim
Actually, the logic is, straight white men are the only ones capable of being open minded and fair in a court of law.
People of color, Gays/Lesbians, and women in general can never judge a case in which their interests might be at stake.
But notice that it wasn’t the journalist who called out Perkins for lying, it was Boies, a guest involved in the case. It really should be the journalists and show hosts who do this, who research the facts ahead of time and can explain to people who is giving accurate information and who is just bs’ing the viewers. But extreme notions of objectivity and “balance” just turn journalists into he-said, she-said stenographers. There needs to be more empirically-based analysis.
@gbear: That explains so much!
I ready something a few days ago about how men and women weren’t equals in marriage until fairly recently, and now that the institution is, in the eyes of the law, anyway, a partnership of equals, gender doesn’t have anything to do with it.
It does challenge the whole idea of wifely submission, doesn’t it?
@burnspbesq: that last part is possible, but he, with David Sentelle, was instrumental in masterminding the legal strategy and recruiting the Laura Ingraham’s of the world to rep her.
I suppose it’s possible he became less crazy when Barbara died, but that seem counter-intuitive. After all, her best friend, Sean Hannity, didn’t become less crazy
In order to have a change of heart, you have to have a heart. Is there any evidence that Hannity is so equipped?
My favorite thing about the Olson/Wallace video is how Wallace keeps hitting the line about 7 million voters voted in favor of the ban. And then completely ignores that 6.4 million voted against the ban. Apparently, we don’t matter because we lost one vote.
I gotta say, Chris Wallace is a much more effective advocate for the FRC’s case* than Tony Perkins, but Ted Olson still took him to the wood shed.
(* And I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether that’s an appropriate role for someone claiming to be a journalist, I’m just noting the observation — I report, you decide.)
In a similar vein, it’s kinda like positing that Hannity is brain-damaged.
@KG: I like how Rachel Maddow framed the issue. If something is a constitutional right, it’s not up for a vote anyway. If that were the case, many areas of the country would still be segregated (more than they already are.)
@Zuzu’s Petals: Thanks for the link. It explains where Olson’s coming from, and it’s not inconsistent with anything in his history.
Olson’s an old-school, Libertarian-leaning, Western Conservative, more latter-day Goldwater than C-Street Christianist.
If you thought gay marriage threatens all marriages, wait until the gays start getting gay no-fault divorces.
Where did that come from, by the way? Some nut called into C-Span all hot about no-fault divorce as well.
I found this snippet rather interesting:
@Zuzu’s Petals: Me, too. But I can see how affirmative action could be seen as discriminatory, and how an honest challenge from someone like Ted Olson could refine the policy.
The Supreme Court recognized diversity as an appropriate goal for an educational institution, and there were many amicus briefs filed in the U of MI case from the military and large corporations saying, “We need people who aren’t clueless about people different from themselves.”
I’m sure I disagree with Ted Olson on a host of issues, but his stance on the Prop H8 case is based on good ol’ American values we all appreciate: Live and let live, and mind your own beeswax!
And yet his rightie friends seem so perplexed by this.
Olson is a partner with Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, one of the most prestigious law firms in the country. Founded in 1890 in Los Angeles, Gibson was one of the official law firms of the WASP power structure in Southern California.
Some of the firm’s notable cases:
Not to quibble, but there are a fair number of Americans who think the meaning of “live and let live” is “if you don’t act like a faggot, I won’t beat the shit out of you.”
Personally, I’m somewhat of a fan of an older thinking on tolerance, one that Bois and Olson successfully argued for in this particular case.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN)
I’ll go farther than that. I’m prepared to argue over affirmative action and reverse discrimination with someone like Ted Olson, and do so on a reasonable basis. I would, to a large extent, disagree with him, but he has at least demonstrated that the cause he is committed to is equal treatment, rather than just disguised racism.
That’s actually very refreshing to find.
As part of my drug-free nightly ritual to combat persistent insomnia, I’m compelled to end my day with an encouraging bit of news. (Yeah. Some nights are a real biatch.)
I’m gonna sleep like a baby tonight.
Wow, that Olson video is fucking delicious. Bravo. I hope he wakes a few conservatives up by doing that.
Calling out obvious lies *as rarely as that happens) is one of the most nefarious practices of the “liberal media!”
After all, the Republicans didn’t engage in a decades-long effort to work the refs so that their bullshit would get more critical scrutiny.
Do you consider melatonin a drug? ‘Cause it works like a charm for me.
I finally got a chance to watch Olson and Wallace. I must confess, I had never watched more than 30 seconds of Chris Wallace before now. I can now see why I didn’t – I had to stop watching the Olson “interview” after about 5 minutes.
What a repulsive twit Wallace is. I have no love for Ted Olson, but he showed remarkable restraint in not saying something like “Listen, you stupid motherfucker! It’s not ‘judicial activism’ when a judge says something isn’t constitutional! And all your mindless repetition of Rethug talking points will not make it so. So either ask a question showing some intelligence, or STFU!”
Now I gotta go find a barrel of industrial-strength disinfectant to wash the Wallace stench off.
Are they still saying this will lead to men marrying their horses?
So Gay Marriage has been around 100 years in the US?
I tried time-released melatonin. It helped me sleep, but I also woke with freaky, vivid dreams hanging on. Some of them downright disturbing. (I mean, if my psyche is that sick and twisted I’d like to not have any morning recollection.)
I’ve since learned that, at least anecdotally, it’s not just me.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. Many of my vintage used to ingest certain … uh, substances to help them get to that state.
Of course, I wouldn’t know anything about that, personally.
As with your wingtard brethren, you appear to be comprehension-challenged. But, please, don’t let us stop you from continuing to demonstrate your “intelligence”.
Do we need to spot you the “C” and the “A”?
Holy chuckle. Unless your ‘vintage’ is pre-’61, you got nothing on me.
Interestingly — contradictorily? — I find my later years drawn to and dominated not by the mind-altering substances of, perhaps, my early years (I’ve admitted to nothing), but to my local health food store.
Yes. It sucks getting old.