RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

02/16/2010

B.S. Elliot (R-You Kidding Me?)

by Jeremy Hooper

Nancy-ElliotLast week, when we heard New Hampshire Rep. Nancy "wiggling it around in excrement" Elliott's unbelievable claim that a fifth grade class had been instructed to draw depictions of two men having anal sex, we immediately called it a lie. Now -- surprise, surprise -- the Republican lawmaker is all but admitting as much:

"This statement made in the Judiciary Committee had caused some controversy so I went back to my source for the statement to verify the information that I had received. I found that I could not confirm the accuracy of the information.

I am compelled by the fact that the statement cannot be verified that I withdraw the statement I made in committee last Tuesday regarding the Nashua schools.
"

MORE of Rep. Elliott's words: Elliott can’t confirm accuracy of sex claim, apologizes for making it [Nashua Telegraph]
(H/t: Queerty)

Translation: "I forgot that because of the advent of the internet, people are far more capable of holding even local lawmakers' feet to the proverbial fire, so now that I've been exposed all over YouTube looking like an over-the-top radical who's willing to flat-out make stuff up in order to fulfill my agenda, I'm going to do my best to save face via this carefully parsed statement."

But at least there's some semblance of an apology, as far as it goes. Now as for the ten billion and six other ones that this nation's lawmakers owe the LGBT community...

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I'm ashamed to admit this but Joe Wilson's comment is echoing in my ears right now. Girlfriend know she lied.

Posted by: a. mcewen | Feb 16, 2010 5:35:28 PM

I think it's funny that she couldn't come right out a just say she lied, so she had phrase it in a way that made it sound like she only made a little error.

Posted by: Bill S | Feb 16, 2010 6:02:06 PM

If this lady ever decided to have a baby with Matt Barber, its name would have to be "Violently Cramming It In and Wiggling It Around In Excrement."

Posted by: Evan Hurst | Feb 16, 2010 6:05:48 PM

I posted this in the comments of the article:

"This statement made in the Judiciary Committee had caused some controversy so I went back to my source for the statement to verify the information that I had received. I found that I could not confirm the accuracy of the information."

"I went back to my source for the statement"

WHAT SOURCE? She's not admitting she lied, she's claiming her 'source' lied. Their is no 'source' , it doesn't exist. The only 'source' is her own anus, where bigots tend to get their 'facts'.

Posted by: penguinsaur | Feb 16, 2010 6:07:22 PM

Interesting little backpedaling incident for Elliott. I guess her getting nailed on Facebook did it.

Posted by: Tony P | Feb 16, 2010 6:15:03 PM

In regards to her refusal to take responsibility for the fib: By my count, there are 13 public elementary schools in the Nashua area. So say 3 or 4 fifth grade classes per school. That's 50 or so teachers on whom she has placed a cloud of suspicion.

She needs to go the next step and admit she made it up. Because let's face it: The idea that a teacher is out there instructing students to draw pictures of two dudes having sex is a wholly made up notion.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 16, 2010 6:38:48 PM

Did I miss the apology? Where did she actually apologize?

Posted by: Joe Brummer | Feb 16, 2010 7:13:26 PM

Joe: There's more at the link:

"I would like to apologize to Judiciary Committee, the Nashua public schools and its employees and the speaker as well as anyone else affected by what I said.

I will try much harder in the future to verify fully my statement."

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 16, 2010 7:25:21 PM

If I lived in New Hampshire, I wouldn't accept her apology. As an elected official, she needs to be more careful with her words, and, as my parents said, "if you were actually sorry, you wouldn't have done it in the first place."

Someone off-camera asked her to keep her comments relevant to the discussion of marriage and that was her chance right there to say, "gee you're right - I kinda got carried away there. I apologize." That was her out and she refused to take it.

Posted by: DN | Feb 16, 2010 7:46:37 PM

Agreed, DN. It's an apology, and an obvious admission of guilt. But the first motivator seems to be self-protection, not actually making good.

And of course she didn't even mention the LGBT community as being a group who specifically deserves an apology...

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 16, 2010 7:55:10 PM

That's because she ISN'T apologizing to gay people; she's apologizing for being...ineloquent. For not being able to spin her right-wing hate enough that it sounds like she's a victim of religious persecution. She's sorry that she said that pornography was handed out; but she is not sorry for her *intent* (because if gay marriage is legalized this will happen!-she thinks) and she is certainly not sorry for calling gay people shit fuckers. In fact, I would hazard a guess that she considers it a proud moment for her as a politician and a Christian: she spoke her true heart's belief.

This is what we're truly up against: the ugly nature of prejudice.

Posted by: ZnSD | Feb 16, 2010 8:18:35 PM

Except in this case, ZnSD, I really don't see much opportunity for her to win points. When a politician speaks out to the level that they have to issue a public statement to their fellow members, it's not a good day for them.

Yes, there's the "she spoke the truth and vicious gay activists attacked her" line. But I think this obvious admission of fibbery (even if indirect) really weakens the mileage she can get out of this. Esp. in NH.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 16, 2010 8:29:06 PM

The so-called "apology" from Elliott does nothing to alleviate the fact that she's a liar who should be called to task & removed from public service. Disgusting.

Posted by: Jon | Feb 16, 2010 8:36:27 PM

This is truly a unique turn of events. Of course, it was a lie, but I'm still ALMOST willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that some other lying liar made it up, and that she was just repeating it. Of course, even it that were true, it doesn't absolve her of the fact that she repeated it with out verifying it. Verifying it would have been very easy to do, and if I, personally, had heard such a story, I would have been gunning for someone's job as a result.

All of that tends to give less credence to the notion that she was simply repeating a lie that was fabricated by someone else. Especially when you add on top of her lie, the fact that her entire tirade was delivered with an overwhelmingly vitriolic animus. I am now am with the rest of you, in that I am of the opinion that she made up the lie herself.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 16, 2010 10:02:49 PM

What part of of the Nancy Elliott agenda did you not understand? The hollow apology to her constituents does nothing more than add to her hypocrisy.

Posted by: Jon | Feb 16, 2010 11:26:52 PM

J, I see this in works by polemical Historians all the time! it's called the "Cover You Ass" move! Basically, when someone calls them on their crap, and shows they are full of it, they come out and with a more moderate (but not point-blank) line, and essentially sum it up with a, "But, I wasn't *really* wrong! See?" It's infuriating, because it shows me that they don't think much of their readers' critical thinking skills.

At least she apologized, however, which is much MORE than I can say for many professional historians who have written articles vilifying their justifiable critics (only MUCH later to say they had a valid point!), or to react with indifference when a scholars has a journalist point out to him that one academic on whom he relied to discredit the thesis of another scholar with whom he disagrees--which also influenced whole generations of scholars--would not concede that he was wrong, but reacted with indifference at the proposition!*

* Okay, that's a bit too vague: In 2003 investigative freelance journalist (and Transgendered woman), Janine Farrel-Robert, engaged in a debate with Prof. Ronald Hutton (History, Bristol Univ., UK) over the work of the late Margaret Murray's witchcraft hypothesis. Janine's contention, upon comparing and contrasting, was that Hutton's 9and generations of scholars) source for "discrediting" Murray's work--the late prof. Norman Cohn--had blatantly misrepresented her material, going so far as to declare that she had omitted passages that would have disproved her theory; but the passages that Cohn alleges Murray omitted, which he quotes within his own text, were actually considered by Murray in great detail! This is pretty much an open-and-shut case, but when Hutton was made aware of these findings, he behaved with shocking indifference re: the mendacity (not to mention ad hominem assaults and ageism) that Cohn levied against Murray! Of course, in his earlier work, Hutton was quite to chastise any writers who made these points clear! Indeed, one such writers (albeit unknown to Hutton) was Arthur Evans in his book, "Witchcraft and the Gay Counterculture".

Sadly, so thoroughly is Murray's work considered to have been "debunked" that most British scholars, and slightly fewer American scholars, will admit that research coming from Continental Europe actually supports Murray's theory with its unequivocal evidence for an Indo-European shamanistic cult during the Middle Ages who were targeted as Witches. Okay, rant mode off...

Can ya' tell that history's my "thing"?! :o)

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Feb 16, 2010 11:36:46 PM

This is not an apology. This is weaseling.

Posted by: TB Tabby | Feb 17, 2010 4:41:23 AM

Is it me, or does it seem like they are using this pink and purple polka dotted elephant agenda a little too much. The fact is, if a million people saw or heard what she said the first time, I don't think that they all heard her retraction.

How many people are still going to believe that this ACTUALLY happened.

KEEP THE ELEPHANT OUT OF IT!!!!

Posted by: Jen | Feb 17, 2010 8:19:48 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails