Shanna Moakler, ex partner of Blink 182 drummer Travis Barker and a former Miss USA, has chimed in on the debate on whether “Miss California” Carrie Prejean gave an appropriate response to a question posed by Perez Hilton.
Though some thought he was showboating and pushing his own agenda at the pageant by posing such a question at all, few are laying real criticism at Hilton’s feet. Most of the news around the controversy has been around whether the answer Prejean gave showed an understanding of the question asked and whether her answer was by any measure a fitting one.
My view on the subject is that Prejean just overshot with her comments – I defend her right to hold particular familial and religious beliefs, I do not, however, support her mishandling of a curve-ball question. As a contestant of Miss USA she should have been far better prepared. The point of the contest is that by some convoluted circumstance, the winner and those participating would represent the contest and the US. Bikini clad women in their early 20s, no matter how pretty, might not be the best representatives for the US (but frankly it seems you guys have no say in the matter so I shall not rub it in).
Moakler takes a similar stance and says that she is supportive of Miss California holding certain views, but she does not agree with them at all.
On her MySpace blog (via OK Magazine), Moakler said that Prejean did NOT cost herself the crown with what she said in response to Hilton’s gay marriage question; rather, the issue was how she said it.
“She lost the crown because she wasn’t able to convey compassion for ALL the people that, as MISS USA, she would be representing,” Moakler wrote. “And if YOU like it or not, gays and lesbians make up this country as well. THIS is why we have judges, so they can find the RIGHT woman who obtains these qualities.”
“[I don't] have any issue with her stating her opinion… I agree with the majority that this IS what makes our country great… freedom of speech. She was asked a question, and she answered it.”
I’ll have to wash my mouth out after saying this, but I am gonna have to take up the cause of Moakler. I feel dirty for even thinking it, but the girl took the words right outta my mouth!
This ho puts in so much effort into being famous. If only she’d use an ounce of that and put it towards raising her three children.
That’ll never happen. What crazy talk. MOTHER her children??? She has blogging to do
this argument completely backs up the statement; the only real accomplishment of the Internet is its ability to delude millions into thinking their opinions matter!
Hi pete, welcome to the site and thank you for commenting… touché!
[...] Starlet joins Team Miss California (AmyGrindhouse) [...]
I never thought I’d associate Shanna Moakler with saying anything perfectly (except for maybe “I have herpes, sorry Travis”) but…wow. She really hit the nail on the head. (Or got nailed then gave head?)
Sorry. But when I find an inappropriate one-liner, I’m genetically wired to use it.
I know right, I cried myself to sleep the night I wrote that
[...] Why won’t Shanna Moakler just GO AWAY?!?! – Amy Grindhouse [...]
Perez Hilton is to the Miss America Pageant what Paula Abdul is to American Idol
Hey Nomad – that’s a funny one!
“She lost the crown because she wasn’t able to convey compassion for ALL the people that, as MISS USA, she would be representing,” Moakler wrote. “And if YOU like it or not, gays and lesbians make up this country as well. THIS is why we have judges, so they can find the RIGHT woman who obtains these qualities.”
Shanna’s statement is as convoluted as one can get. Carrie did not lose because of her answer but for failing to show compassion in her answer? It is double talking- it is saying her answer did not cost but her answer did cost her. There is no difference between saying the answer lacking in compassion cost her and the answer cost her. Either case, it is saying the answer costs Carrie, period. Shanna wants to have her cake and eat it, too.
And it is also nonsense to claim Carrie need to as Miss USA represent all Americans, meaning please all. Can the President of the USA even when he gives statements to please the public please everyone? No. And by the way, Mr. President Obama defines marriage the same way as Carrie. Should that then by Shanna’s logic disqualified Obama from being President? It is a standard no one can meet.
Perez asked her a question that asked for her stance on which direction the states should take on the gay marriage issue. If she sided with the gay marriage side, then she alienated those who are against it. If she stated she is against it, she alienated those for it. It is a no-win situation to be put in, and then told her answer has to represent (read: please) all Americans.
The closest she can do to represent Americans is to agree with the majority of Americans in both her state and around the nation. And who is in the majority and who is not on this issue? Shanna is talking nonsense to say she has to give answer to a question that asks her to pick sides that show compassion to all Americans. Religious folks have every right to say her answer lack compassion for their view of sacredness of marriage if she has gone for gay marriage (though most likely, this issue would not be news, since unlike those attacking her, conservatives deal with those with real power, not act like bullies as all the judges did in this case). There is no pleasing everybody or showing compassion to everybody when the question asks her to take a side.
That is unless she says just leave it to the people of the states to decide. But then that would be doing what judges like Jacobs accuse her of doing-not answering the question (which she actually did, but the judges did not like the answer). The question specifically asks her to say which side the states should choose on the gay marriage question. And why or why not. That means she has to not only take sides, but also give her opinion on the issue, given she has to give her reasons.
Carrie did not mishandle the question. She was asked to take sides on an issue, and she did. She was asked to state why, and she did. If you don’t like the side she took (which again reflects the views of the majority of Americans), don’t ask! If you feel politics and religion belong in the pageant, don’t ask a question loaded with both asking her to take sides! (By the way, she never mentioned God or her religion in her answer, so accusations by Lewis and Hilton accusing her of such in the contest are overkills and make them look like anti-religious bigots.)
It is that simple.
No wonder why most Americans polled side with Carrie, even many on the side of gay marriage. The judges, not just Perez Hilton, overshot themselves. No wonder they back off and now are saying what Carrie said (or how she said it) has no effect on the final outcome.
Too little, too late for that. Hilton and Moalker already stated the answer cost Carrie. And Jacobs already said that if she could she would put her in 51st place on grounds she lack social grace (come to find out most of the public find the judges, not Miss Cali, as lacking in social grace). Now, they want to backpedal and save face.
Nice.
What aren’t the GLBT crowd up in arms with Obama as his views are the same as Carrie’s? Both he and Biden have gone on record as saying they believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I have yet to hear the same level of outrage from the gay community… and I ain’t holding my breath that it’s gonna happen any time soon.
oops my bad…. I meant – WHY aren’t the GLBT crowd up in arms…
Rex,
Don’t forget both the Clintons hold to the same views of marriage as do Carrie.
May 13 – Good-bye Shanna. Your kids must be so proud of you.
Hi Tandave – welcome and thanks for the comment – seems Shanna has a lot of enemies on here today
I think Shanna and other MISS USA officials have behaved badly throughout the last few weeks. She outed Prejean on the breast implants. She attacked Prejean in blogs, twitters, and in interviews, then demand Prejean not say anything in response to all the hateful attacks on her and demand she pander to her agenda. She stated publically she did not like her answer and that is reason why she lost, then turn around and deny that was the case on grounds she would have lost anyway to make Prejean and her defenders look like liars.
In every which possible way, Moakler and others violated the spirit of any bi-lateral contracts and made it impossible for Prejean to keep to that contract stating she cannot do interview without the permission of MISS USA. When they resort to attacking someone they are supposed to promote publically to humiliate that person on repeated basis, they turn a simple contract into one that is unconsciousable contract that should not be enforced in any court.
And Moakler should resign. But her statement that she cannot in good conscience support a company that does honor contracts by firing Prejean is very self-serving in light of the fact she blatantly far more so than Prejean can ever violated the contract and became one no pageant contestant should ever trust to be under her care again. And attacking Prejean for photos that pale in comparison to Moakler’s is pretty sad and ironic. If the past disqualified Prejean from the pageant, then the past disqualified Moakler far more so from being director. Personally, as a conservative believer, I am so against using one’s past against that person to say the person cannot take a stance on an issue, given we all make mistakes and do things we wish we have not. That goes for Prejean and that goes for Moakler.
I do hope that conservatives (and even many liberals) who backed Prejean not show glee just because she resigned. Last I check she is still a human being and like the rest of us, a sinner, who God loves.