Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
My CIM colleague John Tomasic notes that the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage has quietly dropped Carrie Prejean after so famously promoting her in the wake of her fake martyrdom in the Miss USA pageant.
Carrie Prejean, the decrowned Miss California and darling of the Christian right, appears to have been scrubbed from the National Organization for Marriage website. The move comes in the wake of a TMZ interview with the man whom Prejean reportedly met through MySpace and had a four-day hotel fling with in 2007. He alleges Prejean sent a series of sex tapes to him over the next couple of years. It's the latest chapter in the story of Prejean's partygirl past, which keeps leaking into the public sphere, ruining what had been her budding career as a Christian-values conservative politics spokesperson.
Isn't that sad when reality and the facts intrude on a perfectly good lie? John quotes what the NOM said a few months ago when they were so eager to get Prejean on their bandwagon:
Hollywood hates Carrie...[But] God knows, and we know, the truth about Carrie: She's a young woman of great beauty who chose truth over the glittering tiara that Hollywood offers," said Brian Brown, Executive Director for NOM. "Of course they will try to punish her, but we know she will be fine in the end, because her values are in the right place."
"Hollywood will dance its tribal war dance over her body-the hatred generated against her has been extraordinary-but Carrie will be free to define her own mission and message from now on. Congratulations," stated Maggie Gallagher, President for NOM.
Yeah. Except that God knows, and the public knows, and the NOM now knows, that Prejean is just another shallow, vapid Paris Hilton wannabe draping herself in the Bible while violating most of its precepts. She's the female equivalent of John Ensign, Mark Sanford, Newt Gingrich, David Vitter and innumerable others who place themselves on a moral pedestal while violating everything they claim to stand for as soon as the cameras are turned off (or in Prejean's case, turned on).
Politics
Comments
Isn't Prejean's case abnormal, though? From what I understand, it is actually quite rare for conservatives to abandon their heroes, and it is much more likely that they will deny any and all accusations, and dismiss any and all evidence.
Is Prejean getting a worse treatment because she is a woman?
Posted by: Valhar2000 | November 19, 2009 9:12 AM
Here's the 4:24 audio of the interview between the guy that leaked the tapes and TMZ.
TMZ failed to ask him (at least in this interview, not sure there are others) what motivated him to leak these tapes. In addition, when TMZ asks who asked him to lie about her age* in the tapes, Ms. Prejean or her lawyer, this man claims it was Ms. Prejean but then subsequently alludes to pressure from a plural group of people, where TMZ failed to follow-up regarding who these "people" were.
Ms. Prejean's story in her TV interviews plugging her book was that she was in love with this man and thought they had a future and that she was 17. It appears she lied about her age in order to solicit sympathy that she was a naive young girl unaware of the foolishness of doing what she did.
TMZ did a lousy job interviewing this man in regards to Ms. Prejean's assertions. Why did he release the tapes? Who were all the individuals that pressured him to lie about her age in the tapes? Does he agree with Ms. Prejean that they were serious? How good was she? (Hey, 'enquiring' minds want to know).
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 19, 2009 9:21 AM
It appears she lied about her age in order to solicit sympathy that she was a naive young girl unaware of the foolishness of doing what she did.
It's more likely that she lied about her age to dissuade any distribution of videos that would be considered child pornography.
Posted by: Odie | November 19, 2009 9:37 AM
Another beauty queen contestant with all the qualifications to be a Family Values Republican.
Posted by: Rodney | November 19, 2009 9:43 AM
A bit of Larry King's interview of her made it onto Fail Blog. I can't quite tell if she's playing dumb to avoid the question or sincere in her stupidity.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 19, 2009 9:43 AM
And best of all:
Time and time again they totally reject the very ideas of repentance and redemption. "Christian values" indeed.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | November 19, 2009 9:58 AM
Poor Carrie. Maybe Ted Haggard could recommend a good therapy program.
Posted by: carlsonjok | November 19, 2009 10:07 AM
There are two reasons why she is being treated differently by Fambly Values conservatives. First, she's not giving phony apologies for what she did. All those politicians that did things far worse than make a solo sex tape made a point of apologizing in public and claiming that they devil made them do it, and they're real real sorry about it, and they're gonna change and be better people because they'll pray enough.
Second, I think a small part of it is that Prejean is a woman, and there's a double standard everywhere, especially among Fambly Values conservatives. When the men have sexual scandals it's just "boys will be boys", but when female sexuality is something that they deny existing while at the same time being terrified of.
Posted by: catgirl | November 19, 2009 10:09 AM
I for one will reserve my judgement of her untill I can review all the evidence. Where can I get copies of these "tapes""
Posted by: Chilidog | November 19, 2009 10:51 AM
Maybe she and Sarah can do a book tour together. They can call it "Going Vogue: How beauty queens should bee seen and not heard."
Posted by: Martym | November 19, 2009 10:55 AM
I agree with catgirl, except I suspect that the fact that Prejean is a woman is much more significant. Boys will be boys, but once a woman is stained even a little, she's ruined.
Posted by: Seraph | November 19, 2009 11:07 AM
Seraph and Catgirl - I'm not sure it's that significant that she's a woman. This isn't Clare Boothe Luce we're talking about. Prejean is mean and stupid, with a breath-taking sense of entitlement (evidently based on the belief that simply being as pretty as she is merits everyone kissing her well-toned ass) and no accomplishments other than being pretty.
And it's not as if people who like to run their traps in front of a camera are at a premium on the Right.
Basically, her fifteen minutes are running out. Whether they're running out slightly faster because she's a woman is debatable. Its inevitability is less so.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | November 19, 2009 12:01 PM
If "bucket 'o blood"* hadn't tried to claim the moral high ground, Seraph, perhaps you'd have a point. She did (like Haggard before her), and was condemned, equally, for being complete hypocrite. - DJ
------------
* I notice that Mr Bek still hasn't denied she was 'the one who got away'.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2009 12:19 PM
I would go so far as to say that she is the female version of Ann Coulter.
Posted by: Maldoror | November 19, 2009 12:24 PM
Presumably, God is the one who knew it all along, but didn't bother to warn anyone at NOM. Do these people who think they're listening to God ever wonder why He never shares useful information with them?
Posted by: Scott Hanley | November 19, 2009 12:45 PM
The move comes in the wake of a TMZ interview with the man whom Prejean reportedly met through MySpace and had a four-day hotel fling with in 2007
Perhaps she was acquainting them with the benefits of heterosexuality. She'd be a good spokesperson in my book.
Posted by: jay | November 19, 2009 12:46 PM
Maggie Gallagher in May:
NOM now: No you don't, but you can't have done porn!
Posted by: Gretchen | November 19, 2009 12:50 PM
I think the fact that she's a young woman has a lot do with it. Any display of sensuality or sexual appetite by women is highly disdained by the religious right.
Just imagine if Country music's latest darling, Taylor Swift, were to get caught up in this sort of thing. I think the reaction would be quite similar.
Posted by: Zachary Smith | November 19, 2009 12:51 PM
Misogyny is alive and well in the 21st century. Even people that are suppose to be responsible, like the president and his crony Axlerod, have show how low they can go in bashing Palin and Prejean.
Hell, I'm a male that is pretty liberal and an Obama fan but I can believe some of his comments. If he can talk that way then the problem runs pretty deep. Lets hope nobody ever makes those kinds of jokes about the first lady or his daughters!! Well if it ever does happen I hope he remembers that he help keep misogyny alive.
What ever happened to the feminists?? Are they too busy pandering to the liberal and their lesbian membership to even acknowledge a conservative??
Posted by: ES165 | November 19, 2009 12:54 PM
Nah, you don't have to be perfect to be an bigot; you just have to claim that you're morally superior to people who want equality for all families.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2009 12:58 PM
Molly @ #12:
So, she's a typical right-winger?
I don't see how being mean and stupid and having a sense of entitlement would be considered a downside by a group that exists for the purpose of spreading falsehoods with the goal of treating others as second-class citizens. They're massive hypocrites, but in this case stupidity, cruelty, and arrogance are qualifications, not disqualifications.
I think their problem is that they think she makes them look bad, so all pretense of forgiveness or morality goes out the window. Of course, they're too stupid to realize they don't need help to look bad.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 19, 2009 1:13 PM
I think there's another reason why she's been thrown under the bus:
She doesn't have a high profile YET. Sure, she had her 15 minutes of fame, but nothing that would really stick around in peoples minds. If she's off the screen tomorrow nobody will remember her next week.
So why drag along someone that can sink you? It's pure strategy, as always.
Too bad for her that this came out now, not five years from now when she'd made it.
Posted by: Michael | November 19, 2009 1:34 PM
I don't think it is a simple situation for NOM, and dog knows they're not good at complex ones.
First, CJ's Mom was also her manager, also present when the tape was shown to CJ, and also in on the capitulation that CJ refused to discuss with Larry King. This makes it harder for NOM or AFA or any other of the Christianist orgs to find redeeming features in a "wholesome" family relationship.
Second, it is somewhat of a stretch anyway for NOM to have as a spokesperson a very nubile not-yet-married young woman as a spokesperson/role model, since CJ had no marriage to be "threatened" by teh gayz.
Third, (and whether this ever occurred to anyone at NOM is something I certainly don't know) when it came right down to it they were doing nothing more than using sex to sell their product — no different from any other commercial product.
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | November 19, 2009 1:37 PM
Maldoror @ 14 FTW!
Posted by: blondin | November 19, 2009 1:39 PM
I have no sympathy whatsoever with the National Organization
foragainst Marriage, but these are people who think sex should be limited to marriage, so in their book it's probably marriage's biggest selling point.Posted by: Vicki | November 19, 2009 2:09 PM
ES165 @ 19: The only people I've seen call out the misogyny in the reactions to Prejean are feminists, and some of them are lesbians. Among other things, they have pointed out that within the sexist worldview and structure, there is no acceptable attitude or behavior for a woman.
Any woman who lives up to the expectations of displaying her availability for men will be called a slut; any woman who lives up to the expectations of "modesty" will be called frigid or a dyke. Any woman who is not focusing on one end or the other of that spectrum is likely to be called all these things, sometimes by the same people or for the same behavior.
I might instead ask you, where are the conservatives who should be supporting one of their own? Prejean backs their cause and is avowedly heterosexual. She was a beauty contest contestant, which is pretty clear acceptance of female gender roles and the idea of displaying herself for male judgment and/or pleasure.
Posted by: Vicki | November 19, 2009 2:20 PM
The hatred that these people display is focused on some of the grandest, most liberating ideas relating to political and social justice ever to spring from the human mind. These ideas are given form and function in the Constitution and within the body of law. They have proven to be so useful and effective that they are mirrored more and more throughout the world. This hatred is a particularly virulent kind; it is hatred of freedom, of fairness and of self.
I know from experience that many of the reactionary, religious right harbor a deep mistrust of our basic human nature and seek to subsume it in ritual faith, religious or political or, worse, both. Still, it is chilling to see this self-hatred projected so widely and so shrilly in the public square. (Notwithstanding that the public square is precisely the right venue--squarely in public view.)
It is likely that their hatred is in direct proportion to their fear. Over the course of the last century they have lost so many convenient targets: black people, voting women, voting black people, demon alcohol, interracial marriage. These last decades have seen the trend continue as rights are explicitly extended to those who have endured violations of their basic human rights imposed by the tacit acceptance of far right bigotry. Now the rabid right is desperate for new targets and Muslim Terrorists have come along at just the right time. The right has made ugly, terrorist rag dolls that they shake in the face of civilization while raising a screeching howl and ringing every alarm bell they can appropriate.
In their head long plunge into frantic insecurity (again, yet, still; it seems to be a way of life for some) they trample the very "blessings of liberty" that allow them to be the right wing, bigot scaremongers that they are. What they will continue to fail to hear or heed is that when the rights of one are trampled the rights of all are in jeopardy.
Joscelyn and those he represents are not good Americans concerned with the welfare of their country and the world in general. They are strictly on the look out for themselves and their tired old dogmas to the exception of all else. In my opinion they are also not good humans.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 19, 2009 2:34 PM
. . . I don't know how I got that here. Needs to be on the A(q)CLU thread. oops
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 19, 2009 2:38 PM
NOM dropping Prejean is not out of character for the conservative pantheon of heroes. Remember, when male conservatives get caught having sex with whomever other than their wives, there exists a strong undercurrent that it was an honest, male mistake, and that the woman involved was some sort of temptress/slut, pulling that good, clean righteous man from his moral perch solely by the power inherent in her vagina. Woman, after all, was the downfall of man right from the start.
The men involved have no volition, though in their inevitable, cookie-cutter apologies they claim responsibility even as they grant themselves absolution. But they don't mean it. The subtext is always that they were seduced by an alien, all powerful creature (a woman) and besides, if the offender's wife were a little more "adventurous" in the sack, then hey, they wouldn't have to stray.
And while they are at it, why can't women who get older, well, just stay 21? I mean, seriously.
NOM also dropped Prejean because the organization is so transparently anti-sex for anything other than procreation (and even then, the less fun had, the more righteous the resulting pregnancy), and sending tapes of yourself to a man not your husband is just icky.
Posted by: Fallsroad | November 19, 2009 3:04 PM
Prejean is just another shallow, vapid Paris Hilton wannabe draping herself in the Bible while violating most of its precepts.
Actually, she didn't violate that many Biblical precepts, at least none of the really important ones. It is possible to be both a decent Christian and an exhibitionistic slut. Carrie's worst violations of Biblical precepts had nothing at all to do with her own sexual activity, on- or off-camera. She's an idiot and an uncaring, uneducated bigot; and we all knew that, and rightly trashed her for it, before the sex tape got out.
The problem here is that right-wing morality (particularly in the area of ess-ee-ex) is so petty, so blind, and so devoid of common sense that the right-wingers ended up trashing one of their own for totally petty, stupid reasons, instead of good reasons like her lack of education or credibility. Again. This is just one more reason why right-wing morality is crap and has to be kicked to the curb. Seriously, how can these people fight the REAL immorality, like child-rape, child-porn, human trafficking, exploitation of women, gross sexual irresponsibility, etc. etc., when they keep getting distracted with harmless shit like lighthearted amateur consensual porn that wasn't even supposed to be seen by more than one person?
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 19, 2009 3:21 PM
As has been true for most of this tawdry little psychodrama, I think Dan Savage had the clearest, most concise summary in the Slog yesterday:
That excerpt really doesn't do it justice. I share Dan's view. This "martyred for her values" role was purely a career move on her part, and it turned, very publicly, into a disastrous one. I've alternated between pity and disgust at the whole spectacle, though at this point, I'm less inclined to pity. At some point in the last six months, the one lesson she should have learned is when you're in a hole, stop digging. There's no evidence at all that concept has even entered her radar.
Posted by: usagi | November 19, 2009 3:38 PM
catgirl @8: First, she's not giving phony apologies for what she did. All those politicians that did things far worse than make a solo sex tape made a point of apologizing in public and claiming that they devil made them do it, and they're real real sorry about it, and they're gonna change and be better people because they'll pray enough.
This is actually dead-on from my lovely experiences growing up fundie. The problem isn't that she screwed up, the problem is that she didn't engage in the ritual ablutions and begin parading around in sackcloth. She hasn't exactly handled it well, but she also hasn't gone in to standard Christian right damage control. There are four steps:
1. Deny that it happened when it's first rumored.
2. Stand up and admit that you did something horrible. Blame it on the Devil trying to drag you down (this will elicit sympathy and, oddly, increase your stature. Ol' Scratch doesn't try to ruin just anyone) or your sinful nature (everyone understands that, since they themselves probably jerked off before church just that morning or something).
3. Say you're trying to change with god's help.
4. Emerge a few months later as a testament to the faith.
The weird thing is that this almost makes me like her.
She hasn't denied it. She hasn't exactly acted like it was her proudest moment (but, to be honest, there are many reasons why that wouldn't be anyone's proudest moment that are forgivable) and has said she shouldn't have done it. She's done a terrible job managing the media firestorm and that LK interview was hilariously bad. But I haven't heard any references to Ol' Scratch. I haven't seen her say she's planning to go live in a convent and commune with god to fix her of all her sins.
In reality she's an attention seeking idiot who's really receiving her comeuppance for trying to set herself up as a darling of the Right. There's little doubt in my mind that these last few months have been a cynical, greedy attempt to cash in on a tempest in a teapot. She deserves the egg on her face because she's been greedy, self-righteous, and dumb. But at least she's being honest, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of the people in her situation.
NOM, on the other hand, can and should be ridiculed. Not only did it hastily make someone who had no business being their spokesperson in to the central figure of the public side of their organization, but they made her in to something she obviously is not. And that's not just a, "Well they should have known about the breast implants, nudie pics, and self-gratification videos from the start," sort of 20/20 hindsight comment. They made a beauty pageant contestant in to a living saint simply because she shared their view on something and was willing to ride their platform to fame and fortune. That's a recipe for disaster, especially since it's blatantly obvious she's not that bright and she's not articulate beyond the confines of the pageant circuit's Q&A section. This is almost a "McCain campaign choosing Palin for all the wrong reasons"-level of stupidity. The main reason it's not is because replacing Maggie Gallagher is far less dangerous to the country as a whole than stepping in as POTUS. So we can safely stand back and laugh at the entire farce.
Posted by: Geds | November 19, 2009 3:51 PM
I don't think it's just sexism that is causing them to dump Prejean. It's power. Even disgraced politicians that have resigned have contacts and influence. Prejean is a spokesmodel, not a US Congressperson. Not forgiving her doesn't have much of a downside, you aren't giving up power or even good music, or tv. She doesn't do anything special. She just looks cute. That's not hard to replace.
Posted by: katydid13 | November 19, 2009 4:27 PM
You can find the Carrie Prejean photos and extended videos at www.tinyurl.com/prejeannekkid
Posted by: Mandy | November 19, 2009 4:39 PM
Anyone want to take a bet on how quickly #34 will fill your computer with viruses? And not the kind you can get treated down at the clinic, either...
Posted by: Geds | November 19, 2009 5:27 PM
Ed: Could you please remove post no. 34? It detracts from the otherwise high quality of your blog.
Posted by: wrpd | November 19, 2009 9:11 PM
The fundies on the right, who unfortunately run under the banner "christian", made a big mistake making Prejean into a hero, and champion of their collective causes. There first clue that she would not make a good, christian role model was the fact that she was in beauty pageants. The Bible praises women who are modest, not using their looks to draw attention, but rather seek to be known by their loving actions. We also have Jesus putting lust on the same level as adultery, and let's face it, the swimsuit portion is all about lust; whose body looks the most attractive. I would like to give Carrie Prejean, and those who supported her so quickly, a big heartfelt thanks, for again dragging the name of Jesus Christ through the mud. (That last statement is dripping with sarcasm in case you didn't pick it up).
Posted by: Dave | November 20, 2009 1:30 AM
I would also like to correct my usage of the word "there" in my second sentence, the word should have been "their"
Posted by: Dave | November 20, 2009 1:33 AM
Except that conservatives dropped the woman like a fetid squid, while the men remain players.
There's some rather overt sexism involved here, too, I think. Let's not contribute to it. Has NOM ever dropped these other guys, or even said anything about them?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | November 20, 2009 8:18 AM
"I would go so far as to say that she is the female version of Ann Coulter."
If a sex tape of Ann Coulter ever gets released we'll have the first good case for formatting the entire internet.
Posted by: Sigmund | November 20, 2009 10:52 AM
When Ann Coulter goes to hell, Satan will quit his job. When Carrie Prejean goes to hell, Satan will buy a webcam. Prejean isn't getting a worse treatment because she's a woman. If she's got balls between her legs like Ann Coulter, she would still be a nobody. Our society doesn't forgive a brain dead man, but we adore idiots like Carrie Prejean. We just want to be spared the punishment of conversation with her once the sex is done.
Posted by: Skeptic | November 20, 2009 11:39 PM