Carrie Prejean: I’ve been Palinized

posted at 8:33 pm on November 10, 2009 by Allahpundit

Via Greg Hengler, the key bit runs from around 3:15 to 4:30. Cynics might regard the Sarahcuda name-check in the book as a mercenary attempt to capitalize on her rock-star popularity among social cons (good thing I’m not a cynic!) but Prejean’s point is well taken, especially the comparison between Olbermann and Hannity. Don’t think so? Watch this golden oldie and try to imagine the reaction among the lords of outrage on the left had it involved Hannity and, say, Dennis Miller goofing on some lefty pageant contestant who’d spoken in favor of gay marriage. QED. And that’s not the only time the modern-day Murrow’s devoted bizarrely long stretches of his show to dumping on her.

As for the “sex tape,” which she also discussed with Hannity last night, I don’t think hypocrisy is the problem. There’s nothing hypocritical about a Christian sinning; the whole point of the faith is that people will inevitably sin, which is why redemption is needed. The problem, rather, is that it raises the possibility that she doesn’t take her faith all that seriously to begin with. I’ll be curious to see how well the book sells now, knowing who the target audience is.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Well being for raising taxes while you don’t pay them and being for sustainable living while you live in a giant mansion and fly around in private jets…

..

that seems a tad bit more important a hypocrisy to me.

Dark Eden on November 10, 2009 at 10:23 PM

Actually you forgot the best one;

Calling your opponents racists and then voting to put Robert Byrd in a leadership position.

18-1 on November 11, 2009 at 12:26 PM

I think the media have given her a hard time and it was not right that she was asked that question and then blasted for giving her opinion.

But, I am done…are her 15 minutes almost up? I could care less about her sex tape. Christian or not. Hannity…get some new guests.

Buelldawg on November 11, 2009 at 12:48 PM

She is starting to sound like one of the evangelist preachers that keep sinning and asking for forgiveness. Enough already! I think anyone in the “Beauty” field should stay from anything concerning morality and religion unless they are as pure as the driven snow which is an oxymoron in the beauty world.

inspectorudy on November 11, 2009 at 12:57 PM

… is how the ‘christians’ rush to defend this hypocritical bimbo. Your little heroes are so very sad.

simplesimon on November 10, 2009 at 10:10 PM

Our “heroes” stood against a King and the greatest army on Earth, they risked their lives and families to create a country that stood for liberty. Your heroes spend every waking minute trying to destroy it.

Our heroes risked a civil war to defend the Republic and to end slavery – Your heroes lost that war.

Our heroes risked their lives as they helped end segregation and pass civil rights laws – Your heroes voted against and helped mentor Clinton and Gore.

Our heroes helped free Eastern Europe – Your hero drowned a girl while drunk and then worked with the Soviet to detriment of this country.

My hero Reagan gave everyone the ability to understand our own greatness and the strength to stand for something better everywhere in the world – your hero thinks he’s chosen to rule everyone because he sold coke as a teenager.

Only in a world that has become so distorted can liberal justify his actions as good, when in fact like a pandemic his ideaology has left nothing but corpses in it’s wake. The Grim Reaper has human form and eagerly inhabits every liberal it can find so it can point its boney finger and every helpless person it can find a offer them nothing but misery and death.

And if you think this post is a bit over the top your wrong, the smallest of battles always exhibit how hard the fight in the war is going to be. There are MILLIONS of us who are sick of democrats, republicans, liberals and anyone else who standing on our Constitution. You gonna get pushed off and we are going to like doing it

ArmandoG on November 11, 2009 at 1:00 PM

What is it with these girls? If they are that stupid, it’s almost like they ask for it.

bloggless on November 11, 2009 at 1:02 PM

I’m having a lot of fun reading all of the Prejean apologetics going on now…*pops another beer*

JetBoy on November 10, 2009 at 9:05 PM

What is it with you and your need to believe the worst of everyone who disagrees with you?

MarkTheGreat on November 11, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Need to promote a book? Have to drum up some publicity? Want to garner some attention on the talk show circuit?

Yet another “secret/stolen sex tape” released to the internet.

*yawn*

MassVictim on November 11, 2009 at 2:41 PM

I have a question or two.

What did she do in the tape that is sinful? Does evry Christian believe it is sinful?

How old was she when the tape was made?

Is every person that has seen it or has possession of it, or has transmitted the images in it not guilty of child pornography?

Inquiring minds want to know.

lsheldon on November 11, 2009 at 2:49 PM

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 11, 2009 at 8:38 AM

I was referring to the nasty-comments in this thread. I should have been more clear and said “bigoted insults” instead of “bigotry.”

Every thread in which homosexuality is discussed draws out the poison-pens and nasty remarks.

Furthermore, the argument that marriage is a state’s right is a conservative one. Please explain why anybody’s marriage should be regulated by the federal government instead of the their state. The same goes for abortion.

Your argument is textbook liberalism — government intervention in that which you find offensive.

I’m a Christian and frankly find homosexual acts and love still to be quite displeasing. But my personal feelings have no impact on your personal freedoms.

The essence of Christianity is life. Homosexuality is defiant and nonproductive. If that’s what you’re into, fine, but don’t expect the Church to validate it.

alliebobbitt on November 11, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Judaism is a life-centric religion. Christianity clearly reveres life and calls for the protection thereof. But I think afterlife is more important to many Christians than the current one.

If by non-productive you mean not bearing offspring, so what? My neighbor doesn’t have any kids, is he a heathen?

Again, nothing you have said justifies the nastiness found in every single thread about Homosexuality and/or gay-marriage.

Libertarian pot-heads actually make more sense on this issue than Dems or Reps.

The Race Card on November 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Men are irresponsible idiots and untrustworthy is the moral of that story, and it is the oldest story of all time. Teenagers don’t listen, young girls are stupid and men run from responsibility.
alliebobbitt on November 11, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Wow…
So, a woman can dress or undress anyway at all, do all sorts of provocative things with the intention of inciting lust (and that’s what sexy poses and nude videos are for and we all know it) and she has no responsibility for the lust a man might feel? Jesus is just fine with girls acting that way because they are stupid, but men who are incited to lust are irresponsible idiots and untrustworthy?
Just wow…
And I wasn’t referencing the fall of man in Genesis, but rather the words of Jesus as written in Matthew when He said, But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.I really don’t see how you can argue that men lusting is a sin, but somehow intentionally inciting it is not. That is a twisted logic. Unless of course you think Jesus was just spouting off nonsense and lust is no big deal…

And yes, she was young, but I knew I wasn’t supposed to be getting naked with my boyfriend when I was even younger than 17, or taking nudie pictures, etc…and I suspect she knew it too and did it anyway.
I have to wonder how many who are writing this off as just stupid stuff a teenager did would argue that a 13 year old knows that murder is wrong and should therefore be tried as an adult.
By all means, point out the hypocrisy of the left attacks, but don’t absolve her of her own responsibility. She screwed up. She set herself up as a ‘good Christian girl’ defending her faith. Well, she has failed miserably in some areas and because she has put herself out here, it is now public. A good public mea culpa would go a long way to restoring some credibility, but she comes across as only sorry that she was caught. She seems to think if the video had stayed ‘private’ as she had intended, it would not have been wrong at all. She admits it was a mistake, but it sounds more like she thinks the mistake was trusting an ‘untrustworthy idiot’ and not making and sending out nudie videos.

Forgot your last paragraph was still on there. That was just crazy preacher talk from an internet freak who likes mocking Christians.
alliebobbitt on November 11, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Are you referring to me or yourself? I mean, I’m not the one who says God has no problem with girls acting sleazy because they are just stupid…But I’m guessing you are insulting me.
So, quoting scripture makes me an internet freak? Pointing out Jesus’ own words and that some things are actually wrong, even when it is a darling for one conservative issue doing them, means I’m mocking Christians? Just wow…

pannw on November 11, 2009 at 3:35 PM

She is starting to sound like one of the evangelist preachers that keep sinning and asking for forgiveness. Enough already! I think anyone in the “Beauty” field should stay from anything concerning morality and religion unless they are as pure as the driven snow which is an oxymoron in the beauty world.
>>>

Um… ooookay for the millionth time she didn’t evangelize anything. A douche-bag judge asked her a loaded question on tape, didn’t like her answer, and snarky leftoids like yourself have been trying to destroy her ever since. You’re not fooling anyone who doesn’t have nightmares of Eville Christians coming to get them in the night.

Dark Eden on November 11, 2009 at 4:12 PM

ArmandoG on November 11, 2009 at 1:00 PM

That was fabulous!

royzer on November 11, 2009 at 4:29 PM

A point I wonder about though is who amongst believes equally strongly is every aspect of our own religions or even our political philosophy?
I for one am pro-life. I am against abortion even for cases of incest and only in support of it if the mothers life is decided to be in danger from the pregnancy or birthing process itself. I further do not support capital punishment except in the case of self-defense where it is clearly kill or be killed. Even for serial killers, there is much more to be learned about how to stop them by studying the ones that we capture and imprison. Terrorists can serve as examples, if properly sequestered, for others to not pursue terrorist activities.
I also believe that immigrants should be granted all the same opportunities my own immigrant forebears enjoyed 6-7 generations ago. Yet I am not so strongly in line with this that I would actively fight against or for any particular issue on the topic. I will accept whatever our society ends up with on this topic. However, I will be very active in support of my pro-life stance to the point of writing to government officials and openly dressing down others for their inconsistent and dangerous stance against reverence for life.
If we all have varying commitments to aspects of our belief system as I think we do, then Prejeans weak commitment to the puritan conservative issues on promiscuity need not conflict with a fervent belief against same sex relations. While one aspect is a point of sexual preference the other is sexual identity.
We all have a range of degrees with which we feel towards any one issue.

IanTrouble on November 11, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Just like all the other ’social conservative’“progressive” posers who use their religion phony idiotic ideology as a mask for their prejudices and hateful fear of different people and different ideas.

Grow Fins on November 11, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Edited. You people have a severe problem with projection.

ddrintn on November 11, 2009 at 5:44 PM

I’m a Christian and frankly find homosexual acts and love still to be quite displeasing. But my personal feelings have no impact on your personal freedoms.

how can a ‘christian’ be ok with gay marriage? and I’m glad you are so concerned about freedom…do you realize the loss of religious liberty that will accompany gay marriage?

gay marriage is the end of religious liberty in this country.

right4life on November 11, 2009 at 5:58 PM

Like Sarah Palin, Carrie Prejean pretended to be something she is not. Time exposes all pretenders.

I’m done with both of them.

mistythestripper on November 11, 2009 at 7:47 PM

And I wasn’t referencing the fall of man in Genesis, but rather the words of Jesus as written in Matthew when He said, But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.I really don’t see how you can argue that men lusting is a sin, but somehow intentionally inciting it is not. That is a twisted logic. Unless of course you think Jesus was just spouting off nonsense and lust is no big deal…

pannw on November 11, 2009 at 3:35 PM

I see you haven’t applied much logic/critical thought into your understanding of what Jesus meant. Adultery is a term referring to a violation of marriage vows. Just how could someone be possibly committing any form of adultery if neither the luster or lustee is married? Jesus couldn’t have been talking about mere lust i.e. sexual desire per se.

If you are right and He meant what you think He did, it would mean thought crimes that you’d have no intent of carrying out, for example deriving pleasure imagining killing your neighbor for playing “Renegade” by Styx too loud, are the same in God’s eyes as actual deeds. It’s silly to believe God would work like that.

Bizarro No. 1 on November 11, 2009 at 8:39 PM

Like Sarah Palin, Carrie Prejean pretended to be something she is not. Time exposes all pretenders.

I’m done with both of them.

mistythestripper on November 11, 2009 at 7:47 PM

Just what did she ever pretend to be? Did she ever proclaim herself to be a non-masturbator?

Bizarro No. 1 on November 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM

She will be hosting a FOX program within 2 years. Like it or not, sex sells, and she will be selling.

tatersalad on November 11, 2009 at 9:35 PM

**Bizarro No. 1 on November 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM**

It’s the whole “good Christian girl” schtick. The persona is created to appeal to a certain demographic. I have a problem with frauds and hypocrites on both sides of the political aisle. It’s like Al Gore preaching his save the earth religion while owning an energy guzzling home and flying all over the world in private jets. President Bush’s home in Crawford is more environmentally conscious than Gore’s.

mistythestripper on November 11, 2009 at 9:54 PM

It’s the whole “good Christian girl” schtick. The persona is created to appeal to a certain demographic. I have a problem with frauds and hypocrites on both sides of the political aisle. It’s like Al Gore preaching his save the earth religion while owning an energy guzzling home and flying all over the world in private jets. President Bush’s home in Crawford is more environmentally conscious than Gore’s.

mistythestripper on November 11, 2009 at 9:54 PM

If you believe she’s somehow not a good Christian because of what she did on that tape, your view of God is more align to a harsh Allah than the God of love..

Bizarro No. 1 on November 11, 2009 at 10:05 PM

mistythestripper on November 11, 2009 at 9:54 PM

I wanted to edit my last post, but you can’t here.

To be honest, your criticism of Carrie strikes as freaky and offbase as Chelsea Dyer’s did.

I haven’t see CJ herself as a holier-than-thou object of perfection. Quite the opposite in fact. Can you point out to me an example of what you are saying about her? Thanks in advance.

Bizarro No. 1 on November 11, 2009 at 10:21 PM

oops I meant to say “I haven’t seen CJ present…”

Bizarro No. 1 on November 11, 2009 at 10:22 PM

lol CP I meant! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on November 11, 2009 at 10:23 PM

Lord knows none of us has done something stupid when we were 17.

chicagojedi on November 11, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on November 11, 2009 at 8:39 PM

If it isn’t obvious, which apparently it isn’t, I was indicating the significance given to lust to make the point that actual sex isn’t the only thing that constitutes sinful behavior/sexual immorality. Lust matters, and not just for married persons. That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour: 5 Not in the passion of lust, like the Gentiles that know not God This was just after the part about not fornicating so it isn’t just about adulterous lusts… Now, from the sound of things, some here are of the opinion that anything goes as long as there isn’t actual penetration…But that just doesn’t sound like the purity and honor we are called to to me, and isn’t what my Church teaches. Also, while the video might have been intended for her unmarried boyfriend only, she has also taken those ‘fashion’ photos and there is no way she can argue that those were specifically for unmarried men to view so that no adulterous lusts were incited. Adultery isn’t the only sexual sin.

As to the thought crimes point, I don’t think we are held responsible for things that just flit into our minds. I certainly hope not, however, if I get hold of a semi-nude picture and start lusting over it, I better get rid of it, or else it becomes a conscious decision to lust after someone. Whoever made the picture with the obvious intention of eliciting that response holds some responsibility for leading me into the temptation. Yes, I think porn is sinful.

I stand by my position and don’t find it in the least illogical. You can believe nudie pictures of a teenager are perfectly holy so long as they aren’t for a married man if you want; you have free will, but I disagree.

then Prejeans weak commitment to the puritan conservative issues on promiscuity need not conflict with a fervent belief against same sex relations. …
IanTrouble on November 11, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Well, I don’t see abstaining from making sexual videos of one’s self as a commitment to puritan conservative issues, but rather a commitment to pretty standard Christian teaching. However, I absolutely agree that it doesn’t negate the validity of her statements on same sex relations (though rightly or wrongly it does give ammunition to those who wish to attack her and hurt her credibility). Thomas Jefferson’s failing to live up to the idea that all men were created equal by holding slaves doesn’t negate the validity of the Constitution either.

None of us are perfect. For the record, I’m not suggesting she has to be. I’m certainly not. I wish her the best, and truly believe admitting one’s sins is the surest way to get it. I find her defense of her ‘mistakes’ and lack of any apparent real regret for them to be more upsetting than the actual mistakes and that is where the appearance of hypocrisy comes in. She is a representative of Christianity, like it or not, as we all are when we claim to follow Him, and she has participated in some pretty unchristian like behavior, but either doesn’t realize it, in which case she needs some guidance, or she is too proud to admit her fault, and you know what they say about pride.

pannw on November 11, 2009 at 11:14 PM

Men are irresponsible idiots and untrustworthy is the moral of that story, and it is the oldest story of all time. Teenagers don’t listen, young girls are stupid and men run from responsibility.

alliebobbitt on November 11, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Wow…
So, a woman can dress or undress anyway at all, do all sorts of provocative things with the intention of inciting lust (and that’s what sexy poses and nude videos are for and we all know it) and she has no responsibility for the lust a man might feel? Jesus is just fine with girls acting that way because they are stupid, but men who are incited to lust are irresponsible idiots and untrustworthy?

pannw on November 11, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Both genders are stupid and both are responsible for the temptations they incite in the other gender.

However, I have to agree with pannw that alliebobbitt has a double standard here.

Conservative Samizdat on November 11, 2009 at 11:55 PM

If it isn’t obvious, which apparently it isn’t, I was indicating the significance given to lust to make the point that actual sex isn’t the only thing that constitutes sinful behavior/sexual immorality. Lust matters, and not just for married persons.

The reason your point wasn’t obvious is because you (mis)used a verse referencing lust specifically in regards to adultery in order to say that Jesus was condemning mere lust, in order to criticize CP. That wasn’t fair.

That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour: 5 Not in the passion of lust, like the Gentiles that know not God This was just after the part about not fornicating so it isn’t just about adulterous lusts… Now, from the sound of things, some here are of the opinion that anything goes as long as there isn’t actual penetration…But that just doesn’t sound like the purity and honor we are called to to me, and isn’t what my Church teaches. Also, while the video might have been intended for her unmarried boyfriend only, she has also taken those ‘fashion’ photos and there is no way she can argue that those were specifically for unmarried men to view so that no adulterous lusts were incited. Adultery isn’t the only sexual sin.

If God cares so much about the ‘sin’ of lust, why wasn’t masturbation and/or fantasizing about sex called a sin in OT? Why wasn’t lesbianism officially condemned there with codification into the Mosaic Law, or all premarital sex for that matter? Face it, people giving themselves or others orgasms isn’t an important issue to God.

On the other hand you have a non-divine human being, Paul, saying what’s on his mind sexually in the NT. I gotta admit he isn’t someone I consider an expert spiritual authority on sex. I think he was sexually repressed and frustrated, and unfortunately his personal problems that way have unduly influenced a whole bunch of Christians since then.

As to the thought crimes point, I don’t think we are held responsible for things that just flit into our minds. I certainly hope not, however, if I get hold of a semi-nude picture and start lusting over it, I better get rid of it, or else it becomes a conscious decision to lust after someone. Whoever made the picture with the obvious intention of eliciting that response holds some responsibility for leading me into the temptation. Yes, I think porn is sinful.

I stand by my position and don’t find it in the least illogical. You can believe nudie pictures of a teenager are perfectly holy so long as they aren’t for a married man if you want; you have free will, but I disagree.

pannw on November 11, 2009 at 11:14 PM

We do disagree, and we probably will until God comes around and calls masturbation and sexually fantasizing sinful.

Bizarro No. 1 on November 12, 2009 at 12:26 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 11, 2009 at 8:38 AM

I was referring to the nasty-comments in this thread. I should have been more clear and said “bigoted insults” instead of “bigotry.”

Every thread in which homosexuality is discussed draws out the poison-pens and nasty remarks.

So you’re not referring to everyone who opposes homosexual “marriage” as an anti-gay bigot, just those who say something mean or nasty about it. The distinction seems a little too fine, since you’re still attributing those remarks to bigotry. But I guess that depends on the remark.

Furthermore, the argument that marriage is a state’s right is a conservative one. Please explain why anybody’s marriage should be regulated by the federal government instead of the their state. The same goes for abortion.

Your argument is textbook liberalism — government intervention in that which you find offensive.

The Race Card on November 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Those asking for government intervention are those who are pushing for homosexual marriage. If it ever comes to be, it will be a creation of government intervention.

So frankly, claiming those who do not favor homosexual marriage are calling for government intervention makes no sense. It’s backwards. The comment comes from Bizarro world. It’s not the pot calling the kettle black. It’s the pot calling the lily black.

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 12, 2009 at 2:28 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on November 12, 2009 at 12:26 AM

Um…have you read Ezekial 23 about the two sisters? And there are other references to lust and harlots, fornication etc in the Old Testament too, though they are sometimes used to describe whole cities. Still, if it is wrong for a city to be a harlot, it is wrong for an individual, don’t you think?

I’m curious…are you a Christian or are you a Jew, deist, or none of the above? Since you seem to be only concerned with the OT and disregard large portions of the New, I have to wonder…

I also have never really seen or heard a Christian argue that God doesn’t care how lustful we are, unless we are married. Honestly, why would anyone ever get married if sex was a free for all otherwise?

If you are a Christian, how can you disparage the New Testament and St. Paul the way you have? And it isn’t just St. Paul, even if he was the most vocal.

Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, to refrain yourselves from carnal desires which war against the soul,~ Peter

For the time past is sufficient to have fulfilled the will of the Gentiles, for them who have walked in riotousness/lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and unlawful worshipping of idols. 4 Wherein they think it strange, that you run not with them into the same confusion of riotousness/lasciviousness, speaking evil of you. ~Peter

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the vain glory of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. ~ John

Do you reject what Jesus himself did and said? If not, how can you choose to decide that you know better than his apostles? He told them to go out and teach and gave them the authority. He gave St. Peter the keys….

Have you read the Didache? If you haven’t, I don’t think you will like it. It is the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (who were again given the order and authority by Jesus) from 60-70 AD and is sort of like the rule book, in pretty straight forward terms.

Abstain from fleshly and worldly lusts.

And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, …, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten. …

My child, flee from every evil thing, and from every likeness of it. … My child, be not a lustful one; for lust leads the way to fornication; neither a filthy talker, nor of lofty eye; for out of all these adulteries are engendered.

So sex and lust are tied and both forbidden. Now, if you want to pick and choose the sexual activities that aren’t specifically mentioned, then that is your right to exercise your free will to choose to believe that.

I think abstain from fleshly and earthly lusts covers a whole lot…as does rioutousness, lusts…. flee from every evil thing and every likeness of it… masturbation is a likeness of sex outside of marriage…lesbianism is a likeness

Meh…another important thing is really my conscience. I knew when I was a teenager that I wasn’t supposed to do certain things even if no one specifically told me so and since that is confirmed in the teaching of the Church, I’ll accept it.

I gotta admit he isn’t someone I consider an expert spiritual authority on sex. I think he was sexually repressed and frustrated, and unfortunately his personal problems that way have unduly influenced a whole bunch of Christians since then.

neither self-willed nor evil-minded, for out of all these blasphemies are engendered. But be meek, since the meek shall inherit the earth. Be long-suffering and pitiful and guileless and gentle and good and always trembling at the words which you have heard. You shall not exalt yourself, nor give over-confidence to your soul….

Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turn and teach another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not;

Peace.

pannw on November 12, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4