Miss California “The View” Guest Host — Carrie Prejean “The View” Fill-In For Elisabeth Hasselbeck

April 30th, 2009 by Castina

Tagged as: Barbara Walters, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Miss California Carrie Prejean, TV, TV News, The View

Another shining example of America’s tendency to reward bigots with platforms to spew their tomfoolery……

Last year, conservative right-winger Elisabeth Hasselbeck hit back at tabloid reports that she was leaving the ladies of The View for greener pastures at the more Republican-friendly FOX News Channel. These days, the pregnant mother of two is boo-hooing that series creator Babs Walters is trying to boot her from the buzzworthy daytime talk show — and you’ll never guess the name being tossed around as her possible replacement.

Move over Liz, there’s a new right-wing babe on the block.

Flies on the wall at ABC claim View producers are eagerly pursuing Miss California Carrie Prejean — who made international headlines with her anti-gay marriage statement during the 2009 Miss USA pageant earlier this month — to fill-in for the equally conservative Hasselbeck when she goes on maternity leave later this year.

And insiders say if Carrie plays her cards right, the arrangement could become a permanent one.

“Elisabeth really has something to worry about,” says a show spy.

The National Enquirer’s Mike Walker writes: “It could turn into a permanent gig for the controversial beauty queen….Barbara’s seriously fed up with Elisabeth’s coo-coo-conserva-babble — and her looney-toon responses…”

What's Hot at PopCrunch?

8 Comments, add yours

8 Responses to “Miss California “The View” Guest Host — Carrie Prejean “The View” Fill-In For Elisabeth Hasselbeck”

On April 30th 2009, Dave wrote:

Is President Obama a bigot? Seems to me he holds the exact same position as Miss California…. or did you miss that during the campaign? I guess the President doesn’t have a large rack and blonde hair, otherwise we could slap him around, too. Right?

I believe in marriage for all, but there’s no need to call her a bigot. Seems to me you’re saying more about yourself.
On April 30th 2009, Castina wrote:

What would you have me call a person who believes one group in this society should be excluded from a right granted to everyone else? Actually, you may have a point. Perhaps idiot is a more fitting term for Carrie. And to answer your question, President Obama’s view on marriage rights is just as biased as Carrie’s. I don’t co-sign prejudice from anyone — even if they are from the same race as me. Marriage is between two people who love one another, it is none of your business — or mine, for that matter — who other people want to marry. (Provided they’re not trying to walk down the aisle with children, pets, or family members, of course.)

Futhermore, I don’t post comments that are not related to the subject. Stay on topic please or see your way out, K? Thanx!
On April 30th 2009, joseph wrote:

Elizabeth and Carrie are both judgemental and show no compassion for people outside their little bubble. The world has to be more accepting of every walk of life, not just the majority. I do not feel gay marraige threatens heterosexual marriages in any way whatsoever!!!! Carrie says she is trying to protect marraige – that is not true. She isn’t protecting marraige she trying to pas judgement on an entire group of people and denying their rights for fair and equal treatment. Elizabeth is also judgemental and follows the conservative republican script. Christain conservative ideals don’t accept anyone who is different. They are ignorant because they are oppressing people who just want to live a different lifestyle. Romans used to feed Christains to lions because of their lifestyle. This is their chance to show they are better and evolve morally.
On May 1st 2009, Charley Kane wrote:

Even though i myself favor gay marriage under the principle that everyone should be given an equal opportunity to suffer, the way this woman has been treated for answering a question she had no control over is a great example of PC thuggery at it’s worst. And yes, Obama agrees with her so i guess he is also a bigot – along with most of America. If that no-talent “Perez Hilton” didn’t want an answer he shouldn’t have asked the question.
On May 1st 2009, justgroovy wrote:

You see, the first sentence of your response to Dave indicates your misunderstanding of what marriage is and therefore making your argument nonsensical. One thing marriage is not is a right. By legal definition, a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away from you, though you can forfeit a right by conscious and willful violation of law. For example, liberty is a right; convicted felons do not enjoy that right until they have paid their debt to society and have that right redeemed to them.

Marriage on the other hand is a privileged contract between a man and a woman that entails traditional and lawful commitments and responsibilities and can be annulled or entered into a divorced state by either or both the parties petitioning the appropriate court of law. If something can be taken away or fundamentally altered, it is not a right. Marriage therefore is not a right, it is a contractual validation of a committed relationship between a man and a woman.

Marriage has been defined as such for centuries and treating it as an “option” in any other relationship between anyone other than a man and a woman changes its meaning, worth, and function in our society. The real problem with this issue of same sex marriage is not about a “right”, it is about equivalence and when people honestly look at the differences in the relationships between a same sexed couple and a marriage they can see that there is not equivalence in function, intent, and contribution to society. One contribution to society that marriage provides is continuity of familial relationships from one generation to the next. A same sex union cannot function in that capacity, therefore it is not the same as a marriage. So, in essence the statement by Ms. Prejean that she is given so much grief over was not bigoted, it was only an acknowledgment of reality.
On May 1st 2009, ? wrote:

“The real problem with this issue of same sex marriage is not about a “right”, it is about equivalence and when people honestly look at the differences in the relationships between a same sexed couple and a marriage they can see that there is not equivalence in function, intent, and contribution to society. One contribution to society that marriage provides is continuity of familial relationships from one generation to the next. A same sex union cannot function in that capacity”

Oh, so if you’re gay, you can’t raise children or perform marriage’s “traditional” role because there isn’t both sperm and egg present? That’s just not true. You’re basically saying that married hetero couples can provide something to society that gay couples cannot, and that is just not true. While they would have to seek other means of reproducing, that in no way defrauds their abilities as functioning couples and families. And what about marriages between people who cannot form those “function, intent, and contribution to society” despite being hetero? What about women who can’t reproduce? Or couples who don’t want to? How is their desire for marriage any less important than gay peoples’? Just because you’re hetero doesn’t mean your sole purpose or goal is “continuity of familial relationships from one generation to the next”. Many people don’t want children. The role and “function” of marriage in our society has changed so much in the past one hundred years (from indentured servitude/a loveless business arrangement centered on building large families switched to romantic love and commitment) that its only fitting that the definition change as well.

All I’m hearing is more anti-gay bias and shoddy justification for close minded, know-it-all behavior. Your whole post sounded like a thesis for an Oral Roberts course on Justify Your Bigotry 101.
On May 8th 2009, sophlames wrote:

She was asked her opinon, the person who brought this to this level was perez hilton and his hate. He is such an angry person, he takes it out on everyone and the fact that majority of the gay community is on his side is terrible. Also that dude michael who writes for the village voice, is also another hateful gay, these people leaders in a community asking for tolerance yet they cant give tolerance themselves such hypocrites.
Carrie gave her opinion and that should be ok, would you rather she lied, i find it funny that when i ask, this question most gay people run and hide.
Its a FREAKING opinion. Next time ask what is the politically correct thing to say. Not whats your opinion.
On May 9th 2009, Carl wrote:

From wikipedia:

“A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own.”

Clearly, Perez was the bigot for taking offense on Ms. Cali’s opinion.