Apr 21, 2009

Right-wingers have new heroine and VP candidate in Miss California


Right-wingers have a new heroine; a Josephine the Plumber, if you will.

That heroine is Miss California Carrie Prejean. She was the runner up at the Miss USA pageant on Sunday, and she is claiming her answer in the exciting Q & A section of the pageant cost her the crown.

I have no idea if that’s true, but I certainly hope that’s the case.

After picking his name in a fish bowl, she was asked by judge Perez Hilton whether gay marriage should be legalized in all 50 states. She stammered, and then replied, "In my country, and in my family, I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman."

I guess some people don’t cotton to discrimination. Again, I have no idea if that answer cost her the crown, but like I said, I hope it did. If the judges can’t take their answers into account, then do away with that portion of the competition and replace it with something else.

But her answer earned her more fame and adulation from the right than the person who actual won the crown; who happened to be Miss North Carolina, Kristen Dalton, by the way.

We will see Prejean’s face all over Faux “News,” and considering the qualifications of the last GOP Vice-presidential candidate, I expect to see her in politics. After all, Sarah Palin failed to make it to the Miss USA pageant after Miss Wasilla failed to win the Miss Alaska crown.

21 comments:

Anon said...

Guru:

Miss California's stance on marriage is exactly that of your president, Barack Obama. They both feel that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

Why are you calling Barack Obama an intolerant bigot?

Communications guru said...

My president? I’m an American; you’re not? I never said I agree with every thing the President does or says, and I disagree with that stance. The good news is he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman, and he supports civil unions.

No where in her answer did Miss California say if she supported civil unions in her country.

Anon said...

Guru, the fact is, you singled out Miss California for your daggers, but you conveniently failed to mention that she's simply agreeing with Barack Obama on this issue.

You said that you hope her answer cost her the Miss USA crown. And yet you obviously didn't think this exact same stance should have cost Barack Obama the presidency.

Are you saying the Miss USA title is more important than the presidency of the United States?

Communications guru said...

I singled her out to point out how the right will single her out and she will become their new heroine, and I was right. She was all over Faux News last night, from bill blowhard, sean hateity and the token so-called liberal Gretta. Hateity even said she has a career in politics. Of course she does now. Her narrow view was the best thing that ever happened to her. If she had won she would have quickly faded into obscurity. How many Miss USA’s can you name?

I don’t know if she agrees with the President or not. I don’t see how it could have cost the President the election. I am not a one issue voter and never will be. I disagree with him on that, and every American should be allowed the same rights. She was also wrong when she said “I think it’s great Americans can choose one or the other.” Gays are being denied a choice and a basic right.

Yes, I do hope it cost her the crown. I know that’s what she and the right-wingers are claiming, but no one knows if it’s true. I believe there was more than the one judge who asked the question.

Not Anonymous said...

Could someone please point out where in the Constitution there is a right to marry?

No where in her answer did she say she supported civil unions. On the other hand, no where in the question did it ask about civil unions.

Communications guru said...

To answer your question, where it says “…establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.”
Now, you can answer mine, brett. Could someone please point out where in the Constitution it says it’s OK to discriminate?

The info on civil unions was a response to someone else, I think.

Not Anonymous said...

If you think that's where a right to marry is, I'd suggest you look up the Federalist papers and do some research.

There is no discrimination. Gays are free to have their own ceremonies, free to live together, free to do whatever they want behind closed doors. What my wife and I do behind closed doors is none of your business, what you and your boyfriend do behind closed doors is not my business.

Nobody is being denied anything.

You can screw anyone or anything you choose behind closed doors if it's consensual and the other person is of legal age. Even in Washington if you want to screw a horse, you're able to do so behind closed doors and it's not illegal unless the horse complains. So you and Trigger have at it.

But there is no right to marry anywhere in the Constitution.

In fact, I'd say that government sanctioned marriages are an intrusion if anything. I don't need a piece of paper from the state sanctioning my marriage. It's between me, my wife and my God. I realize that you're a Godless site, but my choice is to include God in my life and live my life under His guidance. If you choose to be Godless, in this country you have that option.

Communications guru said...

Wow. I had no idea gay marriage was an issue in 1787.

What do you call it when you have the right to marry whoever you want, but a gay person does not? I call it discrimination, too.

A “godless site?” Why, because I disagree with you, brett? You are a sad little man, and not much of a Christian. Marriage is also a contract, and gays are also Christians.

Not Anonymous said...

Nobody has the right to marry whomver they want. People have the option to enter in a marriage together. If it was a right to marry whomever you want, I could marry Miss California, but then I'm already married, so that would be a problem. I doubt Miss California would want to marry me, so I suppose by your warped thinking, she's violating my rights.

Like I said, if you want to stick a round peg in a square hole, or a square peg in a round hole, go for it, but there is no right to marry.

My own personal opinion is that the gay life is deviant. But, I'm not the thought police, as you seem to want to be, so you choose to marry someone of the same sex as you, good for you. Your choice. You're welcome to that if that's what you choose, but there is no right for those two to get married, no more than there is a right for me to marry a female.

Even my gay friends understand my position. Everyone has a value, but not everyones values are the same as another.

Communications guru said...

You don’t have to play stupid. I’m assuming you’re straight, and I’m also assuming no one told you – especially the government – you could not marry your wife. Why is it then OK for the government to deny a gay couple the same right you enjoy? I will never understand how it hurts anyone for gay couples to marry.

I believe it is a right to marry. It’s called the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the Declaration of Independence carries the same weight as the Constitution. The fact that you think two people in a committed loving relationship is deviant just shows show how small-minded you are. The only people who share that opinion are people like you.

Not Anonymous said...

You finally got something right. The only people that share that opinion are people like me. Over 70% of the American people.

It's very telling that you believe in the right to life, when it comes to gays, but you don't believe in the right to life when it comes to unborn babies.

The Declaration does not carry as much weight as the Constitution, at least not in the same vein. The Declaration enumerated our reasons for being independent from Great Britain. The Constitution set out the rights and the laws of the land and protecting the people from the government.

For instance, a state religion may not be created, but nothing states that people of faith must refrain from taking part in their government.

The Declaration on the other hand stated we were free people from now on and no longer under the tyranny of another. We may have to redo this with this current crop of Socialist Democrats, who are hell bent on nationalizing everythign from the air to the banking. From the oil to the stock market.

Keep reading that declaration, you just might find where it's necessary for the people to fight off tyranny when it rears its' ugly head again, which we're really close to having once again.

You have no respect for others opinions. What you have is namecalling if someone disagrees with you. You have no respect for the truth, you twist it, lie about it and make it fit what you want it to be. You constantly show that disrespect for others by caling me by a name that is not mine, apparently with the idea that you're being cute. I think if you have a problem with someone and you want to keep addressing me by his/her name, then I will take that as a compliment because anyone that has you so incensed that you must continually call everyone by his/her name, must be a great guy/gal.

In other words, you make yourself more irrelevent than you already are. You're living proof of the lack of education in this country's education system.

Communications guru said...

You could not be more wrong. Only a small minority of people hold the same views as you about gays, and that minority is shrinking everyday. Abortion and gay marriage are two different issues, and they are not related.

Once again, brett, there is no such thing in this country as a “socialist” Democrat, and it is nothing but a false fascist Republican talking point. Sorry, the current government was democratically elected, and it is supported by the majority of Americans.

Are you serous? You are accusing me of name-calling? I certainly have done that, but I have given far less than I get from you, brett. If I’m so irreverent, then why do you keep coming back, brett, and why are your arguments void of facts?

Not Anonymous said...

Gay marriage ban was approved in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah in 2004. The closest vote was in Oregon and the difference was 14%. The rest were 20% or or more difference, and in Mississippi the ban passed with 86% of the vote.

California passed the gay marriage ban. There isn't one state that I can think of where the ban failed. Only in the courts has the ban been struck down, giving yet another indicator of how elected officials and judges are out of touch with the American people.

Communications guru said...

I know, those pesky courts upholding that darn constitution. I don’t see the relevance of citing 12 states out of 50 that have banned gay marriage. You said homosexual behavior was deviant; a minority view at best, and that has nothing to do with banning gay marriage.

Funny, elected officials and judges are the people. The good news is the majority of young people see nothing wrong with two people in a loving, committed relationship getting married, regardless of their sex.

Anon said...

Guru, as a good Democrat, you need to stop calling Barack Obama an intolerant bigot. You need to stop calling Hillary Rodham Clinton an intolerant bigot. You need to stop bashing those Democrats who feel that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Stop it. You're supposed to be a good and loyal Democrat, and you are not helping the cause by bashing your fellow Democrats, especially the president.

Stop it.

Communications guru said...

Stop playing dumb. I don’t march in lock step with what the party says. I’m not a Republican. I believe in love and marriage, and everyone should have the right to marry who they fall in love with. It should be called a marriage and not a civil union. Secretary Clinton, like the president, supports civil unions. Does Josephine the plumber support civil unions?

Anon said...

Miss California was never asked if she supports civil unions.

Stop dancing around the issue, and stop bashing the president.

Communications guru said...

I’m not bashing anyone. I pointed out that Miss USA Runner-up will be the rightwing darling, and I was right. I support the President 100 percent, but I am not a one-issue voter.

Anon said...

If you don't support his position on gay marriage, then you don't support him 100 percent.

And please, stop comparing Obama to Miss California and Sarah Palin.

Communications guru said...

Wrong again, brett, and there is no comparsion.

Johnny C said...

The right wing sure do know how to pick their heroes.