On the National Organization for Marriage’s blog, NOM president Brian Brown is raising a fuss about a disastrous debate he had on the Fox Network show Stossel two weeks ago:
Brown’s biggest adversary wasn’t the person he was debating, David Haryansi, but host John Stossel and the audience. And this week, Stossel continued to criticize Brown’s argument and performance in a column.
Concerning that column, Brown said:
. . . don’t get me wrong: I love John Stossel, and he’s a voice for sanity on fiscal issues in TV Land.
But what do you say to a man who, when you point out that the reason the government is involved in marriage is that taxpayers and society have a key interest in bringing together mothers and fathers to raise their children together, responds this way:
“Again, so what? I don’t care if there are three fathers and six mothers. If it’s a stable relationship and the kids are connected with their parents, that’s great.”
That’s a fantasy, not a proposal to take children’s needs for their mom and dad seriously.
For the record, I’m really not a fan of Stossel. I think that he is the personification of a once proud journalist who gladly handed over his integrity at the sight of his first big paycheck.
And I really don’t buy his “Im a libertarian” nonsense. I am of the opinion that calling himself that is merely a way for him to rationalize what he has become.
Having said that, Stossel rightfully panned Brown. And I am not saying that simply because I don’t agree with Brown’s position in the first place.
Brown was abysmal on Stossel’s show:
He came across as boring and listless, talking out of the side of his mouth with a rapid but monotone delivery which gave away the fact that he was reciting carefully memorized talking points as if he had done it a myriad of times before, which he probably has. He was clearly going through the motions and even Stossel – and the audience- were not convinced by his position.
A little tip, Brian. I know you have probably recited those nonsensical talking points so many times that you can do it in your sleep, but your delivery of said talking points is not supposed to give that actuality away.
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall if Brown was forced to have an explanation with NOM’s “secret backers” because of his performance.
And just in case you are wondering, Brian, the answer is yes.
You did come across as if you are merely going through the motions to get that big paycheck.
It definitely beats working.
But one has to wonder is this a sign that a change may be due for NOM. According to Equality Matters:
This is at least the third major cable news appearance in the past couple of months during which NOM’s president has had a less-than-stellar performance. During two recent interviews on MSNBC, Brown found himself facing hosts and guests who came prepared to challenge his anti-equality talking points and refused to let him get away with baseless assertions.If this trend continues, NOM might want to consider avoiding appearances on major cable news networks (or at least find a new spokesperson).




17 Comments


The comments at Stossel’s post are — well, “ignorant” is a good place to start. I left a comment ripping both Brown and Stossel.
NOM is losing steam, and I think the whole anti-gay movement is as well. You can tell by the fact that their statements are getting more and more shrill and unhinged, which just makes them look worse. Fine — I can deal with that.
Unhinged is the perfect word. Their constant yammer just turns people off. NOM is offensive and insulting by its very existence.
Time to move on. Find another culture war. You lost this one, and it won’t be as profitable as it has been.
They gave him his own show? Yuck.
.
I remember when Stossel and Co. were caught faking a story, claiming research (which did not exist) showed that organic foods were no better than BigAgra products. ABC slapped a wrist or two and that was it.
.
The anti-gay cauldron can be left to simmer, unattended, for a long time…it doesn’t take much of a stir to get some fresh hate stew bubbling. Eternal vigilance, folks.
I can not believe that they are still banging the same drum over and over again thinking that some how the world will spin in thier direction somehow.
This makes it clear that he did not care about the subject he was talking about but he was well trained in his talking points there is a difference between knowing and understanding passion. Passion without knowledge and or belief in a lie/knowledge of lies is more convincing just ask Michelle Bachman.
Actually the more a passionate a person in those circumstances when challenged by facts or a guilty sub conscious responds quite often with even more passion which proves more convincing to those who share or are inclined to share a particular lie/view on an issue.
Why does the Right even bother sending out guys like this or Mitt out to believers?
The GOP is desperate Pam look at Dick Cheney does he ever appear on the news where there is the slightest fear he might ever be contradicted by facts? Nope Dick makes deals about what will and will not be talked about before he gets on TV thats why Pumpkin Head was his got to guy for an interview.
If the President of NOM can’t get on tv without such a deal well once is an ambush the second time its your fault the third time…well either you like the abuse or you really really are to stupid to breed.
When a Right Winger goes after NOM we have to ask does the GOP think it has a shot at getting the Gay vote? Unlikely with Rick, Michelle, Ron etc running for President.
Or is Rupert in that much trouble for spying on 9/11 families he feel he needs to be more fair about the news or the FCC will revoke his broadcast license?
Is this incident and Karl Rove recently being told off/confronted with the facts of the Bush Presidency he’s a lot bigger fish than the President of NOM Rupert’s way of saying Uncle…at least until Fox settles the spying on 9/11 families case? I smell a Tipping Point, I smell fear, Real Fear. Rupert fears lossing his network, fears losing his advertisers the old White Men TV Network no African Americans very few Hispanics, not that many Women viewers Network is not that attractive to advertisers can Karl afford another Glen Beck and possible boycotts of his advertisers if he keeps up the way he has? Or maybe rupert fears America is going Left despite all his Lies and he wants on the bandwagon?
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/former-obama-aide-rips-roves-lecture-good-go
What is John’s previous stance on Gay issues?
The most interesting thing about that interview was how John Stossel wasn’t buying any of Brian’s “the sky is falling” rhetoric. By the end of the interview, Brian was in an absolute panic. He said something inane like, “The state should support what’s true and good and beautiful.” Yeah, great rational legal argument there, Brian. No doubt every single marriage that includes opposite-sex couples is true, good, and beautiful… including the half that actually end up getting divorced.
He also implies that marriage is solely a religious institution. So why isn’t Brian trying to ban non-religious straight couples from getting married? Do the words “homophobic hypocrite” ring a bell?
Please. Don’t encourage Brian to stop making an ass of himself on television. That’s “good for our side” as Ann Northrop would say.
who’s Pumpkin head? Russert?
I remember Stossel from the olden days with WABC Eyewitness News with Geraldo, Bill Beutell, Roger Grimsby, Rosann Scamerdella, Joel Siegel and Tex Antione the shitfaced weatherman. I forget who did sports. That’s what i yelled to little Geraldo when I saw him at the casey Anthony trial “Hey!!Hey!! WABC!!! Hey!! Eyewitness News!!!!”
Yup.
I’m happy to report that NOM failed to prevent me from marrying my same sex partner of 20 years in New York this past weekend.
Let’s redouble our efforts to keep the hate FAILS coming!!!
The memory of Stossel that stands out for me was his waiting outside a small town grocery store to ambush and harangue a down-on-his-luck fellow who bought cigarettes with the food stamps specifically paid for with his (Stossel’s) taxes.
I don’t remember this incident, but it surely shows how unfocused Stossel was on this particular issue. If he was worth anything as a reporter/pundit, he would have interviewed the person who took the food stamps for cigarettes, since that’s (morally, if not legally) the greater crime. The seller of the cigarettes is the one who would compensated for the food stamps, and who no doubt had done this in other cases. Maybe he was afraid that the seller would have had that criminal attitude, and would have told him to f*** off or pulled a gun.