Carrie Prejean and Chas Freeman: Separated at birth?

Posted By David Rothkopf Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 9:44 PM Share

Are not-quite-Miss-USA Carrie Prejean and not-quite-National-Intelligence-Council-Chairman Chas Freeman the same person? The similarities are uncanny.

Both were candidates for important national positions. Prejean's position would make her an ambassador for America and Freeman was a career diplomat. Both were denied those positions at least in part because of the unpopular views they expressed. And both were victims of blogospheric overkill that may have done more to damage their critics than it did to them. Certainly, the longer their controversies continued to bubble, the worse their opponents looked. (Last night, for example, even the Rush Limbaugh of liberal America, Jon Stewart, closed his Prejean story with a statement that made it clear he felt the attacks on her were unfair.)

Finally, today both are considerably better known than they were before the controversies they didn't seek and both are considerably more popular among key constituencies that are likely to provide them with long-term support as a consequence of their courage to say what they felt.

Unfortunately for Chas (and I think for the NIC), Barack Obama did not appoint Donald Trump director of national intelligence because he might have stood up for Chas like he stood up for Carrie. (Well, he would have if he thought Chas was hot in a bikini.) But Chas's defenders in the administration folded under too much pressure from the likes of noted intelligence connoisseur Nancy Pelosi.

In fact, given their winning smiles, the only real differences between the two are Prejean's implants and the fact that Chas is brilliant and she appears to be dumb as a box of rocks. (The rumors that Steve Rosen had nude pics of Freeman have proven to be as unfounded as some other charges against Rosen.)

That said there's a message here, people: beware the impulse to incite the virtual crowd, because as often happens with real mobs, e-mobs or their actions can get so out of control that they trample the reputations of their organizers and prove seriously counter-productive to their longer term goals. (See: Salem witch trials, McCarthyism, and votefortheworst.com.)

Michael Loccisano/Getty Images

EXPLORE:CELEBS, DIPLOMACY, FUN STUFF

(4)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

MDREW

8:48 AM ET

May 14, 2009

Kudos, Mr. Rothkopf.

This post went in a vastly different direction than I anticipated. It's right on the money -- it's a weird analogy, but makes a surprising amount of sense. And if you mean what you say about Freeman's brilliance, then I guess it's not a back-handed insult to him, either.

I was quite worked up after watching the Freeman affair, and was quite troubled by your long, final, tormented post on the matter. Time really does heal wounds I guess, as this post shows a remarkable gain in perspective in you thinking, as far as I remember it back then anyway. I salute that.

DAVID IN DC

12:37 PM ET

May 14, 2009

I don't see that anything

I don't see that anything changed. Back then he says Freeman should have gotten the job, that his detractors looked bad by the vehemence of their opposition, and that Freeman shouldn't have penned the angry swan song (and was wrong, to boot).

Rothkopf also alludes above to the fact that ultimately the government didn't have a case against Rosen. Don't forget, a lot of Rothkopf's post was about Walt and not Freeman. Walt was quick to impugn Rosen's opinion/credibility on Freeman based on these allegations and this, in part, was what Rothkopf was writing about. (I will also note here that Walt's blog never mentioned the fact that the allegations against Rosen did not hold up. Presumably he couldn't fit them in between the three Jane Harman/AIPAC posts he made ;o), another "scandal" that looks to be more unfounded than the Rosen case and basically a political hit.)

Point being, from what I can tell, the gain in perspective is from the commenter and not Rothkopf. But I'm sure Rothkopf appreciates the salute nonetheless.

MDREW

2:43 AM ET

May 15, 2009

How has my perspective changed?

I don't remember Rothkopf calling Freeman brilliant and deserving back then, or using the term 'mob' about his detractors (something some would have faced consequences for doing during the episode), but if he did then fair enough. In my view back then Rothkopf was internally wrenched by the cognitive dissonance of his prejudices versus what he was witnessing. Then he just boiled over when his nemesis-colleague here at FP made predictable hay. Beyond that the notion that Freeman "shouldn't" have written whatever he believed true after his experience, given how Rothkopf now describes it, is something i find extraordinary. Who is Rothkopf to say what Freeman 'should' write? hopefully Freeman writes what he thinks. If that made it hard for Rothkopf to maintain his positive view of Freeman, so be it. But if Rothkopf did make that judgement, how does that square with the "brilliance" Rothkopf attributes to Freeman today? The things in that letter were what Freeman thought for better or worse, and most of the detractors rested their case on it ex post facto. Freeman was either okay for the job -- letter and all, since we are now speaking with the benefit of full hindsight -- which I take it Rothkopf now grants by way of the "brilliance" descriptor, or Freeman was not, perhaps with the letter serving as final, dispositive proof. Either way, the letter can't be dismissed any more. If Rothkopf thinks Freeman was qualified to the point of brilliance now, it has to be taking the letter in full account.

As to Walt referencing Rosen, that is irrelevant to what Rothkopf thought and thinks about the Freeman affair.

So, do you want to detail how my perspective has changed, or just leave that unsubstantiated?

DAVID IN DC

12:12 PM ET

May 15, 2009

I don't remember Rothkopf

I don't remember Rothkopf calling Freeman brilliant and deserving back then, or using the term 'mob' about his detractors (something some would have faced consequences for doing during the episode), but if he did then fair enough.

He basically does. He said, among other things:

Did a small group of misinformed, intellectually intolerant individuals stir up a wave of criticism [ie, "mob" - DinDC] of Chas Freeman that distorted his record to the point that it was impossible for him to assume the role for which he was nominated? Yes...In so doing did they lead to a great disservice being done to Freeman and to the U.S. government? [id, "Freeman deserved the position, even taking into account his conspiracy mongering swan song, and our government is poorer without him" - It certainly equals "deserving". Does it equal "brilliant"? I'd say it equals "imminently qualified", a distinction without a difference in this context - DinDC] Also yes...The actions and arguments of some members the anti-Freeman crowd disgusted me. But it was in the capitulation to them that the greatest disservice was done.

So he says, in effect, the same thing. (He also says right out in the earlier post that he can forgive Freeman for his anger, so it appears he had perspective on Freeman's outburst even back then.) Yet you react completely differently, going from castigating to saluting him. Hence, the conclusion that you have a different perspective. < /substantiation>

-------------
(Parenthetically:

"Freeman was either okay for the job -- letter and all, since we are now speaking with the benefit of full hindsight -- which I take it Rothkopf now grants by way of the "brilliance" descriptor, or Freeman was not, perhaps with the letter serving as final, dispositive proof. Either way, the letter can't be dismissed any more. If Rothkopf thinks Freeman was qualified to the point of brilliance now, it has to be taking the letter in full account."

Rothkopf made no bones about it - Freeman was OK for the job(actually, more than just "OK"), and the letter was already in consideration.

)