Thursday, March 29, 2012

NOM's evasion of race-baiting scandal is as bad as the controversy itself

Brian Brown of NOM
The National Organization for Marriage's president, Brian Brown, has responded today specifically to the race-baiting scandal which has engulfed the organization:

"Let me be the first to say that the tone of the language in that document as quoted by the press is inapt. Here's something I know from the bottom of my soul: It would be enormously arrogant for anyone at NOM to believe that we can make or provoke African-American or Latino leaders do anything. The Black and Hispanic Democrats who stand up for marriage do so on principle—and get hit with a wave of vituperative attacks like nothing I have ever seen. We did not cause it, nor can we claim credit for these men and women's courage in standing up in defense of our most fundamental institution: marriage."

Do those talking points sound familiar? They should if you read this blog. This is what NOM founder Maggie Gallagher said in the comments section of a National Review blog post she authored (the same blog post in which she asserted that the controversy was the subject of a slow news day):




Let's put up the comparison, shall we (emphasis on the important portions is done by me).

Brian Brown today:

"Let me be the first to say that the tone of the language in that document as quoted by the press is inapt. Here's something I know from the bottom of my soul: It would be enormously arrogant for anyone at NOM to believe that we can make or provoke African-American or Latino leaders do anything. The Black and Hispanic Democrats who stand up for marriage do so on principle—and get hit with a wave of vituperative attacks like nothing I have ever seen. We did not cause it, nor can we claim credit for these men and women's courage in standing up in defense of our most fundamental institution: marriage."

Maggie Gallagher just a few days ago:

"The documents used language which I would call 'inapt' - - in part because it's tremendously vain to think that I or NOM or any other white Christian conservative can manipulate black and latino church leaders. I don't think so. They speak out of their own convictions and become subject to tremendous vituperative for doing so."

You have to be kidding me! If they expect this to be some sort of credible explanation of NOM's attempt to drive a wedge between the black and gay communities, then Gallagher and Brown failed.

Almost word for word, these two folks say the same thing. 

 Apparently the leaking of the confidential documents detailing NOM's plan of divide and conquer got members of the organization scared witless. 

How else can you explain this sadly cobbled explanation? It's bad enough when one of them says it because it doesn't even address the point of NOM's discovered plan. But when both Gallagher and Brown repeat the same explanation almost word-for-word, there is a certain disturbing robotic function to it. It's like they are reading from a script. There is nothing real about this explanation. It's plastic.

It simply demonstrates cynical  and rushed planning devoid of integrity or honesty, much like the original plan which got NOM into trouble in the first place.


Bookmark and Share

6 comments :

Wade MacMorrighan said...

"What did [NOM] do that is toxic or beyond the pale", Maggie?! What about paying someone a yearly salary of $60,000 to find and videotape dysfunctional kinds of Gay parents in order to (presumably) exploit them in an anti-Gay campaign!!! The media, seriously, must mention this fact as well....so far, none has to my knowledge. It's also very strange that she would capitalize her race like that. In fact, it reminds me of an article she wrote back in 1991 where she went on about what a demonstrable threat diversity and multiculturalism are to white Christian parents in public schools. She ended that diatribe by stating how embarrassed she was to admit that "most African Americans are Christian". Here's the article, Alvin: http://www.city-journal.org/article02.php?aid=1610

Wade MacMorrighan said...

Nota Bene: That should be KIDS of Gay parents, not "kinds".

Daniel said...

Gosh, I thought they were just owning up to their own ethical flaws! "It would be enormously arrogant for anyone at NOM to believe that we can make or provoke African-American or Latino leaders do anything." and by their own words they DID believe that. This admission fits into the pattern of newspeak and arrogance that they display. It is their admission of enormous arrogance.

That spokes-trolls for the organization either plagiarize one another, or decide together what to say to the public, is expected. Same as any other PR organization. It's very nice to see them groping for spin that will let them weasel out of blame for their cynical and inept attempts to manipulate their hoped-for victims. Thanks for keeping up with this story!

Daniel said...

By the way, that photo of Brown looks like the epitome of arrogance.

PJB863 said...

It must be awfully uncomfortable for these two, being puppets of whoever funds NOM. Imagine going through life with someone's hand up your ass while simultaneously having to make an ass of yourself.

Cuberly said...

They tried the bus tours = FAIL.
They released the Ruth Institute's insanity in order to mobilize the far right in their tent, = FAIL, the evangelicals have their hate gig corralled in cloistered pens of cash wielding contributors. They don't want to endanger that cash cow.
Then the "wedge" approach - ATTENTION
Marches in NY, vocal AA groups ponying up. They knew they had something.

I'd love to do a timeline on NON's strategy development. Contrast those with what we've learned.