Kevin Marshall's America
I’m largely indifferent towards CNN personality Piers Morgan and his “news” program. But he had a great moment this week in an interview with Christine O’Donnell.
In case you need a refresher: O’Donnell was the candidate for Congress that, after an embarrassing clip aired from an old episode of “Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher” where she told a story about going on a date with a witch and dabbling in “witchcraft,” released the classic “I’m not a witch” political ad that revealed her as a complete moron: she didn’t even get that people weren’t criticizing her for once being a witch, they were laughing at her for being such an obvious liar making up a ridiculous story to gain points with a live crowd.
Well, she’s got a book out now where she talks about her life as a…uh, failure? I’m not quite sure. She says it’s quite inspirational. Morgan, naturally, turned to one of the topics she covered in her book: gay marriage. He asks her for her opinion on the matter and…well, watch for yourself.
The two highlights for me:
Morgan: “Do you answer that question in the book?
O’Donnell: “I talk about my religious beliefs, yeah, of course. I absolutely do.”
Morgan: “Do you talk about gay marriage in the book?”
O’Donnell: “…what relevance is that right now?”…
Morgan: (incredulously) “Why are you being so weird about this?”
Oooo! I can answer that last one! Piers, me! Me! PIERS! Over here!
Christine O’Donnell is being weird about this because she is weird. She’s a bit vapid and prone to tall tales about her activities and non-accomplishments, one of which includes her story about how she was supposed to be one of the original hosts of “The View.” Not true. But that’s the sort of weirdness we can laugh off. Not so laughable is her stance on gay marriage and homosexuality in general, which is in line with one of the last culturally acceptable forms of bigotry in our nation. Her vehemently anti-gay stance, rooted in writings thousands of years old that are not very far removed at all from text once used to defend slavery and other abhorrent practices, would be laughable if there weren’t so many people nodding their heads in approval when she spews it.
Still, we can be dismissive in this case, because her relevance to the political mainstream right now is nigh non-existent. There are worse, though, that are still out there: people that hold beliefs even more strongly rooted in paranoia, hatred, and ignorance that are not only relevant but considered front-runners for the GOP nomination.
The O’Donnell Walk-Out makes me laugh, think, and in a small way, hope. It’s my hope that O’Donnell ran away from her beliefs because she is ashamed of them. And rightfully so. Which means that this outrageously outmoded approach to homosexuals and active pursuit to derive them of basic human rights – including the right to exist as who they are – is something that will very soon be chased off into the shadows.
Not yet, though. Not while Michelle Bachmann is running for President while her husband actively seeks to deprive homosexuals of their right to exist by using medicinal malpractice to “reform” those which do not fall in line with his insecure view of the world.
Share it!
13 Responses to Christine O’Donnell would prefer if you asked her questions about what’s in her book instead of questions about what’s in her book, okay?
Leave a Reply
STALK ME
I have yet to see an intelligent person make an intelligent argument against gay marriage or homosexuality. This is one more case in point.
Great post.
These people are a disease. They have no policy ideas that have ever worked. The GOPTP is just a collection of stupid racists appealing to the the sensibilities of other stupid racists.
The hatred trickles down.
Guys, guys, this is rude. Can we talk about the things I want to talk about? I don’t want to talk about gay marriage and don’t see how it has any relevance here.
This is me walking off your blog. Are we off? Are we done? Am I still here?
I’m still here, Alan.
(fwiw, I sympathized with “why are you being so weird about this?” because I feel like I have to ask people that question on a daily basis)
‘Oooo! I can answer that last one! Piers, me! Me! PIERS! Over here!’ – hahahaha you make me laugh. Also, the title made me chuckle right off the bat out loud, in an office full of non-chucklers. Great writing Kevin Marshall :)
Wooooo!
Always makes me laugh when an irrelevant blogger thinks he’s so much more superior than others.
EZ - Ridin’ Space Mountain all night long!
Tea Party Like a Rockstar – I don’t think I’m so much more superior than others. Just people like Christine O’Donnell and especially you.
Love that PM. Rude? When is he not rude?
I think we’ve recently learned in NY that politicians (theoretically, at least) can oppose homosexual unions on a personal level, but still acknowlege that there is no legal reason to prevent them. I think many “regular” citizens feel this way as well.
Religous views don’t have to interfere with your politics (if you are that kind of progressive/pick-and-choose religous person), but we know this is not where this woman is coming from. To deny that would be disingenous, but maybe I can give her a tiny bit of credit for trying.
But, none of this matters, because she is irrelevant and doesn’t have a chance.
Each time I watch this clip I become more convinced that the walk-off must have been a premeditated move for publicity, just as the Christian Science Monitor proposed (source: http://goo.gl/rxkqE).
Let’s think about it: she walks off after the question on gay marriage, not after the question on whether she was still anti-masturbation or whether she had “committed lust in her heart” (in fact her exchange with Piers on the topic of masturbation seems rather humorous and she seems to be enjoying herself); when she does walk off she says at first that they cancelled another interview for that, and then changes the story to be that they’re late for a speech; a staffer was clearly prepared to jump in front of the camera as she removes the mic, a move I have never seen done in an interview walk-out.
Now we’re all talking about her again; she has rocketed out of obscurity through controversy just in time to peddle her book on the many networks that will now have her on to talk about the Morgan interview.
Then again, should we be surprised? Any videos of O’Donnell, particularly her Bill Maher panel appearances, seem to paint the picture of a person who craves publicity and fame through controversy.
Basically, she’s no better than any cast member of the Jersey Shore… except they don’t try to run for elected office.
I think the rral issue is that I suspect she’d always gotten softball questions – i.e., things she could turn into her stump speech.
Kevin, between Christine O’Donnell’s masturbation theories and Michaelle Bachman’s corndog eating skills, I’d say the Tea Party convention promises to be one swinging time!
Not a big fan of Piers Morgan myself, but he didn’t treat libertarian atheist Penn Jillette any differently than he treated Tea Republican evangelical O’Donnell. In fact, the day O’Donnell walked off Morgan’s set, Jillette had an article posted on CNN.com that morning bemoaning his appearence on Morgan’s show.