'Well, OK, stop for just a second,' CNN's Carol Costello told Maggie Gallagher, one of three ( so far ) conservative columnists exposed in recent weeks for taking cash from the Bush administration in exchange for promoting its policies. 'Stop—let me get a word in edgewise here.'
Gallagher, a grimacing little tyrant with jet black hair and a round pink face, was in foot-stomping mode, angry that anyone would dare compare her to Armstrong Williams, the Tribune Media Services columnist who took money from the Department of Education in return for talking up Bush education policy in his column and media appearances. But the similarities between the two are striking. Both are no-talent vipers who prostitute themselves as members of groups ( Blacks and women ) into which conservatives would love to drive a wedge. Both also babble incoherently with little grasp of facts.
In a Nov. 18, 2004, column offering advice to Democrats in the aftermath of the election, Williams wrote that Bill Clinton 'was waddling all over [ Washington ] in the months leading up to the election, imploring [ Democratic ] party leaders to abandon their support of a gay marriage amendment.'
Gay marriage amendment? Democrats? There was of course the Federal Marriage Amendment, pushed by conservative Republicans and George W. Bush, to ban gays from marrying. But there was no shadow 'gay marriage amendment' attempting to legalize same-sex marriage. This is a complete delusion on the part of Williams—one that his editors at Tribune Media allowed to be published.
'Despite the rhetoric you hear from the homosexual Cosa Nostra, the lack of support for the gay marriage amendment has nothing to do with prejudice … ,' he continued, in his alternate universe. 'Somehow, though, the Democrats don't get this. They hang on to the gay marriage amendment with mind-numbing intransigence.'
It comes as no surprise that someone this out of touch with reality should also be mired in self-denial. Williams, like Gallagher, uses the 'homosexual agenda' as a whipping post, and in his case the irony is deep, indeed. Williams has been accused of male-on-male sexual harassment ( the case was settled out of court ) and David Brock claims in Blinded by the Right that Williams made a pass at him in Williams' apartment, allegedly asking Brock if he was 'dominant or submissive in bed.'
I brought up the alleged Brock pass to Williams at the Republican National Convention, where he was busy cavorting about with Tina Brown, whose equally incoherent talk show he'd appeared on several times last year. Williams babbled nervously for a while before denying he was gay. He then thanked me for being 'so kind to ask me these questions,' noting that, 'I've been through the fire and I'm still standing.'
Gallagher is prone to similar nonsensical emissions, but heatedly denies the payola charge. She didn't take money for promoting Bush's marriage initiative in the media, she explained on CNN. Rather, like the most recent exposed columnist on the take, 'Ethics and Religion' syndicated columnist Michael McManus, Gallagher was merely paid by the Dept. of Health and Human Services to write official materials. In other words, Gallagher and McManus were paid to actually write the government's propaganda, while Williams was paid to propagandize the government's propaganda. There is a difference, you see.
In fact, Gallagher's crime is far more egregious than Williams', despite the latter having made $240,000 for his efforts, while Gallagher only made off with a little over $40,000 ( $21,500 for writing the government's marriage initiative brochures, and a subsequent payment of $20,000 ) . What few media reports noted was that Gallagher, in addition to writing the Bush administration brochures and pumping up its policies in her columns, testified before a Senate subcommittee in support of the federal marriage amendment that the White House eventually backed and pushed throughout the presidential campaign.
But Gallagher was not identified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights as the individual who wrote the White House's policy on marriage, but rather as the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, an independent think tank. She was thus a paid witness on behalf of the Bush administration, testifying before the Senate.
Moreover, Gallagher's stature as an 'expert' before the committee was enhanced by her stint as an anonymous writer of Bush's policy a year earlier—a spectacular example of sleazy self-promotion. On his blog Soundbitten.com, Greg Beato explains how Gallagher actually promoted her own book by ghostwriting for the government.
'In return for the $21,500, Gallagher's primary task was to draft a 3,000-word essay for one Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,' he explains. 'Ultimately, the essay was published by Crisis magazine; in it, Gallagher, writing as Horn, exclaims: 'Adults, too, benefit from healthy and stable marriages. They tend to live longer, healthier lives and are more affluent. Married mothers suffer from considerably lower rates of depression than their single counterparts. Like a good education, a good marriage is a real asset. Married men earn between 10 and 40 percent more than similar single men, and married couples accumulate substantially more wealth. By the time they're ready to retire, married couples have, on average, assets worth two and a half times as much as their single counterparts. ( The figure for married couples is $410,000, compared with $167,000 for those who never married and $154,000 for divorced individuals, according to Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher in their book, The Case for Marriage. ) ''
The day before Gallagher testified before the Senate subcommittee, she appeared on my radio program to argue her—and the Bush administration's—case. She quickly devolved into advocating some rather bizarre ideas, such as that gay people, in order to gain marriage rights, marry heterosexuals and have children, while remaining gay and sexually active.
'I think it's a very a high risk thing to do, and I don't recommend it,' she said. 'But I'm not barring the door. I think mixed marriages are fine.'
Gallagher would rather have people live a lie for the sake of the 'children' than have them be open, honest and self-accepting—the healthiest environment for both children and parents. Is it any wonder that deceit and non-disclosure are Maggie Gallagher's stock in trade?
Signorile hosts a daily satellite radio program on Sirius OutQ, 149. He can be reached via his Web site, www.signorile.com .
