Connect with us

News

Carrie Prejean And David Tyree Were NOM’s ‘Glamorous Non-Cognitive Elite’

Published

on

Beauty queen Carrie Prejean and football star David Tyree were merely two pawns in Maggie Gallagher‘s palms, fulfilling a corporate strategy and directive to use “artists, athletes, writers, beauty queens and other glamorous non-cognitive elites” to advance their message that same-sex marriage is wrong. Yes, the scandal of NOM‘s playbook — revealed this week by HRC in previously sealed court documents — includes the revelations that NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, was prepared to start a race war in order to “protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it.”

READ: NOM’s Confidential Court Documents Reveal Worldwide Corporate Strategy Of Divisive Race-Baiting

Carrie Prejean and David Tyree certainly fit the bill — and NOM’s description:

Hollywood with its cultural biases is far bigger than we can hope to be. We recognize this. But we also recognize the opportunity – the disproportionate potential impact of proactively seeking to gather and connect a community of artists, athletes, writers, beauty queens and other glamorous non-cognitive elites across national boundaries. (This is applying the Witherspoon and IAV model to non-intellectual elites.)

Ouch.

Pretty but stupid is pretty much what NOM was calling for, and in both cases, received.

Prejean, who came to “power” after, ironically, after telling gay blogger Perez Hilton that marriage should be between a man and a woman, only to lose her Miss California USA crown for (alleged) breaches of contract. But her comments and loss were Maggie Gallagher and NOM’s gain.

We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.

Of course, Prejean was wrong on all counts. The vast majority of Americans — especially in April, 2009 — do not “live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite.”

And so was born — albeit for a very short time — the Maggie Gallagher/NOM partnership with the glamorous non-cognitive elite beauty queen Carrie Prejean. A partnership that Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown milked dry, making money off her non-cognitiveness. Until, as GLAAD noted yesterday, “NOM later distanced itself  from her.

More from GLAAD:

These documents, unsealed as a part of a court case NOM is fighting in Maine also reveal that the anti-LGBT group has been actively interested in – as they say – “fanning the hostility” (p.12) between the LGBT community and the black community, and also revealed that NOM has been attempting to turn Latino families against marriage equality by framing the LGBT movement as part of – in their words – “assimilation.”

NOM is the most well-represented group on GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project (#glaadCAP), with five associated figures (Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher, Christopher Plante, Jennifer Roback Morse, Robert George) among those anti-LGBT activists with profiles. And now we know that they refer to their own supporters as “non-intellectual.”

Of course, then there was football star David Tyree, the former Giants football star, an African-American who said that just because a minority has an agenda, they shouldn’t be allowed to change marriage. The irony and hypocrisy were mind-blowing, then, and now. And his rendition of the NOM glamorous non-cognitive elite theme fit like a glove.

In June of 2011, in a statement recorded for the National Organization for Marriage, Tyree stated that if New York passed a same-sex marriage equality law, “this will be the beginning of our country’s sliding toward, you know, it’s a strong word, but anarchy.”

As The New Civil Rights Movement reported at the time,

When CNN host Kyra Phillips asked Tyree to explain, he stated, “I’m saying that in the sense of, basically, morality. If there’s no basis of moral fiber, in a community, and we continually slip away, from that, I believe, that will essentially lead to lawlessness. Does that mean there will be riots running around? I don’t think, that’s not necessarily what I’m referring to…”

At which point Phillips interrupts Tyree and explains, “But that’s what anarchy means. It’s social and political disorder, due to the absence of a government, or control by the government.”

Tyree, attempting to defend himself, states, “I think if we look up the word ‘anarchy,’ there’s a few definitions, but I don’t really want to focus on that.”

Again, Phillips challenges Tyree, asking him for any evidence that “gay marriage has any negative impact on other marriages or the sanctity of marriage, or culture, or children? Where is your evidence?”

Tyree just says “I can’t necessarily get into statistics. That’s not my voice.”

Phillips challenges Tyree on the issue of diversity, “as an African-American male, can you appreciate that?”

Stumbling, Tyree tells Kyra Phillips that same-sex marriage is “unnatural,” and says “the original intent of a marriage is to procreate.”

Later that month, just like Joe The Plumber, Tyree told the media he didn’t want his kids to think gay people were normal. Gallagher must have been especially proud that day.

Hopefully, Gallagher — now all but entirely divorced from her brainchild, NOM — is no longer proud. Sadly, the chances of that seem slim.

 

Image of Carrie Prejean via Wikimedia

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Conservative Insider Throws Cold Water on GOP’s Midterm Confidence

Published

on

Right-wing journalist Ben Domenech isn’t aligned with GOP wisdom that the Republican Party should do well in the November midterm elections. In a lengthy written conversation with The New York Times, Domenech says he is “skeptical.”

“Republicans still seem to think that, thanks to redistricting and their advantages in fund-raising, they could buck historical trends and hold on, perhaps even in the House,” Domenech told the Times’ John Guida. “They’re just scared about gas prices. Personally, I’m skeptical.”

Looking specifically at Maine, which Republicans see as the “linchpin” to holding the Senate majority, according to Guida, Domenech also sends a warning. The race will be between U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Democratic insurgent newcomer Graham Platner, who has already faced numerous scandals.

“The interesting thing about this whole focus on Maine is that if you talk to Senate Republican staff and consultants, they’re actually less worried about it than other states,” says Domenech. “This is partially because of Platner’s shall we say unique collection of scandals and challenges, but it’s also because of enormous faith in Collins as a survivor.”

Collins, 73, is running for her sixth term after being first elected in 1996.

Guida points to a Politico report on a memo that states: “the political fundamentals in Maine remain challenging, and it is a fatal mistake to assume Platner is too damaged to win.”

“I think that’s correct,” says Domenech, “and top Republicans should actually be more concerned.”

“Platner clearly has energy behind him. He speaks to a desire on the left for a strong message, and he’s shown no signs of bowing to pressure to get out for a more centrist-coded candidate,” he adds. “Collins is absolutely capable of winning, but national assumptions are taking over based on her last election, in 2020, when she came back from what seemed like a deep hole by keeping her campaign hyperlocal.”

Domenech says that Republicans do have some concerns, specifically about three states Donald Trump won by double digits in 2024: Alaska, Iowa and Ohio.

In Ohio, former U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown is seeking to return to the Senate, and is running against “an appointee who has never won a Senate election, Jon Husted.”

In Alaska, Democrat Mary Peltola is running against Dan Sullivan, the Republican incumbent who “has the advantage there, but again, we’re talking about a unique state, and Peltola is an Alaska Native,” says Domenech. That race is now considered a “toss up” by The Center for Politics’ “Crystal Ball,” which also now rates the Ohio race as a “toss up.”

Iowa could become a difficult race for Republicans as well. Domenech warns it “could turn out to be a real test for Trump’s tariff policies, which have been a decidedly mixed bag in many of the states that backed him. The president will probably have to take that argument to the people of Iowa himself.”

Overall, says Domenech, Republicans’ confidence “comes from a belief that Democratic radicalism, particularly the various examples of what they view as a renewed cultural leftism in opposition to Trump during his first term, will play in their favor.”

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

Continue Reading

News

Conservative Talk Radio Host’s Brutal New Label for Trump: ‘Clown’

Published

on

Prominent conservative talk radio host Erick Erickson has a new label for President Donald Trump: “clown.”

On his Substack newsletter, Erickson slams the president over his approach to the Iran war, for which, he notes, Trump has at least 39 times in the last 65 days “declared the United States and Iran were close to a deal only to have the Iranians openly mock him and deny it.”

He notes too that Trump on Thursday morning told “Fox & Friends” that the bombing of Iran would resume. That changed quickly.

“By the afternoon, he declared bombings would cease because a deal was close,” Erickson writes. “He claimed buy-in from the Egyptians, the Emirates, the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Israelis, the Iranians, and more.”

Both Egypt and Israel said they had no knowledge of a deal.

“The President, the other days, said Iran was playing us,” says Erickson. “The only one being played is President Trump. A state of war exists between Iran and its neighbors. The ceasefire is a farce. The President has turned into a clown.”

Erickson is no moderate — he was once the editor-in-chief of the right-wing website RedState and was a Fox News contributor. His bio on Spotify says his podcast “cuts through the chaos with bold clarity and biblical conviction.”

Erickson goes on to call it “Obamaesque” to think that any negotiation with a “terrorist regime that is premised on bringing about the apocalypse” is possible.

He says Trump chose to “engage” Iran and criticizes him for dealing “a serious blow” but not a “knockout” one. And he criticizes Trump for ordering Israel “to pull its punches.”

“We have now harmed our relationships with our Middle Eastern allies who depend on us for protection,” writes Erickson. “The situation is now more unstable than before the war began and it is all because of a single person who swears he’ll get a deal any day now.”

“The President should be embarrassed,” Erickson charges. “Instead, he’ll be mad at everyone except the man in his mirror.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

What Democratic Voters Actually Want

Published

on

Politicians, pundits, and pollsters are all trying to figure out what Democratic voters really want. With the extremely high stakes of the 2026 and 2028 elections before us — potentially including Supreme Court picks — divining the answer could set the course of the nation for the next decade, and longer.

But, as G. Elliott Morris writes at Strength in Numbers, the precise problem may just be that voters do not know what they want — or, to be more exact, what they say and what they mean can be very different. And that makes political strategy — and policy — nearly impossible to get correct.

Morris points to a recent New York Times poll that found a plurality of potential Democratic primary voters (47 percent) want the Democratic Party to move toward the center. But that very same poll of the same respondents also found that nearly half (49 percent) have a favorable opinion of socialism. And, to make matters even more difficult, a majority (55 percent) of those same voters say the party is neither too far to the left nor to the right.

“So what we’ve got here,” Morris writes, “is a Democratic electorate that is evidently pro-moderate, pro-socialist, and favors the party’s ideological status quo.”

Looking at a different poll, from May, Morris found that what all voters — not just Democrats — want are “middle-class tax cuts, higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, and a crackdown on corporate price-gouging.”

“Either the electorate is hopelessly confused,” he continues, “or the ‘move left or center’ question isn’t measuring what pundits think it measures — or both.”

Morris digs deeper.

“Voters aren’t strategists, and asking them whether the party should move to the center doesn’t measure the electoral payoff of moving to the center — it measures whether they’ve absorbed, and agree with, the conventional wisdom that says moving to the center is how parties win,” he writes. “Those are different things.”

Morris goes one step further: “it’s not clear Americans have a good understanding of ideology anyway — or, at the very least, that that understanding translates in any way to policy and other outcomes.”

He notes that in the Times poll, nearly one-third of Democratic voters couldn’t explain what they thought about socialism —which means that this finding “indicates a low level of engagement with these subjects among the general public.”

Finally, Morris really gets to the heart of the matter.

He explains that he showed in April that only 8 percent of “self-described ‘moderates’ actually want moderation when you let them describe their politics in their own words.”

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.