Video: Evan vs. anything but even
- She uses the "this gay marriage thing" line yet again. TWICE!
- She uses her other overplayed talking points, like "the two great halves of humanity"
- She dances around the issue of civil unions and domestic partnerships, even though she and her cronies ABSOLUTELY oppose the same.
- Fair discussion being her movement's Achilles heel, she uncouthly talks over both Evan Wolfson and the interviewer.
- She laughably claims that she has to "talk over the heads" of gay people, reporters, countless learned officials, educated justices, and everyday citizens who understand constitutional fairness in a non-theocratic nation
- She brings up Donald Mendell, even though the ONE COMPLAINT that was filed against him was done so without marriage equality in the state where it was filed! Also interesting that she says "anyone can file a complaint" to write off those who have filed ethics complaints against NOM, yet is using this one person's right to file a complaint against Mr. Mendell (which would've remained private, if not for the "yes on 1" campaign's choice to turn it into campaign strategy) as some sort of unfair attack.
- She coldly tells Evan Wolfson to "go do something else with your life if [marriage equality] is inevitable," when she is the one who is FORCING ALL GAY PEOPLE to focus on this topic!
- She flat-out lies in saying that Evan called anyone "cruel." He wholly takes on the tactics, the actions, and the strategies. He never once -- NEVER ONCE -- attacks any person!
It's just another day in the life of one Margaret Srivastav:
Nightline [ABC News]
Would you PLEASE stop interrupting?
Posted by: DN | Nov 10, 2009 10:38:23 AM
It would be nice, as unthinkable as it is, if the supposedly "news" oriented msm would back away from the stupid notion that political theater is entertaining. I don't know, maybe they see a spike in ratings when the shrillness level peaks, or the "fervor" becomes heated. But to me, it looks like an episode on Springer. I can't watch while "moderators" blithely condone the aggressive badgering that comes from the likes of Maggie Gallagher.
Maybe it's just me, but when her shrillness volume elevates so that she can drown out opposing voices, they need to cut her microphone. Entertainment like that might appeal to the Povich audience, and it might be necessary to compete in primetime, and it might even be actively coaxed by the moderators/barkers/hypesters, but it certainly is a disservice to the entire audience.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 10, 2009 10:51:24 AM
THAT WOMAN MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL!!!!
Posted by: John in MN | Nov 10, 2009 10:53:42 AM
I'm fairly convinced that Maggie is a liability for her movement. She doesn't come across as warm or authentic, for those who like that. And she doesn't get in good Coulter-like digs, for those into that. i don't see many viewers relating to her, even if sympathetic to her cause.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 10, 2009 10:55:31 AM
"i don't see many viewers relating to her, even if sympathetic to her cause."
Her primary purpose for doing these gigs is to drum up the base, who must absolutely love her. They never use Gagger footage in any of their ads. She even tones down her shrillness while campaigns are going on, but immediately there after, she devolves back to her same bitchy self. She appeals to that disgusting, seamy underbelly of society that wallows in hatred of their fellow citizens. Her brand of xenosadistic supremacism is no better than the vilest of white supremacists - and it's probably equally as lucrative.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 10, 2009 11:31:22 AM
She's a bitter formerly unwed mother who couldn't marry who she wanted (the baby's father) and had to settle. So since she couldn't marry who she wanted, neither should gays. Muted apologies to Mr. Srivastav.
Posted by: johnozed | Nov 10, 2009 11:43:36 AM
What's the right response when she keeps on talking? I think the second time she does it you have to keep on talking over her until she finally STFU or the moderator steps in.
Ugh! That was evil to watch. I need a shower.
Posted by: Mad Professah | Nov 10, 2009 3:13:20 PM
I think Evan handled her steamrolling style of debate as beast as one can. The only other thing might be to calmly point out that she does this in every single interview, and how it does a disservice to the American people.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 10, 2009 3:19:28 PM
How does Evan do it?! I'd have an absolutely impossible time retaining my composure and hiding my contempt for this "woman"! He is a Saint!
Posted by: Wade | Nov 10, 2009 4:07:48 PM
Wade: You highlight exactly *why* Evan should be doing these kinds of shows. When you take these kinds of bookings, you have a sort of responsibility that extends to the entire movement. He serves us well in this role.
Evan's not only calm and articulate, but he also genuinely knows all of the facts. He's comfortable because he knows there's no way Mags is going to throw a curveball that he can't handle.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 10, 2009 4:15:11 PM
His last 15 minutes asked the most important question the shouldn't have to be asked is: how would I feel if I couldn't marry who I loved?
Even in Christianity, the fundamental directive was to treat another as you'd want to be treated. There is a variance of this throughout civilized societies.
That is what is at bottom of equal protection and rights under the law.
Even a person who claims commitment to their faith, shouldn't be allowed to escape THAT part of the arguments THEY keep bringing up.
What Mags keeps reiterating is the contradicting terms of married parents vs. married NON parents.
She agrees the former is necessary for children, just not the children of gay parents.
She can't agree or disagree with the latter because it's a reality regardless of what she thinks.
But she argues the point as if it IS in the law.
A gay couple doesn't suddenly cancel out the integrity of marriage for hetero couples and no hetero couple would refuse it on that basis.
She is so smug in repeating over and over again who AGREES with her, but she conveniently won't engage on how WRONG people have been in the past on the civil liberties of disenfranchised and misrepresented minorities.
And yes, I agree with a previous post that segregationists and white supremacists keep repeating how much THEY are the builders and custodians of the best in society and anyone else who isn't them is a barbaric intruder. That intruder doesn't and never will have the 'specialness' that the creators of whatever institutions will have.
She might as well have said superiority or supremacy, instead of specialness.
She doesn't like the word bigot and disagrees that denial of such a fundamental and necessary right isn't cruel to gay citizens.
But Mags needs to bone up on which side of history she's on, and it IS clearly on the side of the most bigoted and systemic human rights tragedies and wasted potential our nation has ever known.
She knows what she's doing. She knows she can get away with it because it's a minority she's targeting.
I can't stand that overbearing bitch. I really can't.
Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Nov 10, 2009 4:45:48 PM
Funniest thing about the interview.
Evan: In Mass, the sky hasn't fallen
Gallagher: The sky never falls, Evan.
I don't think Mag's understands figures of speech. Despite the fact that she uses them.
Posted by: Really | Nov 10, 2009 9:16:33 PM
Maggs: You MAY even need some benefits and protections.
Posted by: Really | Nov 10, 2009 9:28:40 PM
Speaking of marriage...have you seen this?
Worth a look.
Posted by: Em | Nov 11, 2009 12:42:23 AM
Looking at Maggie, she appears to be a very unhappy person, not happy in her own marriage and doesn't want anyone else to happy in theirs.
If Maggie was a secure happy person she wouldn't care what others did with their lives and be gracious with sharing her sacred "marriage" with everyone.
She's a bitter person.
Posted by: dee | Nov 12, 2009 1:16:16 PMcomments powered by Disqus