Tweet
Milbank’s reason for believing the Family Research Council can’t be a hate group is because it is a “Washington think tank” with respectability in political circles. Apparently Tony Perkins wardrobe and demeanor inoculate him from comparison to backwoods haters in Klan regalia.
After publishing a poorly thought out column in the WaPo defending FRC last week that in essence slammed LGBT groups and allies that called him out for his preposterous defense that the well-documented anti-LGBT organization is not a hate group, Dana Milbank went on the Michelangelo Signorile Show and still ignored the factual evidence placed before him.
Milbank seemed not to know, nor would he address it when pointed out, that the SPLC lists many groups on its website that are not violent, or even claim to oppose violence, but which propagate hate as well. The hate group list includes the Nation of Islam and the Conservative Citizens Council.
“I’m not going to defend [FRC], I’m not going to do it,” he said, repeatedly, affirming that he didn’t come on to defend FRC and does agree that the group’s repeated claim that gays are pedophiles is “hateful,” though believes it should be called by another term other than hate group. “I think there should be a list of people who use unacceptable language.”
…“This is a group that was founded by James Dobson and was run for many years by Gary Bauer, who was a presidential candidate, a widely respected commentator around town,” he explained. “Why would would you say that’s the same sort of thing as Stormfront?”
Wow. Listen for yourself:
10 Comments
“I think there should be a list of people who use unacceptable language”?? Apparently, Milbank hasn’t heard of the Commentator Accountability Project either.
The idea that FRC is a “think tank” is in itself high Broderism.
I nominate Milbank as the first recipient of the David Brooks Award for Cluelessness.
Milbank needs to learn that the “respectable” aren’t always deserving of their respect. But he won’t.
Makes me wonder if he would’ve been a defender of the American Bund.
A respectable think tank if there ever was one.
There’s actually thinking going on a FRC?
Do you have proof of this? For example a paper discussing both sides of a issue, listing pros and cons and then a conclusion (I think that’s called the “Scientific Method” and is my belief is a key part of “thinking” since the renaissance).
I could be wrong. I’m open to other suggestions of proof of thinking.
(Just hold that sword still with the point upward and get the camera ready. The FRC, or one of the others, will fling themselves on it soon).
Maybe Wilke was just extrapolating, after having raped a half dozen women and nothing came out.
I don’t read the Washington Post, myself, it has a bad reputation for misleading readers, pursuing political agendas, and further it doesn’t seem to offer news or opinion that can’t be found elsewhere quite easily.
Creeps like Milbank are “lace curtain homophobes.” They know well enough not to speak above a whisper because times have changed. But they’re not about grant us the same status as Jews and African Americans. And here’s why.
So now he wants potty-mouth police?
Akin used perfectly acceptable language to express utterly unacceptable bullshit.