GOP rep’s son: CNN and MSNBC canceled my interviews when I refused to bash my dad

posted at 6:01 pm on April 8, 2013 by Allahpundit

An amazing catch from BuzzFeed. Remember Matt Salmon? Republican, congressman, strong social conservative, opponent of gay marriage — and father of a gay son. I wrote about him last week as a counterpoint to Rob Portman, to show how opponents of SSM with gay family members deal with this issue differently. Salmon hasn’t flipped like Portman did but he does have warm words about his son. Turns out the son has warm words for his father too.

“He doesn’t see it as not allowing his son to be with the person he loves because he knows that regardless of where marriage is, I’m going to be with the person that I love,” the son told The Washington Blade. “Whether I can legally marry in Arizona or not, it’s not going to change that fact and my father knows that and he accepts my desire to be with the man that I love. As far as it goes with marriage for him, it’s a matter of what marriage means to him. To him, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with the way he views a person’s relationship, and that’s the thing that I think is hard for people to understand.”…

“People seem to be trying so hard to analyze where it’s coming from, but really he was quite straight-forward,” the congressman’s son told the newspaper on Tuesday, describing his father as “incredibly tolerant.” “My father loves me very much and he supports me and he respects me. He’s very much there for me as one of my closest friends. I think that was obvious in everything that he had to say.”

Everyone’s bored with this subject. I dutifully update the list of Dems who are cynically “evolving” to placate their base because it’s fun to watch them squirm, but I’m bored with it too. Every angle has been picked clean — except maybe how a conservative legislator and his son remain close while disagreeing on a policy issue that affects them very personally. That’s fantastic drama, both human and political. If I were a cable-news booker I’d be dying to have them on, ideally for a joint interview but separately if that’s all I could get. Purely as television, it can’t miss.

And yet, according to the younger Salmon, neither Piers Morgan’s nor Lawrence O’Donnell’s bookers were interested once he made it clear that he didn’t feel like dumping on his old man for the righteous entertainment of their respective audiences. Interviewing one or both of them about this means easy ratings and a rare opportunity for political cable news shows to explore a topic that doesn’t easily lend itself to talking points on either side. How likely is it that an unbiased show booker wouldn’t be interested in that? Alas, the narrative will not be denied. Hopefully Fox News or Jake Tapper will take advantage. Click the image to watch.

ms


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

(gasp) You mean someone can love a gay person and not support gay marriage.. I’m shocked I tell you, shocked!

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 6:03 PM

C’mon Jake do it

cmsinaz on April 8, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Yeah, sooo over this sh!t.

bernzright777 on April 8, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Incredible they would not air his story!!!

Maybe he could try Al Jezzera or the North Korea times. Better chance of real journalism than these clown channels.

acyl72 on April 8, 2013 at 6:14 PM

So he’s not a Ronald Reagan Jr?

portlandon on April 8, 2013 at 6:16 PM

None of this has anything to do with gay marriage, civil rights, gun rights, etc. This has everything to do with establishing a leftest tyranny. That is what this is all about and as always been about. I think it is high time conservatives not get sidetracked by the issue of the month or week the leftist come up with and start going after their root ideology. Pound them and label them as the communist thugs they are and never stop. Every day expose them as people who despise individual freedom and liberty and never let up.

That is what the left does to us in terms of “racism” which we all know is bogus, it is high time we give them a taste of their own medicine just that in this case it is real.

William Eaton on April 8, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Every angle has been picked clean — except maybe for the drama of how a conservative legislator and his son remain close while disagreeing on a policy issue that affects them very personally.

There is no angle here! Happens all the time in families.

“You will always be my son, I will always love you, but I cannot accept your lifestyle choice.” The gay activists would have you think that anybody opposed to sodomite relationships would immediately throw their kid out on the streets, denounce them, and call their church up to organize a good old-fashioned stoning. That simply isn’t the case. It is as much of a lie as when they suggest that gays mate for life since the only anecdotal cases they present involve gays who have been in relationships for decades.

Happy Nomad on April 8, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Oh, now you’re bored with it. Heh.

Dongemaharu on April 8, 2013 at 6:22 PM

So he’s not a Ronald Reagan Jr?

portlandon on April 8, 2013 at 6:16 PM

RRJ, BTW, isn’t gay.

Happy Nomad on April 8, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Everyone’s bored with this subject.

Amen, brother. I cannot believe the mileage this topic has received for such a small minority.

I guess that’s the plan: beat us to death with it.

tru2tx on April 8, 2013 at 6:22 PM

This must be fake…there’s no way an abnormal gay Christian bashing reprobate deviant would act like a responsible human being…that’s unpossible!

JetBoy on April 8, 2013 at 6:26 PM

JetBoy on April 8, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Damn, that’s good trolling.

Allahpundit on April 8, 2013 at 6:28 PM

In todays America, this dude has a positive relationship with his dad, which is surprising. They both come from different angles, but they both realise that blood is blood, and family is family. The dumb media always tries to peddle narratives. This story doesn’t fit into their neat compartmentalized narratives. Good on Dad and son.

tommy71 on April 8, 2013 at 6:31 PM

RRJ, BTW, isn’t gay.

Happy Nomad on April 8, 2013 at 6:22 PM

No, but he love to take a giant crap on his dad every chance he gets.

BigWyo on April 8, 2013 at 6:35 PM

I was worried that with all the attention on the death of the towering legend of the 20th Century today that we wouldn’t be able to get back into the media jihad…………..whhhhheeeewwww.

GAYS / GUNS / AMNESTY !!!

24/7/365, all day, all night, every week, month after month after month until they wear us all down.

PappyD61 on April 8, 2013 at 6:37 PM

GOP rep’s son: CNN and MSNBC canceled my interviews when I refused to bash my dad

…all the talk of gun control…there needs to be some guidelines for the press!…this is no ‘free press’ at all…it’s a joke!

KOOLAID2 on April 8, 2013 at 6:39 PM

This must be fake…there’s no way an abnormal gay Christian bashing reprobate deviant would act like a responsible human being…that’s unpossible!

JetBoy on April 8, 2013 at 6:26 PM

I didn’t know his son was a Democrat.. :)

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Damn, that’s good trolling.

Allahpundit on April 8, 2013 at 6:28 PM

It’s simply some snark…considering the seemingly endless anti-gay crud I get, both in general and personally, on these threads. All those terms are flung at gays in general and myself repeatedly. Just wanted to flick some of it back.

Even as I was tying out that comment I had second thoughts about submitting it…but did it anyway. I probably should have take the high road in retrospect and not done so.

JetBoy on April 8, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Why isn’t Anderson Cooper interviewing them?

budfox on April 8, 2013 at 6:43 PM

I didn’t know his son was a Democrat.. :)

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 6:40 PM

lol there are more apt words for Democrats than those I chose )

JetBoy on April 8, 2013 at 6:44 PM

It’s simply some snark…considering the seemingly endless anti-gay crud I get, both in general and personally, on these threads. All those terms are flung at gays in general and myself repeatedly. Just wanted to flick some of it back.

Even as I was tying out that comment I had second thoughts about submitting it…but did it anyway. I probably should have take the high road in retrospect and not done so.

JetBoy on April 8, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Naw, the snark you gave was the high road. It is one thing to have an honest debate about this topic. It is another thing to get personal. I don’t like it when gay leftist do it, and I don’t like it when traditionalists do it either. You do not deserve that BS. You seem like a wonderful person and deserve happiness no matter who you love. :)

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 6:45 PM

RRJ, BTW, isn’t gay.

Happy Nomad on April 8, 2013 at 6:22 PM

He should seriously consider it.

He’s one uptalk inflection away from being Andy Dick.

budfox on April 8, 2013 at 6:48 PM

If liberal outlets like MSNBC and CNN can’t drive wedges between people, especially among family members, they have no inclination to do such an interview. The Left succeeds best by making people suspicious of each other, and the sooner they can start a person on that road, the better. It doesn’t help a gay young teen to wonder if his family will one day reject him if/when he comes out. Having that fear, he might have some hostility toward his parents well before the matter comes to light, especially if the family is church-going. Then the Left will have another Democrat voter (or so it hopes).

Good family dynamics, despite polar opposite choices and convictions, are anathema to liberals.

Liam on April 8, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Good for him. Blood is thicker than politics. His father stood by him on what counts most, even if they may not see eye-to-eye on SSM, and he has done likewise for his dad.

JohnAGJ on April 8, 2013 at 6:53 PM

We need to eliminate the FCC. Or at the least.. make it cheap and easy for anyone to start a network out of their garage if they want to. The best way to combat the leftist networks is like anything else. Freedom and choice.

We’re considering giving up our Dish. I love Netflix and see no other reason to subscribe for a service that has nothing on it. Well.. there are a few. PawnStar’s rules. But we’re subsidizing channels like MSNBC and CNN which I don’t want and nobody watches, and yet I have to pay for.

If only they had a service where you paid for exactly what you wanted. But they don’t.

JellyToast on April 8, 2013 at 7:01 PM

(gasp) You mean someone can love a gay person and not support gay marriage.. I’m shocked I tell you, shocked!

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Yeah. It’s like multitasking.

Of course, for some, more than one thought at a time is a hard thing.

kim roy on April 8, 2013 at 7:07 PM

“My father loves me very much and he supports me and he respects me.

“He also wants me to pay a higher estate tax than I would if i married a woman. So…there’s that.”

libfreeordie on April 8, 2013 at 7:08 PM

RRJ, BTW, isn’t gay.

Happy Nomad on April 8, 2013 at 6:22 PM

I know that.

I was referring to Ronald Reagan Jr loving to dump on his Dad, and the Left wing media loving to book him on their shows to do it.

portlandon on April 8, 2013 at 7:08 PM

None of this has anything to do with gay marriage, civil rights, gun rights, etc. This has everything to do with establishing a leftest tyranny. That is what this is all about and as always been about. I think it is high time conservatives not get sidetracked by the issue of the month or week the leftist come up with and start going after their root ideology. Pound them and label them as the communist thugs they are and never stop. Every day expose them as people who despise individual freedom and liberty and never let up.

That is what the left does to us in terms of “racism” which we all know is bogus, it is high time we give them a taste of their own medicine just that in this case it is real.

William Eaton on April 8, 2013 at 6:18 PM

We have been given a blueprint, but for some reason no one is paying attention:

linky

It’s a good read.

kim roy on April 8, 2013 at 7:09 PM

“He also wants me to pay a higher estate tax than I would if i married a woman. So…there’s that.”

libfreeordie on April 8, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Let’s go for a Flat Tax, and do away with your whining all together!

portlandon on April 8, 2013 at 7:10 PM

“My father loves me very much and he supports me and he respects me.

“He also wants me to pay a higher estate tax than I would if i married a woman. So…there’s that.”

libfreeordie on April 8, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Maybe they should be arguing for legal rights rather than for a word. It’s quite possible they would have already won if legal rights were the issue. But it’s not. But I digress.

I have yet to have anyone answer me what is wrong with using the term “civil union” and include all legal remedies available, but I’m still awaiting an answer.

Would you like to try?

kim roy on April 8, 2013 at 7:12 PM

“My father loves me very much and he supports me and he respects me.

“He also wants me to pay a higher estate tax than I would if i married a woman. So…there’s that.”

libfreeordie on April 8, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Really are we going to talk about equal protection and taxes, because I am sure the RICH would have something to say about that Dem…

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 7:15 PM

“My father loves me very much and he supports me and he respects me.

“He also wants me to pay a higher estate tax than I would if i married a woman. So…there’s that.”

libfreeordie on April 8, 2013 at 7:08 PM

This may be a difficult concept to grasp, but here goes; How about no estate tax for anybody (married, single, whatever)?

Mitoch55 on April 8, 2013 at 7:17 PM

“He also wants me to pay a higher estate tax than I would if i married a woman. So…there’s that.”

libfreeordie on April 8, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Now that’s funny — a liberal unhappy about people having to pay higher taxes!

Oh, wait! They’re for higher taxes unless they have to pay them, like the way they loved Obamacare till they started seeing money taken from them to help pay for it.

Gotta love the irony.

Liam on April 8, 2013 at 7:17 PM

They are the Borg.

SouthernGent on April 8, 2013 at 7:24 PM

a conservative legislator and his son remain close while disagreeing on a policy issue that affects them very personally

How two groups on the opposite sides of a legal question can learn to live together and still build a stronger country that allows both of them to pursue happiness should be our goal.

Hey liberals, hey MSNBC, shouldn’t it?

PattyJ on April 8, 2013 at 7:27 PM

It’s simply some snark…considering the seemingly endless anti-gay crud I get, both in general and personally, on these threads. All those terms are flung at gays in general and myself repeatedly. Just wanted to flick some of it back.

Even as I was tying out that comment I had second thoughts about submitting it…but did it anyway. I probably should have take the high road in retrospect and not done so.

JetBoy on April 8, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Yet you seem oblivious to the activists who support SSM, who automatically characterize opposition to SSM as haters and homophobes. What do you consider anti-gay crud? For the most part, you seem to be offended by people who point out the truth, and then deny said truth.

JannyMae on April 8, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Aw c’mon, what’s the matter with this young man? Doesn’t he know that Rosa Parks refused to get out of her seat on the bus so that, one day, upper middle class gay White men could get married?

ardenenoch on April 8, 2013 at 7:30 PM

“He also wants me to pay a higher estate tax than I would if i married a woman. So…there’s that.”

libfreeordie on April 8, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Said the perv who supports sex with children.

CW on April 8, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Yet you seem oblivious to the activists who support SSM, who automatically characterize opposition to SSM as haters and homophobes. What do you consider anti-gay crud? For the most part, you seem to be offended by people who point out the truth, and then deny said truth.

JannyMae on April 8, 2013 at 7:29 PM

I have constantly…CONSTANTLY…been saying that the big vocal leftist gay organizations are deplorable, and don’t speak for me. It just never “clicks” with some people. Print this comment out and post in on your computer screen so y’all can finally stop accusing me of being indifferent or silent on the liberal nutball activists.

Please.

And do you see me running around the HA comments calling everyone who disagrees with SSM a “homophobe”? Come on. And if you haven’t seen some of the vile tripe aimed at homosexuals in general and at me personally as a gay dude…you haven’t been looking. But if that’s what constitutes “pointing out the truth” to you…so be it.

JetBoy on April 8, 2013 at 7:47 PM

And once again, more proof as to why the right should have made this an argument based in science, rather than scripture.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/344861/ca-legislation-would-require-insurance-gay-infertility-wesley-j-smith

I swear to Allah, I’ll back naturalization for every hardline muslim in Europe if states start offering infertility coverage.

Good lord, how much more proof do we need that LGB is a biochemical defect?

“I put my blank in his blank, and his not pregnant. Ergo, we’re infertile”?

budfox on April 8, 2013 at 7:48 PM

I disagree with Jetboy on a number of things, but he’s an independent mind.

Jet’s no groupthinker like LibFree.

budfox on April 8, 2013 at 7:49 PM

William Eaton on April 8, 2013 at 6:18 PM

I try to tell people all the time that this whole big push to legalize same sex marriage was not dreamed up by some gay couple who felt discriminated against. It was dreamed up by hardcore Commies, who position themselves as spokesmen for all “fill in the blank rights” movements.

Sure, they got plenty of gay people to sign on to this. Why wouldn’t they? But it wasn’t their idea, and they didn’t draw up the game plan for how to pursue this goal. And it’s really depressing and frustrating to see so many Conservatives (hello Glenn Reynolds) falling for the idea that this is a singular issue that’s not part of some larger plan.

The Leftists want to see little boys playing with dolls and wearing dresses and little girls playing with toy trucks and wearing overalls. They think traditional gender roles and heterosexuality have been forced on society by Judeo-Christian teachings.

They want to liberate us from these gender roles, liberate us from heterosexuality, monogamy, and that whole icky business of devoting your life to a nuclear family. They want us all to be self centered hedonists. They want to take the damage that was done during the sexual revolution of the 60′s/70′s and the selfishness of the “me generation” and make it even worse.

Sex and the City wasn’t good enough for them. A bunch of childless women sleeping around and enjoying their precious freedom from the traditions of the dreaded patriarchy wasn’t good enough. They want to see a Sex and the City with drag queens, transitional transexuals, weekend bi-sexuals, etc.

They want a Soviet jackboot stomping on a promo photo from the Ozzie and Harriet show, while shouting “the 50′s were the dark ages, we must never go back to the 50′s”.

ardenenoch on April 8, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Naw, the snark you gave was the high road. It is one thing to have an honest debate about this topic. It is another thing to get personal. I don’t like it when gay leftist do it, and I don’t like it when traditionalists do it either. You do not deserve that BS. You seem like a wonderful person and deserve happiness no matter who you love. :)

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 6:45 PM

<3

And that sentiment goes for the leftist gays calling everyone against SSM "homophobes" and acting like morons in a multitude of ways. There are extremists on both side.

JetBoy on April 8, 2013 at 7:51 PM

I dutifully update the list of Dems who are cynically “evolving” to placate their base because it’s fun to watch them squirm

A few Democratic politicians from the more conservative may be squirming slightly now, but it’s the GOP politicians who will be squirming in 2014 and 2016 on this issue. Let’s hope none of them pull a Todd Akin.

thuja on April 8, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Everyone’s bored with this subject.

Understatement of the year.

A few Democratic politicians from the more conservative may be squirming slightly now, but it’s the GOP politicians who will be squirming in 2014 and 2016 on this issue. Let’s hope none of them pull a Todd Akin.

thuja on April 8, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Not to fear! Reince-and-Repeat Priebus and Karl-Kan’t-Win Rove will do their darnedest to make sure we never have a Todd Akin ever again!

/sarc

Myron Falwell on April 8, 2013 at 8:06 PM

In other news, not the gay legal agenda has legislators completely ignoring biology:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/08/CA-legislation-insurance-gay-infertility

In California, however, biology takes a back seat to political manipulation. AB 460 would retain its current standard for infertility: either a “demonstrated condition” causing infertility or a year of sex without conception, including non-heterosexual vaginal intercourse.</em>

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Guess the lib media is upset they couldn’t use a 21st century Patti Davis against her father.

b1jetmech on April 8, 2013 at 8:56 PM

libfreeordie on April 8, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Maybe they should be arguing for legal rights rather than for a word. It’s quite possible they would have already won if legal rights were the issue. But it’s not. But I digress.

I have yet to have anyone answer me what is wrong with using the term “civil union” and include all legal remedies available, but I’m still awaiting an answer.

Would you like to try?

kim roy on April 8, 2013 at 7:12 PM

The argument for legal rights has already been won in many states, and is heading that way in most of them; that’s why the Left has moved on to arguing about the word.
California same-sex couples already had all the legal remedies of marriage, but that did not require the government to shut down dissent or penalize opponents or criminalize religious convictions.

Wikipedia:

The court concluded that Proposition 8 had no purpose other than to impose the majority’s private disapproval of gays, lesbians, and their relationships through the public law, and to take away from them the designation of marriage and its recognized societal status.

and here:

A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 18 years of age. It affords the couple “the same rights, protections, and benefits, and… the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law…” as married spouses.[1]

Enacted in 1999, the domestic partnership registry was the first of its kind in the United States created by a legislature without court intervention. Initially, domestic partnerships enjoyed very few privileges—principally just hospital-visitation rights and the right to be claimed as a next of kin of the estate of a deceased partner. The legislature has since expanded the scope of California domestic partnerships to include all of the rights and responsibilities common to marriage. As such, California domestic partnerships are functionally equivalent to civil unions offered in several other states.

Although the program enjoys broad support in California,[2] it has been the source of some controversy. Groups opposed to the recognition of same-sex families have challenged the expansion of domestic partnerships in court. Conversely, advocates of same-sex marriage contend that anything less than full marriage rights extended to same-sex partners is analogous to the “separate but equal” racial laws of the Jim Crow era.

AesopFan on April 8, 2013 at 10:02 PM

“He also wants me to pay a higher estate tax than I would if i married a woman. So…there’s that.”

libfreeordie on April 8, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Actually no, and this has nothing to do with Salmon’s views on SSM. He supports ending the estate tax for everyone, as his vote on the Estate Tax Elimination Act of 2000 demonstrates.

JohnAGJ on April 8, 2013 at 10:29 PM

(gasp) You mean someone can love a gay person and not support gay marriage.. I’m shocked I tell you, shocked!

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 6:03 PM

People hold contradictions all the time and even use them as premises for other claims and conclusions. These same people can even appreciate the value of a civil union while believing it’s completely and fundamentally different than marriage. You know, like how the AP stops using the term illegal immigrant because they believe calling it something else somehow changes things.

beselfish on April 9, 2013 at 7:19 AM

“He doesn’t see it as not allowing his son to be with the person he loves because he knows that regardless of where marriage is, I’m going to be with the person that I love,” the son told The Washington Blade. “Whether I can legally marry in Arizona or not, it’s not going to change that fact and my father knows that and he accepts my desire to be with the man that I love. As far as it goes with marriage for him, it’s a matter of what marriage means to him. To him, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with the way he views a person’s relationship, and that’s the thing that I think is hard for people to understand.”…

Shorter version:
I don’t want to get married to this dude I’m dating.

weaselyone on April 9, 2013 at 9:26 AM