Carrie's unique take: An ongoing series
These are AWESOME.
Posted by: remix | May 12, 2009 4:21:36 PM
Dude. Jeremy. These are terrific. The first one is my favorite. And you certainly put them together quickly... did you manage to get an advance copy of her remarks or something?
Posted by: Steve | May 12, 2009 4:29:34 PM
Number four kind of pisses me off. Emotional appeal is a valid speaking technique, yes, but you should probably try not to use an irrelevant and cheap one like that.
Posted by: Patrick | May 12, 2009 5:25:36 PM
I'm glad this thing is almost over. I've never been so tired of seeing one woman's breasts my entire life.
Posted by: a. mcewen | May 12, 2009 6:09:37 PM
Wait, Patrick -- are you calling our or Carrie's appeal "irrelevant and cheap"?
Posted by: G-A-Y | May 12, 2009 6:35:16 PM
Jeremy one thing that bothers me about Miss Prejean is that she is blowing off the Miss California officials yet begs the Trump not to take her crown. Why wont she quit if the job of Miss California is too much trouble? Heck Keith and Shanna say even her cell phone is answered by her pastor rather than Miss Prejean.
Posted by: Adam Kautz | May 12, 2009 6:53:40 PM
Oh, Carrie's. Sorry I didn't make that clear. I just get sick of the right invoking veterans and soldiers to make them seem morally superior on the basis that they care about our freedoms more or something.
Posted by: Patrick | May 12, 2009 6:55:39 PM
Patrick: Nah, you were clear enough. I was just making sure, since I figured all of them "pissed you off" equally. :-)
Adam: Yea, I really got the impression that the California people are still unhappy. No telling what went down behind closed doors.
I used to work in entertainment PR. I'm well aware of the oftentimes great disconnect between public presentation and closed-door reality!
Posted by: G-A-Y | May 12, 2009 7:05:01 PM
It's quite an obvious tug of war between Carrie's handlers (including ones that have materialized in the last 3 weeks) and the Trump people. Maybe it's a good thing if she's back in the fold, as she may have received a strong cease & desist in regards to working with groups like NOM, etc. And that way the martyr parade stops and so does the bigotry.
Maybe wishful thinking?
Posted by: Bruno | May 12, 2009 7:37:16 PM
Olbermann really nailed it (her)! Her pouty/whiny ass tearing up because her first amendment rights were being stripped (like her blouse from her fake, bare titty) away from her! The only way her first amendment rights could be stripped from her is if the government attempted to do it. That people disagree with her, or hurt her wittle feelwings has nothing to do with her ability to be as inarticulate as her less-than-brilliant (bare bunned) ass wants to be.
Posted by: Dick Mills | May 12, 2009 11:40:07 PM
I can't believe this person is still - STILL - playing herself as a victim. What I find galling is the way she claims her right to free speech was violated. People whose right to free speech is being taken away don't appear on the Today show!
No, honey: they violated your made-up right to make any statement you want and expect there not to be consequences. If she can't handle having a celebrity blogger (I mean come ON, it's Perez Hilton!) respond to something she said, she is obviously in way over her head.
Joe Salmonese had a good point on Hardball tonight: if this is the best their side can do, we don't have much to worry about.
Posted by: DN | May 13, 2009 1:01:52 AM
Regarding my earlier comment about the CA people being unhappy:
Posted by: G-A-Y | May 13, 2009 2:39:14 PMcomments powered by Disqus