Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« We Interrupt Frank Rich's World... | Main | Stuck In The Middle With... Who? »

February 22, 2005

Comments

antiphone

Finally! Guckert for Republicans, how about some tips on how to explain Guckert to children. If I remember correctly, explaining Monica-gate to our children was a pressing national priority once upon a time.

RFTR

You've certainly done your due-diligence here—more work went into this round-up than I've seen in any news or opinion media report on this story.

Hopefully the message will get out, even if it is ignored by the Kossacks.

TM

...how about some tips on how to explain Guckert to children.

LOL. Maybe something to the tune of "Mamas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Gay Republican Prostitues Turned Reporters..."

Jimmie

As you noted in an earlier post, Gannon wasn't the only one asking biased questions and that some members of the WH Press Corps didn't seem to have a huge problem with his being there.

HH

Matt Drudge got into a press briefing of the White House which approved a lawsuit against him... So again, this idea that it is difficult is nonsense.

HH

More

Geek, Esq.

I think you omitted the third, and most likely version of GOPUSA/Talon News: Good ol' boy Texas Republicans looking to push propaganda to help out their guy George. Now, whether this was tacitly approved by Karl Rove or whether this happened entirely without his knowledge or approval--who outside of Ms. Cleo knows?

We've seen this before. We saw it with the Swiftboat people.

And those Swiftboat people are back--now claiming that the AARP hates our troops and loves those awful, despicable homosexuals. Because they oppose Bush's yet-to-be articulated SS plan.

But, I'm sure those fine, upstanding members of the fasci, er, Republican right are just wholeseome individuals.

Cecil Turner

"We've seen this before. We saw it with the Swiftboat people."

Yeah, those dirty rotten liars! How dare they claim Kerry wasn't in Cambodia for Christmas? Or that he didn't run weapons to the Khmer Rouge? Or that he didn't deserve a Purple Heart just because nobody was shooting at him? And how dare those Rove plants use the secret GOPUSA time machine to go back to 1971 and have public arguments with Kerry, just to set the stage? (Ooops, wasn't supposed to tell that part, was I?!? Forget I said that!)

Julie

Um... what is wrong with people, on their own, deciding to support George Bush? I just don't get it, Geek. You're going to have to explain better. I thought that free speach and all meant that we had the right to advocate in any direction that we saw fit.

Seriously, all you've said is, "These people like Bush... and that's enough proof for me."

Julie

LOL! Cecil! Yeah, that time travel thing is a hoot, huh?

Jody

Perhaps foolishly operating under the assumption that Geek is serious...

Re Good ol country boys:
You have a problem with free speech? Better tell that to the folks at Air America...

Re swifties:
Actually it's not the swifties, it's their publicity consultants who have been hired. Seems like a smart move to me.

I don't really follow the "hate our troops and loves those awful despicable homosexuals" particularly since a) the first is a complete non sequitir and b) you apparently believe there is a Republican conspiracy with the homosexual Gannon/Guckert.

Jody

Now I know what's up with the troops/homosexuals... (link)

Which looks like a pretty f'd up ad campaign. I'm interested in seeing how the story plays out...

dossier

".........the nearly impossible task of proving a negative..."
If I remember my Logic 101 class correctly it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative, not 'nearly impossible.' Is this corrcet or not?

Robert

The part that I find amusing is this:
the Party of the Right (as represented
by LGF, Freepers, et al) are beeping and
honking about Easongate, and wondering
why anyone gives a tinker's cuss about
Gannon/Guckert.
Meanwhile, the Party of the Left (as
represented by Kos, DU, et al) are
doing likewise re: Gannon/Guckert, and
wondering why anyone would care about
Easongate.

Little gedankenexperiment for all concerned:
if you loathed Clinton, just remember that
the people you're contesting with feel just as
passionately about #43. If you loved Clinton,
just remember that the people you're contesting
with feel just as passionately about #43.

Hope that helps.

Jeff Harrell

It's not totally impossible to prove a negative proposition, Doss. It depends on the proposition. If, for instance, you were to say, "The sky is not yellow," all I'd have to do to prove that negative proposition is to point out that the sky is, in fact, blue, and that blue is not the same as yellow.

In this case, though, we're talking about a different kind of negative proposition. If asked to prove that Karl Rove did not dine on the steaming entrails of a succulent roasted baby last night, we've got a challenge on our hands. Because the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, you see. The fact that we don't have Karl's baby feast on video doesn't mean it didn't happen.

However, the flip side of that situation can be summed up in a simple truism: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." (Which is kind of another way of stating Occam's Razor, sort of.) As long as people keep their feet planted firmly on the ground and remember that rule of thumb, we're gonna be fine.

Alas, there are an awful lot of people out there who aren't the least bit interested in keeping their feet on the ground. I guess it's our testament to our enduring optimism that we let these people vote.

Brainster

The other tinfoil argument that the left is still throwing around is "How did Gannon get a press pass under an assumed name?" That was the hook that the tiny Minnesota Politics blog threw Power Line (and that drew an obscenity-laced response from Hindrocket). Really, it just goes to show that the real weakness of the lefty blogs is that they are not interested in digging for the truth; they stop when they've found a piece of ammunition to use for the current battle.

Geek, Esq.

Well, the publicity consultants that have advised the Swifties and are now going after the AARP have shown within the past 24 hours that they have the ethics and integrity of sewer rats by resorting to McCarthyism and gay-bashing . . . on the issue of social security.

I guess that USANext is the face of the American right.

TM

If I remember my Logic 101 class correctly it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative, not 'nearly impossible.' Is this corrcet or not?

All I know is, if I had flatly said "impossible", someone would have proved me wrong, although I am not sure how, since there is no way they can exhaust every possible state of the universe without exhausting my patience first.

Anyway, I will wager that some negatives are in fact subject to proof. But I lack an example just now. (Hmm - can I prove that Karl Rove did not conspire with Ben Franklin...? What about the time travel thingie mentioned by Julie?)

edog

Geek:

Oh God, here we go again. Who the hell is making anti-gay references to the Social Security debate? More important, who cares? This is a smokescreen meant to shift the SS debate from the merits of the plan to presenting Republicans as bigots. At least the Spongebob story was funny, albeit grossly exaggerated. Before you point your finger at anyone, just remember that Gannon's detractors have shown absolutely no compunction about playing the gay card in an effort to ruin the man personally. So go point that little finger up your ass, buddy.

Nevertheless, the way the gay card is being played in this whole affair is interesting. Ameriblog and others are all screaming about the hypocrisy of Bush in allowing press access to a gay man. It seems that they, like the idiot above, have begun to believe their own propaganda about Republicans. George Bush, you might remember, stirred some minor controversy among hard-core evangelicals when he ran for president because he was willing to accept money from groups like the Log Cabin Republicans. And before the gay marriage issue was foisted upon the country last year, W was generally regarded as being fairly tolerant towards homosexuals (the Wead tapes back this up, incidentally). I think acceptance of gays by Republicans worries Democrats in general because the D's benefit from portraying R's as out-of-the-mainstream bigots, and it worries gay liberals in particular because they know that many gays are successful professionals, dinks (dual-income-no-kids) and thus potentially interested by conservative policies on taxation and, yes, Social Security. Such demographic considerations have led liberals to redouble efforts to present Republicans as intolerant, and so we see truly silly stories about SpongeBob and the pro-gay AARP. And I gaurantee you that for every one right winger that blathers about such a topic, there are hundreds of left wingers who'll use it to convince the casual observer that Republicans are bigots.

Robin Roberts

TM, the difference is between inductive logic and deductive logic. Certainly, you can do as you describe via deductive logic. Inductive logic is roughly iterating among samples to test a theorem. It is impossible to inductively prove the nonexistance of something.

For instance, using inductive logic, I would establish by examining all of Geek,Esq's posts that there is a high probability that the next post on whatever topic will again contain an offtopic reference to the Swiftboat Vets for Truth.

Matt

Of course, Eason Jordan is the head of a major network (woops was) and accused American soldiers of targeting reporters for killing whereas Mr. Guckert was apparently either a journalist or posing as a journalist and used to work in gay porn. How can you not see the paralel between the two situations- if anything, the Guckert thing is much more important, because when spun properly, it has a off chance of making Bush look bad.

Brennan Stout

Tom: You left out some important details. I hate to have to be the one to break this to you, but this story is really bigger than even John Avarosis is willing to say.

Pentagon Conducting Psy Ops: Target is United States

Gannon is Part of the Psy Ops US Mission

These two stories make for fantastic bed time reading.

Cecil Turner

"Of course, Eason Jordan is the head of a major network (woops was) and accused American soldiers of targeting reporters for killing . . ."

What's the big deal? What's so bad about accusing US troops of war crimes, and providing a propaganda victory for our enemies? Why did the British hang Lord Haw Haw anyway? (And why does our Fourth Estate so often act like a Fifth Column?)

peapies

"how about some tips on how to explain Guckert to children."


What? A lefty actually wrote this????? LOLOLOLOL

um, to demonstrate the silliness of this..


after many anxious, sleepless nights my 10 year old wrestling with the confusing and uncomfortable questions posed by the knowledge that his favorite white house press reporter was gay and used to date men for money wondered what is all meant


Not sure how to respond I could only offer that unlike President Clinton he had
made the mistake of not committing perjury and obstruction of justice.

Perplexed 10 year old responded, "who's President Clinton?"

finally and saddly he concluded, "i guess with his resume he would have been better off choosing the military...or acting"

Brennan Stout

As a card carrying member of the vast right wing conspiracy, I give credit to the left wing bloggers that uncovered and reported much of this "Mr. G" story. Clearly, though, there were problems with the reporting as it unfolded. The lewd photos that John Avarosis posted were completely unnecessary. I think the photos actually hurt the story that John was trying to tell.

Just think about it for a moment. If you are one of those "legitamate media houses", how are you going to get out of the fact that once you pick up the story the timeline will show that your interest in reporting the story grew out of the posting of lewd photos of an apparent homosexual that was in attendance at White House press briefings?

Back to the lefty credit, they did start to unravel a quite interesting story. Mr. G's stories cannot be found on the Talon News website. You cannot find them on GOPUSA either. Is it not the least bit suspicious that every single one of Mr. G's stories has been removed from the web sites he was published? Maybe they were removed for review, but there is no notice of this review on the sites.

Mr. G worded a question that inaccurately portrayed the position of the Senate Minority Leader. This proved to be a fatal error. David Brock had little to back a case, prior to that question, to put Mr. G under the oppo microscope. So once the folks - especially those that view James Moore's book "Bush's Brain" as the gospel truth - started to look at Mr. G they lept right to Rove the trickster. This shifted the debate toward proving a negative because James Moore is the most influential writer to the Bush critics.

TomB

Geek, don't let them get you down. You keep speaking truth to power.

or whatever....

I'm sure there's somebody out there that knows what you are talking about, and on behalf of that person, I say.....huh?

Brennan Stout

edog: I don't think critics of the AARP make a good case when they use ads like this.

It certainly doesn't help make the case for Republicans supportive of the White House SS plan.

capt joe

Tom Maguire, you sir, are a veritable tour de force.

Just Passing Through

Ah Robin,

We now have a situation analogous to the Schrodinger's Cat exercise in quantum physics. Roughly put, if a quantum event has no observer, it has no state and it's behavior cannot be predicted. Once observed, the quantum event assumes a fixed state - particle, wave, what have you - and is thus predictable. There is some support for the idea that the expectations of the observer may actually influence the final state observed. (Again, all this again is very roughly put for the purists among us, but bear with me.)

Since you have attempted to predict Geek's behavior based on expectations, perhaps you have irrevocably fixed what that behavior will be. On the other hand, not being a quantum event, Geek will probably not mention the Swiftboat Vets for Truth off topic in his next comment just to glitch your exercise in inductive logic.

Mike G

I finally heard some actual clips of Gannon/Guckert's questions on Le Show and, well, the White House should be ashamed at floating such a crude attempt at spin. His questions were the Bush equivalent of "President Nixon, do you think the people opposing your bombing of Cambodia are actual Soviet agents, or are they just dirty hippies who need a bath to clean their heads out?"

That said, this still seems to me shy of a scandal. Everyone knows the Bush admin dislikes the press and looks for other ways to get the word out. Only if you regard the press room as some sort of sacred place does planting a spinner in there seem sacrilegious. I don't, so this seems to me outrage at the idea that the Bushies want to get their message out. That's like getting outraged that there was syrupy music behind a campaign film or that the president wears makeup for TV. "It's not his REAL skin color! He's paler and he has a zit! They're lying to us!" Grow up, you dorks, we live in the age of PR and spin.

Corienne Johnston

"I've made mistakes in my past," he said yesterday. "Does my past mean I can't have a future? Does it disqualify me from being a journalist?"

You are a day late and a dollar short on this point, it has been proven that selling his body was a current activity or job, I guess you all will call it a job.

So we can assume Jeff Gannon is a good capitalist.

Mark

Terrific work. I used to go to the Daily Kos to see what the other side was saying and thinking assuming that, with it's enormous popularity, it must have some credibility. Now, I just go there for the pure Schadenfreud-istic glee of watching the left circle the drain.

Go long tinfoil...LOL.

Cecil Turner

Brennan,
"Mr. G's stories cannot be found on the Talon News website. You cannot find them on GOPUSA either. Is it not the least bit suspicious that every single one of Mr. G's stories has been removed from the web sites he was published?"

They were removed when he quit. I'm not terrribly surprised that Talon didn't want the reminders (that they'd hired a former gay escort) on their site, though in my opinion it wasn't very classy. Guckert was understandably miffed:

"That bothers me sometimes. I stand behind everything I wrote, and if people disagree with it that is okay. But this is part of this invasion of examining every single thing in my life."
Mike,
"I finally heard some actual clips of Gannon/Guckert's questions on Le Show and, well, the White House should be ashamed at floating such a crude attempt at spin."

Well, since we're not bothering with evidence this week, I think Teddy Kennedy should be ashamed at making a deal with the Iraq insurgency to support their objectives openly.

(By the way, for those who think this is a new technique, it actually dates back to Ancient Rome. And even then it was old enough to be a proverb: "Audacter caluminare, semper aliquid haeret." Or: "Speak slander boldly: something always sticks.")

richard

Hindrocket blasts the character of folks who think that outing a gay reporter somehow advanced the national debate.

A very unfair statement. This was not about outing a reporter. A reporter was given a pass to enter the White House on a daily basis, where he got to ask obscenely inppropriate questions to the president of the United States and his press secretary. This man who was selected to ask questions time and again was a working male prostitute in the White House under a false name and whose news service was closely affiliated with GOPUSA. Come on, if this isn't newsworthy what is? No one gives a damn that he's gay. But a prostitute, male or female, walking through the White House every day with a fake name and being chosen to ask the president questions clearly designed to suck up and make Bush look good -- if that were Clinton and Jeff/Jim were Ginger, we'd have a drooling, salacious scandal of unimaginable proportions. No?

Cecil Turner

"A reporter was given a pass to enter the White House on a daily basis, where he got to ask obscenely inppropriate questions to the president of the United States and his press secretary."

He had to show up early every day to get a day pass. Helen Thomas got a blanket pass, which she used to ask gems like:

"At the earlier briefing, Ari, you said that the President deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world? And I have a follow-up." . . ."My follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?"
Luckily, nobody had/posted any salacious pictures of Helen (thank God . . .[shudder]).

PersonFromPorlock

Richard, when you've got a roomfull of politicians and journalists, throwing in the odd prostitute doesn't lower the tone all that much.

Just Passing Through

richard,

Where your logic fails is placing a negative spin on the type of questions - make Bush look good. There are plenty of people in that press room daily who specifically ask questions that serve no journalistic purpose and are designed only to make Bush look bad. For example, choose any questions asked by Helen Thomas.

You are also conflating the actual question that started all this ruckus which was actually a barb against the democrats and which Tom accurately puts as Gannon asking a "factually deficient question wondering how Bush could negotiate with Congressional Democrats who have "divorced themselves from reality" with asking questions that in your words are "clearly designed to suck up and make Bush look good". The two are not the same, and the fact that you makle your statement as such without understanding the nature of the question that started all the fuss indicates that you're parroting the dKos line.

Lastly, Hindrocket is not saying that this is all about outing a reporter. He is very clearly saying that he finds the people who felt that outing a gay reporter, making that an indictment of character, and using that to attack the WH is reprehensible. I am in complete agreement with that and just as Hindrocket, can not see any way in which it advances the national debate.

Before you come back with the position that it is not about being a gay prostitute, but only about being a prostitute, I invite you to visit the dKos and Eschaton threads where the issue is discussed. There is a lot of desparate defense that the denizens of course represent the party that is gay friendly and it's not about the gay aspect. These protestations need to be picked out of the general hilarity of the gay jokes. You would be hard put to find a single comment dealing with Gannon as just a prostitute - the 'gay' qualifier is always present.

It is not the Gannon issue itself that reflects so poorly on the left. It is the way the people digging at the story have emphasized the gay aspect that places them beneath contempt.

Jack Tanner

'No one gives a damn that he's gay.'

Really?

MisterPundit

"if that were Clinton and Jeff/Jim were Ginger, we'd have a drooling, salacious scandal of unimaginable proportions."

Richard, it's obvious you desperately want it to be a scandal, but aside from the "gay prostitute" thing there really isn't anything interesting about this all-but-dead story. If anything, I feel sorry for Gannon.

Had Gannon been more famous it may have attracted some more attention. It is obvious that there are many other biased reporters in the press corp, and there was no security risk since Gannon received press credentials based on his real name. That just leaves the "gay prostitute" part. Amusing to some extent, yes, but I can see why the press isn't going to report on this non-stop for the next 6 months. There just isn't enough there.

media in trouble

How about giving a gay prostitute a daily press pass and allow her to ask questions like:

"Mr. President, why do you insist on calling the war in Iraq a part of the War on Terror and why do you insist on linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11? Why have you divorced yourself from reality?"

Once that got played a thousand times on Limbaugh and Hannity you could get a ban on gay marriage through the senate with the nuclear option.

THE POINT IS: THE HOLIER THAN THOU WHITE HOUSE HAS TIES TO GAY PROSTITUTION.

The tie is the press pass. The White House vetting proccess is obviously not doing so well.

media in trouble

mister pundit

last i checked ANY FORM OF PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL

That shill should have been taken away in handcuffs you frekin freeper morons the lot of ya

MisterPundit

"last i checked ANY FORM OF PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL"

It should be legal, but whatever. You could say he was an "escort", as opposed to a "prostitute". Small difference, but legal nonetheless.

"That shill should have been taken away in handcuffs you frekin freeper morons the lot of ya"

Gannon probably would have charged extra for the handcuffs though, you homophobic fascist DUmmy. LOL.

media in trouble

im no homophobe

last i checked it wasnt my way or the highway much to the dismay of my votes, letters, and phone calls.

(more like the other way around)

dummy
well i got a sheepskin that possibly proves otherwise. i do think you know my well enough to call me a dummy

and freeper isnt quite the same as dummy

but if you insist, gay marriage banning freepers are the homophobes, and since most of them believe creationism over evolution (no ism freepers)

then they are the dummies too

fascists? you should check in with the white house on that one. i think you can find a few there.

ps. i think prostitution should be legal too


PlutosDad

I think the left is finally realizing that the American dream is a reality. Imagine any other country where a small town gigalo and hustler can become the 2nd most powerful man in the country?

Only in America!

R C Dean

The screaming hypocrisy here isn't the uptight White House giving a daily press pass to a former gay escort (especially in light of Bush's expressed tolerance for gay folks), the hypocrisy here is the allegedly pro-gay left's willingness to out a gay man in order to destroy his career and advance their political agenda.

Oh, and PersonFromPorlock wins the comment-of-the-thread award.

papertiger

Im looking forward to Jeff Gannon's return to the White House Press Room. We need the Log Cabin Republican perspective.

Let Jeff back in.
don't let the lefties win.
there all a bunch of hypocrits
Gay is not a sin.

media in trouble

hypocrisy?

perhaps you should look up the word RC.

the hypocrisy here ISN'T that the GAY INTOLERANT WHITE HOUSE THAT HAS CONTINUOUSLY SUPPORTED BANNING GAY MARRIAGE gave a gay prostitute a press pass?

its the gay lover left wanting the RULE OF LAW (perhaps you freepers have heard this shite before) to apply to ALL HUMANS. Regardless of AGE SEX RACE CREED OR SEXUAL LIFESTYLE CHOICE OR POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION for that matter.

Freeping freepers take your blinders off!

i agree with you on the personfromporlock comment.
it is good

PlutosDad

media in trouble:

1. you'll have to prove the white house has connections with him, there is no connection beyond "ooh they are republican", we don't all know each other you know

2. he isn't a prostitute anymore

3. fascists are left wing socialists, not right wing

4. please continue to post, and get all your friends who believe these wild conspiracy theories to post (I suppose you also believed the Clintons had 20-some people murdered as well?) since you are only making us look better by the minute

media in trouble

gay is not a sin and the left has fought for gays longer that you freepers proport to.

Once again children.

The left is not pissed at Gannon Guckert because he is gay.

WE ARE PISSED BECAUSE HE IS A PROPAGANDIST

by him being in the press corps he helps get the agenda on more papers.

Why not let Al Franken get a press pass?

Geek, Esq.

I find it rather touching that folks refuse to believe that the same White House/administration/political team that hires journalists to flack for its policies would likely be involved in stuff like this.

No siree, George W. Bush just happens to be the luckiest sombitch on the planet. Whether he is opposed by John McCain, John Kerry, or the AARP< you can count on someone to step forward and defame them on behalf of Mr. Bush.

Let's draw this full circle:

We have:

An administration that has hired journalists to push its agenda;

an administration that has run fake "news" reports to advance its agenda; and

third parties, who just happen to have heavy connections to the Texas Republican party who create a media circus by smearing anyone who dares oppose the Dear Leader on his big objectives.

Surely, a Republican operative funded by Texas Republican activists, pretending to be a journalist, getting daily press passes while avoiding the background check required for a permanent pass, but who somehow gets invited to the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner and WHITE HOUSE CHRISTMAS PARTIES could not be part of that larger pattern.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

papertiger

LET JEFF BACK IN
DON'T LET THE LEFTIES WIN
THERE ALL A BUNCH OF HYPOCRITS
BEING GAY IS NOT A SIN

MisterPundit

"The screaming hypocrisy"

I got your screaming hypocrisy right here

"and freeper isnt quite the same as dummy"

And "dummy" is not the same as "DUmmy". Dummys are far more intelligent.

Hello

Homophobic? No, sir. Although GannonGuckert demonstrated some serious hypocrisy by writing homophobic articles/copying homophobic RNC press releases for Talon News.

"However, Gannon was operating on a day pass, not a permanent White House 'press pass' for which the standards (and entitlements) are higher."

Perhaps y'all can explain the difference between GannonGuckert receiving a permanent White House press pass, and GannonGuckert receiving a day pass virtually every day for two years.

How many other "journalists" have received a day pass every day for two years?

media in trouble

plutos dad

1. how bout sending me a link to a dictionary that says that fascism is a left wign political theory.

2. Past is prologue i agree but to republicans it doesnt seem to matter. i mean the vietnam war was past and yet i heard alot about it this last year.

the proof of the connection is the press pass. and the white house is supposed to be in charge of their security and press passes is it not?

papertiger

I think I'm going to write Talon News and ask them to rehire Gannon.
Anyone know where I can get their web address?
KOS? Josh? Willis? Duncan?

Ha

MisterPundit

"Freeping freepers take your blinders off!"

You're losing your touch. You could have easily worked one more "freep" in there :

"Freeping freepers take your freeping blinders off!"

hello

YES! If GannonGuckert is not rehired, the terrorists will have won!!!

MisterPundit

"Perhaps y'all can explain the difference between GannonGuckert receiving a permanent White House press pass, and GannonGuckert receiving a day pass virtually every day for two years."

Standing in line more often?

Boyd

Media-in-trouble, either you are a DUmmy for overlooking the capitalization (intended to link you to the Democratic Underground, or DU), or you're being disingenuous.

Neither one makes you look very good. Not to me, anyway.

But then again, I'm not a gay prostitute shill for the Bush Administration, whose evil plot to take down the world by slinging my razor-sharp Daily Press Pass at the reporters in the briefing room, thereby...what? Oh, sorry. I get carried away sometimes.

papertiger

LET JEFF BACK IN
DON'T LET THE LEFTIES WIN
THEY'RE ALL A BUNCH OF HYPOCRITS
BEING GAY IS NOT A SIN

gay is not a sin and the left has fought for gays longer that you freepers proport to. - media in trouble

Hence the hypocracy.

Steve

It's great fun seeing your considerable talents applied to such a difficult case. Well done, rhetorically speaking. Your central thesis seems to be that only crazy conspiracy theorists ask questions of the government. How cute. That's what reporters do; that's how governments are held accountable. The fact is that Gannon is not and was not a reporter, but rather a proponent of a particular point of view.

The two central issues are how Gannon got a White House press pass and his alleged connection to the Plame leak. Everything else is irrelevant. On these two points, your case is the weakest, and so is the Administration.

For example, the day pass/hard pass distinction is irrelevant if the reporter functions as a regular press pool member--which Gannon did. At the very least, his presence there indicates lax security protocol, and someone should answer for it.

If the Administration's hands are so clean, why not just release any documents related to Gannon/Guckert as Lautenberg requests and be done with it? Oh wait. I forgot. I'm not supposed to ask questions.

Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, Robert Novak...Nothing to see here folks, move along.


Paul Zrimsek

While "media in trouble" might well benefit from a link to a dictionary, under the circumstances I think a link to a style manual has to take priority.

Mark

Gannon is a message to all the media.

Ask a question we ( Lefty Bloggers) don't like. We will destroy you. Every moment of your life will be exposed. You spent most of your life left leaning social circles. There always going to be someone in those circles ready to hand us pictures, or info. Don't stay from the party line and no one will get hurt.

I wonder if this reign of Terror couldn't be used against Bloggers.

MisterPundit

"Your central thesis seems to be that only crazy conspiracy theorists ask questions of the government."

No, I think the central thesis is that only crazy conspiracy theorists will link Jeff Gannon's COCK to Plame leak.

Mark

Gannon is a message to all the media.

Ask a question we ( Lefty Bloggers) don't like. We will destroy you. Every moment of your life will be exposed. You spent most of your life left leaning social circles. There always going to be someone in those circles ready to hand us pictures, or info. Don't stay from the party line and no one will get hurt.

I wonder if this reign of Terror couldn't be used against Bloggers.

media in trouble

BOYD
i missed the caps

"But then again, I'm not a gay prostitute shill for the Bush Administration, whose evil plot to take down the world by slinging my razor-sharp Daily Press Pass at the reporters in the briefing room, thereby...what?"

Im not saying take down the world but perhaps... i dont know say HAVE A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE STILL BELIEVING ADMINISTRATION LIES ABOUT LINKS TO AL QUAEDA AND SADDAM, OR WMDS EXISTING

You know maybe if he wasn't helping them push the agenda along we would be able to save a couple of tens of thousands of lives

Hey if you freepers can say "break a couple of eggs to make an omlet" in iraq (eggs = lives, omlet = get rid of evildoers who didnt do us any evil last i checked).

then maybe the left is trying to break one gay egg to make the omelet of acheiving a FREE AND FAIR PRESS.

not that this is the agenda. we just want the free and fair press part. it just so happens gannon is gay.

maybe you fascists haters will appreciate that the way fascists came to power is by CONTROLLING THE MEDIA.

Kind of like we were ALWAYS AT WAR WITH EURASIA.

but then again im DUmmy right?

MisterPundit

"then maybe the left is trying to break one gay egg to make the omelet of acheiving a FREE AND FAIR PRESS."

Dangit, I damn near choked on a raisin when I read that. LOL! That's some funny shit right there man. Props!

"maybe you fascists haters will appreciate that the way fascists came to power is by CONTROLLING THE MEDIA."

Right! Hence the right's efforts to wrestle the media away from you fascist Nazi jumping jehosavat dictator-lovin DUmmy's.

"but then again im DUmmy right?"

Right again! Can we say "progress" !!!!

papertiger

it just so happens gannon is gay

So thats why you splashed pictures of his cock on your website. I knew there had to be a reason.

then maybe the left is trying to break one gay egg to make the omelet of acheiving a FREE AND FAIR PRESS.

Free of Republicans - but how is that fair?

media in trouble

i have been hannitized.

all things conservative must be correct and righteous.

left wing lunatics control the media

conspiracy theories are anything that sean hannity says is not news

sean hannity is a journalist

leftists are racists and bigots who only act like they want to help gays and black get the rights they deserve

from now on i shall argue any point by using the race/secual orientation card against the left wing lunatics

i shall be blind and do as my president tells me unless that president is a democrat which makes him a left wing fascist

i will trample upon bloggers who leave comments by telling them their style needs reworking instead of actually discussing the issue at hand.

MisterPundit

Welcome to the fold "media in trouble"! You can take your brown shirt off now. It's a festivas miracle everyone!

Brennan Stout

Steve said "and his alleged connection to the Plame leak."

This has been covered before. The "alleged connection" is refuted by the Wall Street Journal reporting of the memo that Mr. G cites in his reporting. As Tom put it, "he reads the papers".

papertiger

For example, the day pass/hard pass distinction is irrelevant if the reporter functions as a regular press pool member--which Gannon did. At the very least, his presence there indicates lax security protocol, and someone should answer for it.

THAT DOESN'T SOUND VERY FAIR TO ME. THAT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT TO HOLD GANNON TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD

NO PRESS PASSES FOR GAY REPUBLICANS BECAUSE THE LEFTIES SAY SO

MisterPundit

Media In Trouble, just had a look at your blog. Now that you have been Hannitized You may want to update it post haste. Start by adding this info to this post, seeing as how it's always about the "hypocrisy".

cs

Apt title.

Just Passing Through

"but then again im DUmmy right?"

I'd say so, sheepskin notwithstanding. This staement gives it away:

"...gay marriage banning freepers are the homophobes"

Being opposed to gay marriage is not being homophobic, though homophobes are likely opposed to it. Being opposed to gay marriage is based on social concepts of marriage according to polls rather the the sexual preferences of gays. It's an easy connection for the left to aver that it is based on homophobia, but isn't supported by polls or demographics for that matter. Far more people in the country are opposed to gay marriage than both registered republicans and unregistered independents account for. There are a lot of registered democrats in that mix.

The WH position was never in opposition or in favor of gay marriage. The WH position was limited to the opinion that the issue was properly addressed as a state matter and not a matter for the federal government. Any reason to bring this to the supreme court would be in the nature of a state appealing the rulings of it's own judiciary.

You should read up on the matter before tossing it out so blithely to buttress your premises - not just as a non sequitor but as untrue and unsupported. You run the risk of it derailing your main argument when you use it to make the connections that you do above. It simply is not a wholly republican nor wholly democrat issue on either side of the question.

papertiger

Check it out - Media in trouble - is warning against travel to Iran because of possible American military invasion - but then he says "So if you have plans for being in Iran, in June, I say alter them, or bring lots of film and start a blog."

Dude, you have to start reading something besides the New York Times. Maybe Jeff Gannon can hook you up.

Brennan Stout

"The WH position was limited to the opinion that the issue was properly addressed as a state matter and not a matter for the federal government."

This is inaccurate. The WH position was to support an amendment of the federal Constitution to sanctify marriage as between one man and one woman.

VP Dick Cheney said that his personal belief was that the issue was a matter for the states.

Julie

"The left is not pissed at Gannon Guckert because he is gay. WE ARE PISSED BECAUSE HE IS A PROPAGANDIST."

And this is the truth. Only someone who believes that the Bush administration is stupid (rather than Rovian omniscient) believes that if they were to plant someone in the press room that they'd plant Gannon. Yes, prostitution is illegal everywhere but Nevada, but he wasn't gone after for prostitution. He was gone after because he, aparently, was a no-body who had a press pass, who liked Bush. Finding out that he was gay made it personal. The man, clearly, deserved to be destroyed for being gay while writing pro-Bush articles. Gannon's *betrayal* is reason enough for everything he got. And *that's* why people on the right don't get it... they don't feel personally betrayed.

All the crap about security is smoke... a person doesn't need a background check to ask questions if he's been checked by security for weapons. The crap about "not a real journalist" is smoke... journalism isn't a profession, it's a craft. If he was writing articles, even bad ones, he's a journalist. Giving passes to small presses is a *good* thing and should be encouraged. The false name thing is nothing but smoke... Quite frankly, Gannon is a *much* better name than Guckert if one is going to write. I have friends who publish professionally under pseudonymns who's real names are *much* nicer than Guckert.

When the left screams about Gannon being a Hypocrite they are giving their true reason for thinking this is important. Gannon is Gay.

The idea that there is a parallel situation in which the right would be simularly alarmed by a simular (but mirror image) situation is impossible. No feeling of personal betrayal equals no feeling of outrage. Would I be upset by a Leftwing moonbat female with nudie photos that no one ever heard of who got a day pass every day for two years?

The outrage is because Gannon is gay. He was a propagandist for the enemy and so deserves to be utterly destroyed. The rest of it is nothing but excuses.

DrSteve

It's impossible to monitor any press briefing of any kind in Washington without hearing biased, leading, or otherwise ridiculously inappropriate questions. White House, State Department, you name it. The reporters' POVs are predictable as the sunrise.

Gannon was a hack? Gad, half those people are hacks. I'm still not sure why I should be outraged.

papertiger

What are the chances of Jeff Gannon winning a wrongful temination suit?

He was fired from Talon news because of this revelation that he is homosexual.

There are laws against that, aren't there?

Maybe one of the leftie lurkers knows the wrote and verse??

Mitch H.

Paul Zrimsek: media in trouble *has* a style manual - Robert McElwaine's.

wygof

All this lamenting about the credentialing of a journalist with a "dubious personal history" in the same week that Hunter Thompson dies -- kind of funny.

jabuchan

He was a prostitute plain and simple. Oh and he also had sex with men for money privately, while condeming it publically.
Riddle me this, how come the tiniest example of alleged liberal bias - even if it is accidental - is reason enough to pillory the entire "librul" media, but if a conservative is intentionally and obviously biased than it is simply a case of "establishing balance?"
In the worst case scenario at least the "librul" media has a pretense of objectivity whereas the "conservative" media (if we are to believe they actually represent conservatism rather than authoritarianism) is allowed to be as openly biased as they like without a peep from anyone (at least anyone who can get a fair hearing in the MSM).
On another note I've noticed that the "conservative" posters on this site conveniently ignore the precedent of Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallager, not to mention psy-ops. But that's what Republicanism has been about since they became the party of powerful moneyed interests. They should make a motto out "ignore the precedent we set for ourselves last time around."

Julie

"He was a prostitute plain and simple. Oh and he also had sex with men for money privately, while condeming it publically."

Which means he had incredibly bad personal judgement. Duh.

Williams and Gallager aren't an argument in favor of Gannon being a plant, but a counter indication since, clearly, Bush and Rove can do much *much* better.

And... well... people *did* make a peep about those things, didn't they? I read the "big ones" you know, and they all condemned Williams. Heck, Michele Malkin wasn't even nice about it. If lefties are convincing themselves that conservatives have a free ride, it's a theory they are sewing out of whole-cloth. But then, I've heard raving moonbats claim that CNN is biased to the right and entirely unrealible because they only ever say good things about Bush.

If it wasn't so funny it would be terrifying.

antiphone

papertiger, you’ve been discussing this story here all day and still don’t have the basic facts straight:

What are the chances of Jeff Gannon winning a wrongful temination suit?
He was fired from Talon news because of this revelation that he is homosexual.

He wasn’t fired he quit, this much is not in dispute. How does your foot taste?

Wilky

"if that were Clinton and Jeff/Jim were Ginger, we'd have a drooling, salacious scandal of unimaginable proportions."

That's because Jeff/Jim only goes to the press room to ask questions, with Clintion, Ginger would be looking for his cigar!

antiphone

One purely factual aspect of this story that seems to be lost on many of the media mavens here is that JimmyJeff posted pictures of himself on the internets. All that remained was for his two public personas to be connected, publicly. There was no Linda Trip with a tape recorder entrapping him, no threat of prosecution, just the disclosure of material he had put on the public record himself.

papertiger

If Gannon quit then I see no reason he couldn't get his job back, but I have read that Talon and GOPUSA have purged Gannons reports from their website.

I think Talon is making a big mistake with this. Gannon is getting nation wide attention - Thats free publicity.

A month ago hardly a Republican had heard of Talon news - Gannon has put them on the map.

Think of the increased readership from a "GANNON VINDICATED - Gay Reporter Hounded From his White House Beat by Libeal Press Returns TO White House Press Corp" -headline.

Story developing ...

Just Passing Through

Brennan,

You're right I guess in that I was not clear, but I stand by the statement that Bush was not against gay marriage. The WH position was to support an amendment of the federal Constitution to define (not sanctify) marriage as between one man and one woman, but the issue was state's rights, not opposition to gay marriage.

The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted back in the Clinton administration. That act denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages but allowed the states to define same-sex unions. The reasoning was that by denying federal recognition, no person or persons could force a state to recognize their union based on federal law even though that union was recognized in their own state - pre-emptively stopping federal courts from entering the fray. The Bush WH felt that this did not go far enough in keeping the feds out of it. It was an Act of Federal Law and could be screwed with by a US district court and the SCOTUS could end up in the fight.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Utah passes laws that specifically do not recognize same-sex unions and Mass passes laws that specifically recognize same-sex unions. The existing act would have allowed a same sex couple from Mass moving to Utah the possibility of bringing suit in Utah's state courts to have their union recognized in Utah. If the court found for the Mass couple, the legislative consensus in Utah, which represents the consensus of the people of Utah, is essentially subverted by the courts based on laws in Mass. The state could appeal to the federal courts, but the Constitution provides for recognition between states of public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. The state could easily lose. The other recourse the state would have is an appeal to the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS heard the case, given the right arguments, it would rule in favor of the Mass couple based on existing protections in the Constitution superceding the Defense of Marrige Act. The union would not be recognized as marriage in federal law, but that wouldn't help Utah's right to define same sex unions. Basically, the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. Clinton should never have signed the law into existence in the first place given the Constitutional protection of a state's right to have it's laws and records accepted in other states.

Bush supported an amendment to the constitution that would be little different from the existing law, but take the issue out of the courts's hands for good. With an amendment, the SCOTUS would stike down any ruling by a state court forcing the state to recognize a same sex union recorded in another state. Bush threw a bone to the folks worried about the religious and social aspects with some rhetoric, but made it clear that the overriding concern was to protect each state's right to define unions by legislative consensus within the individual state. Making the Defense of Marriage act an amendment was not generating a new concept, but protecting the people of one state from having same-sex unions forced on them by their judiciary. The amendment would not affect any state's right to enact laws recognizing and protecting civil unions.

The whole issue has always been a matter of state rights. Wiser people than I see no good way to deal with the whole mess except by a Constitutional amendment.

antiphone

If Gannon quit then I see no reason he couldn't get his job back...

You can’t see the reason because your eyes are shut. Being gay would make him unsuitable for Talon’s intended audience but being a gay prostitute makes it doubly impossible. Anyone with a realistic understanding of the Republican “base” can see this. The attempt to spin this into something else is pathetic.

Kosty

I just heard an NPR American life story about a 1992 George HW Bush Press briefing in Germany where a matured former eco warrior 22 year old got a day pass with the intention of embarrasing the president.

On NPR, it was a funny story.

I would assume, if you can pass through physical security the screening for press day passes are sometimes still given out without rock hard background checks?

Kosty

Oh and by the way, how would our outraged friends react if the horrible White House who erred by letting the gay man in had actually not allowed him into the press area because of his past history?

Howls of White House discrimination perhaps?

Right now, it seems they are accused of being too sensitive to a gay guy or over accomadating to the press.

Julie

"Being gay would make him unsuitable for Talon’s intended audience but being a gay prostitute makes it doubly impossible. Anyone with a realistic understanding of the Republican “base” can see this."

It's so funny listening to people who are *not* conservative or Republican or whatever tell about what is possible and not possible. I don't know from Talon, and Gannon may have no chance there, but it doesn't mean that he'd have no chance elsewhere... so long as it wasn't a paper that owed allegience to the left. And here, again, we see that it's all about the fact that he's gay. The left really hates this guy.

BTW... anyone moaning about back-ground checks hasn't ever gone through the process of having a real one. A cursory check and physical security is more than sufficient for something like a press conference.

Fabian

OK. No one has proved that Gannon at any time actually performed sex acts for money. His highly suggestive websites were not hard to find. So anyone who hired him or had any reason to check his background completely and royally screwed up. Their bad. Gannon's bad for having absolutely no discretion whatsoever.

Gannon's articles and other articles not authored by him were scrubbed from the talon/GOPUSA website. Whatcha hiding boys? Bobby Eberle is completely persona non grata in the TX GOP as well as the GOP. No one knows him, no one will vouch for him, no one will say "It was just a little mistake, anyone could have done it.". I am so impressed by the GOP's forgiving nature. Jesus could not be more compassionate.

Gannon go back to being a journalist? Sure thing. Do let me know when he finds a job. I'm sure a born again Christian with a history of helping the GOP will have absolutely no problem finding forgiveness and a job among fellow conservatives.

No one ever proved he was gay. It is all just rumor and conjecture.

No story here guys. Let's go back to the hemorraghing federal budget again. $30 billion a month? For what - social services? Oh, Iraq. What? Still? Again? Dang that thing just will not go away.

AST

This is what happens when lefty bloggers try to imitate Rathergate and Easongate. The difference is that Guckert is a guppie, while Rather and Eason are/were Big Fish.

antiphone

Forget the “outrage” Kosty, how about a little honesty?

too sensitive to a gay guy or over accomadating to the press

That’s gay prostitute and if you really have a problem with the guy losing his job who do you blame? He quit, if you think he was pressured to resign your problem is with his former employer; form a support group. Maybe you can find other gay prostitute reporters who want to stand up for the right to cover the White House for conservative news outlets.

My advice is to always be up-front about it what the issue is, don’t soft peddle and dissemble with stuff about sensitivity to gay guys or accommodations for the press. Go out there and demand all the rights that prostitute-reporters were endowed with BY THEIR CREATOR, not just here in the U.S.A but everywhere. Do it because you feel the burning, yearning hunger for liberty in the souls of prostitute (you might want to go with “sex worker”) journalists of all sexes and sexual orientations. Shout it from the rooftops, run it up the flagpole and I, for one, will salute you!

RedDan

Just a quick note, in the spirit of the original post, and not of the comments thread:

GOPUSA hosted conferences in 2003 and 2004. Attendees at those conferences included some pretty big names in the GOP/Right stratosphere.

There is a Thank You Note with gracious thanks given for those who...

"...personally provided me with their assistance, guidance, and friendship, including Kathleen Eberle, Bruce Eberle, Mike Hiban, Don Stewart, Paul Teller, Tim Goeglein, Stuart Richens, Matt Smith, Jen Ohman, Bob Johnson, Liz Sheld, Julie Cram, Phillip Stutts, Chuck Muth, Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, and G. Gordon Liddy."

Who are these people? Some are personal and business associates of Eberle's, pretty clearly. Others are conservative consultants and proprietors of Conservative websites and networks. Big Deal.

Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, and GG Liddy you folks probably know quite well by name.

What about Tim Goeglein? Errrm...Special assistant to President George W. Bush and deputy director of the Office of Public Liaison at the White House.

Hmmm.

What's the connection between Eberle and Goeglein and the rest?

Here is the "GOPUSA Issues and Actions Conference" for 2004

Here">http://www.talonnews.com/news/2003/november/1106_gopusa_conference.shtml">Here is the archived article from the 2003 conference (Norquist was there)

And">http://www.gopusa.com/conference/schedule.shtml">And here is the (archived again, why IS it that so many GOPUSA pages now have to be "waybacked", ya think?) conference schedule from 2003....

And Tim Goeglein is there too!

So...Eberle is pretty damned well connected to the upper reaches of the GOP political system if he can get Rove, Norquist, Cornyn and Cornyn's aides, and the Special Assistant to the President in the Office of Public Liaison to come speak at his conferences.

So, Eberle created Talon (after he had hired "Gannon" and after "Gannon" had already been in the Press Room) as a feeder into GOPUSA...and Eberle knew Goeglein, Rove, and Norquist - well enough to get them to show up at GOPUSA sponsored conferences.

It's not as easy as you seem to think it is.

RedDan

Previously someone asked why "Gannon" (of all people) would be hired, given the extreme negatives of his past associations, past (and possibly present) "business" activities, which included at least smut peddling and arguably included "escort services."

Several possibilities arise. and I list them in increasing degree of "tinfoiliness":

1. Eberle knew nothing about Gannon, hired him, and Gannon's past and real name and activities were never found out...

2. Eberle knew nothing about Gannon, hired him, and Gannon managed to beg the security folks at the White House not to reveal his past to Eberle.

3. Eberle knew nothing about Gannon, hired him, and kept him on after finding out about his past.

4. Eberle knew all about Gannon when he hired him, and didn't care about the Security info.

5. Gannon had something on Eberle or someone close to Eberle and was using blackmail to keep his position.

6. Gannon had something on someone higher up the chain, used that information to leverage that someone into getting Gannon a job via Eberle at GOPUSA.

7. A secret cabal of fetishists control the inner workings of the White House/GOP propaganda machine and Gannon was their "front" man.

Did I miss any?

Fabian

RedDan

New info to me and I thought I had exhausted the Gannon data.

Oh well, I guess Eberle WAS well connected to our Dear Leader's power players. It certainly doesn't seem that way now.

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby where did you go wrong? The next time you hire a disingenuous blowhard, please have your friends make sure he is clean. Looking like Mister Clean is not enough.

Julie

I think I should move to D.C. and take up journalism since I know no one and have connections with absolutely nobody.

I'll have to avoid meeting anyone, though, to keep my objectivity intact. ;-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame