Lefty blog Crooks and Liars—who, from what I can gather, simply WILL NOT TOLERATE EITHER CROOKS OR LIARS—has the video of Gannon’s appearance on the Anderson Cooper show; meanwhile, AMERICAblog, whose John Aravosis is responsible for outing Gannon (because of the HYPOCRISY!) and for finding and posting pictures of Gannon COCK for a newsjunkie public hungry for COCK and GAY PORN and TRUTH (and really, can the three even be separated?), is not convinced by the answers Gannon gave to the WaPo’s Howard Kurtz.
For the record, I think JD Guckert is probably being less than truthful to himself when he says that “he did not use a pseudonym to hide his past but because his real last name is hard to spell and pronounce.” Instead, I suspect he decided to use a pseudonymn to avoid the kind of thing we’re seeing now—the very public airing of his unusual past should he ever gain notoriety as a journalist. The irony, of course, is that the people who have publically outed him are the supposed champions of gay rights, which (and I’m no expert here, but I am nothing if not observant) evidently don’t extend to the rights of gays not to have their sexual preferences and peccadillos made public (or pictures of their COCKS released to news organizations)—and especially to the rights of gays to disagree with the official gay rights platform as decided upon by self-appointed gay-rights leaders and activists who feel that the legalization of same-sex marriage is not a debatable policy issue, but is instead a right that cannot be questioned. Yknow—because of the HYPOCRISY.
Yesterday, Aravosis suggested (and Kos publicized the suggestion) that Gannon had advance knowledge of the opening salvo in the Iraq invasion. Aravosis based this claim on the word of “a news producer for a major network’s local affiliate” whose name he doesn’t release—presumably because he has no pictures of this producer’s COCK to publish along with it.
When Kurtz—who continues to take his cues from Aravosis and Kos—questioned Gannon on this point, Gannon noted that “many reporters sensed an attack was imminent because the White House kept delaying the routine announcement that no more news would be made that day. ‘You could feel it in the air,’ he said.”
“[…] ‘People criticize me for being a Christian and having some of these questionable things in my past,’ he said. ‘I believe in a God of forgiveness.’” Well, God likely will forgive you, Mr. Gannon. But sadly, for your being a gay Rethug, the party of tolerance never ever will…
****
Related: Roger L. Simon: What’s A Journalist – A Personal Tale; and this piece by Joseph Curl (h/t Glenn). An excerpt:
“We all ask all kinds of questions; we all come to the briefing room with different points of view; we all serve different corporate masters,” said Terry Moran of ABC News. “I don’t know anything about Gannon’sâ€â€or Guckert’sâ€â€private life, and frequently he sounded like a shill for the administration. But he also challenged the White House from time to time with pointed questionsâ€â€from the right. And that always struck me as valuable and necessary.”
Moran’s point is food for thought. Although Guckert’s question to President Bush in the Jan. 26 press conferenceâ€â€about how Bush planned to work with Democrats “who seem to have divorced themselves from reality”â€â€clearly crossed a line, the Talon News reporter occasionally held the president’s feet to the fire. Guckert asked questions about GOP discontent over such issues as immigration, pressed the White House on conservative issues and drew out the administration’s perspective on Democratic initiatives.
While many White House reporters oppose advocacy journalism in the briefing room, Moran vehemently objected to the course of action that led to Guckert’s resignation.
“Whatever the ostensible rationale, it seems clear to me that `Gannon’s’ personal life was investigated and targeted by some bloggers because they did not like the ideas he expressed in his questions. That is chilling to me,” he said.
John Roberts of CBS News agreed that “the liberal blogosphere”â€â€not the White House press corpsâ€â€drove the onslaught against Gannon. But he also said that Guckert’s “presence at the daily briefing was not an issue with me.”
“There are other people there with a clear agenda as well,” he said.
Judy Keen, the sage White House correspondent for USA Today, closed the loop.
“Gannonâ€â€or whatever his name isâ€â€certainly isn’t the only reporter whose point of view is reflected in their questions. Anyone who regularly attends the gaggles and briefings knows that there are other reporters there whose questions suggest a certain hostility toward the administration,” she said.
Jeff Gannon’s PARTY COCK could not be reached for comment.
****
update: More commentary from Wizbang, Jawa Report, and LGF.
****
update 2: CBS News’ Dotty Lynch, clearly chastened by the fallout from her employer’s ill-advised flogging of a bunch of fake TxANG documents in an attempt to influence the 2004 Presidential election, frames the Gannon story this way: “Rove-Gannon Connection?”
The architect of the Bush victories in 2000 and 2004 came through the ranks of college Republicans with the late Lee Atwater, and their admitted and alleged dirty tricks are the legends many young political operatives dream of pulling off. So when Jeff Gannon, White House “reporter” for Talon “News,” was unmasked last week, the leap to a possible Rove connection was unavoidable. Gannon says that he met Rove only once, at a White House Christmas party, and Gannon is kind of small potatoes for Rove at this point in his career.
But Rove’s dominance of White House and Republican politics, Gannon’s aggressively partisan work and the ease with which he got day passes for the White House press room the past two years make it hard to believe that he wasn’t at least implicitly sanctioned by the “boy genius.” Rove, who rarely gave on-the-record interviews to the MSM (mainstream media), had time to talk to GOPUSA, which owns Talon.
Or, to summarize, Rove was once the member of an organization that included in its ranks (though at a different time and in a different place, and almost certainly wearing a different hairstyle) one Lee Atwater, so clearly Rove created “Jeff Gannon” in the hopes of…uh…in the hopes of, y’know—well, just to see if he could. I mean, he’s a Republican, right? And those guys are just evil.
This, presumably, is the kind of “reporting” that comes with legimitate credentialing.
Then there’s this, from a journalist on the Daily Kos: “Gannon scoop shows White House Forged TANG/CBS memos?!?”
At a time when the President of the United States is promoting a Social Security reform plan that will overturn decades of entitlement mentality, this is what the leftbloggers are obsessed with.
Heh.
Heh-heh-heh.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHHHHHH!!!
So just what does this have to do with Ward Churchill, Star Jones and Oliver Willis?
Codewords: Pie Coffee Cock Gay Love Child.
so far my counter-theory that Guckert was recruited BY teh Ghey Left to go and work for a Republican News Agency to gain access to the White House in order to be outed in order to embarass Bush (circles within circles within … something) has been, to my knowledge, unrefuted … though I haven’t checked in a while.
Which happens to make a helluva lot more sense than the “Karl Rove Chose a Gay Escort to Pose as a Reporter to Give Bush a Lifeline at a Press Conference” …
Plan C: is simply that Guckert/Gannon is a hack reporter in his late 40’s who happened to be turning tricks in his mid-40s and did nothing particularly wrong with regard to his access to the WH.
President Aravosis: “We will hunt them down and dig them out of their caves !!!!”
BREAKING: My reliable (but strictly anonymous) source tells me he’ll be releasing pictures later today that show GANNON FELCHING RICHARD PERLE DURING THE HOURS LEADING UP TO THE IRAQ INVASION!
YOU FASCISTS CAN’T HIDE THE TRUTH FROM CITIZEN JOURNALISTS!
I was reading the comments of wizbang and a very angry leftoid was pretty pissed that the right wing did not see the HYPOCRACKY.
Of a “journalist” having gay sex with the president and Rove. Does the left wing even need to be made fun of at this point?
How DARE you call me a party cock? I’ll have you know that not only did I attend the The Harvey Fierstein Finishing School–known colloquially as “The School of Hard Cocks–my “coming out” cotillion was the most-attended event of the season.
I happen to be a very good cock. Sure, I may have been in the occasional strange ass here and there, but really, is that so wrong?
Aravosis based this claim on the word of “a news producer for a major network’s local affiliate†whose name he doesn’t releaseâ€â€presumably because he has no pictures of this producer’s COCK to publish along with it.
The funniest line of all…..
In a strange inversion of the “Chicago Rules” liberals respond to Rathergate by outing Jeff Gannon’s naughty bits. Damn. Why didn’t we think of that?
Aravosis based this claim on the word of “a news producer for a major network’s local affiliate†whose name he doesn’t releaseâ€â€presumably because he has no pictures of this producer’s COCK to publish along with it.
Priceless. I just about fell out of my chair laughing. LOL!
“The irony, of course, is that the people who have publically outed him are the supposed champions of gay rights, which (and I’m no expert here, but I am nothing if not observant) evidently don’t extend to the rights of gays not to have their sexual preferences and peccadillos made public (or pictures of their COCKS released to news organizations)”
I wish people would stop blaming the blogs for outing Gannon or invading his privacy. No one snuck up to his window and took a picture. They found pictures on the internet that Gannon himself caused to be placed there, in the course of seeking commercial business of a sexual (and illegal, except in some counties of Nevada) nature. If he wanted to keep his homosexuality a secret, which is his right, he could have. Instead, he plastered it over the internet, seeking $200 an hour. Any expectation of privacy goes out the window at that point, unless you are an idiot and don’t think people can connect the dots you yourself placed right in front of them.
Dude, love your work and laughing out loud ‘n all that. But aren’t you the teensiest bit concerned about who’s going to land on your site using some, em, heterodox search words?
I would just like to note that you now the number one hit for Gannon gay porn cock on Google
Sniff, I’m so proud of you.
“I wish people would stop blaming the blogs for outing Gannon or invading his privacy. No one snuck up to his window and took a picture. They found pictures on the internet that Gannon himself caused to be placed there, in the course of seeking commercial business of a sexual (and illegal, except in some counties of Nevada) nature.”
Um, I was under the impression that John Aravosis used files and pics he had leaked to him by a Web Designer who did work for Guckert, and that Guckert took the unusual route of going under a pseudonym in his journalistic work for Talon.
Sure, putting photos of yourself (many of them initially headless, from what I understand) on the net is not the smartest idea in the world; but he didn’t post them for general audiences—or under the name he used as a journalist, or any name, for that matter—and clearly, and he never expected them to be referenced on political websites, or in the WaPo or NYT.
So I would counter—and judging by the pride Americablog showed in “breaking” the story—that some work was involved in tying all this GAY PORN COCK stuff to “Gannon” and to bringing it to light.
So your assertion the Gannon outed himself—despite all the pains he took to distance his GAY PORN identity from his nom-de-day pass—seems a bit disingenuous. And because I’ve now heard that same argument fifty times, I’d also like to suggest that it is in danger of becoming a silly rote talking point.
Jeff, I am just feeling that you are enjoying writing “GAY PORN COCK” way too much.
THIS JUST IN: JEFF GANNON USED HIS COCK TO TYPE THE “FORGED” DAN RATHER MEMOS!
What I want to know is why I got a hit from someone searching for “porno big round butts movies.” Mine is just an ordinary boring blog. If I had anything exciting like that posted I think I’d know about it.
Codeword: WTF?
Speaking as a blogger, I wonder if Gannon’s pics did anything for his traffic.
Maybe I should word that differently ….
Hey … Sean M. – I found the pictures!
“Then there’s this, from a journalist on the Daily Kos: “Gannon scoop shows White House Forged TANG/CBS memos?!?””
Shouldn’t that be: “At Kos: REPORTER PROVES BUSH GAVE GAY LOVER FORGED TANG/CBS MEMOS”
Seems to fit the mood.
BREAKING: More pictures!
[Keyword” “fact” Yeah, right!!
“So I would counterâ€â€and judging by the pride Americablog showed in “breaking†the storyâ€â€that some work was involved in tying all this GAY PORN COCK stuff to “Gannon†and to bringing it to light.
So your assertion the Gannon outed himselfâ€â€despite all the pains he took to distance his GAY PORN identity from his nom-de-day passâ€â€seems a bit disingenuous. And because I’ve now heard that same argument fifty times, I’d also like to suggest that it is in danger of becoming a silly rote talking point.”
Well, fair enough. This isn’t like catching Orville Redenbacher selling popcorn. But on the other hand, this isn’t like stalking someone or digging through their (literal, curbside) trash. He left the crumbs there for everyone to see: photographs, common registration of his conservative and gay sites, etc.
So if you are really concerned about protecting the privacy of people’s personal sex lives, this case isn’t as bad as, say, Jimmy Swaggart, Newt Gingrich, that guy who was going to be speaker for about 5 minutes (Livingston?), Bill Clinton or Gary Hart, in which the scandalized probably did all they could to keep it quiet and their personal lives private. All of those cases either involved what I think is an invasion of privacy (stealth photos catching the perp leaving the liasion spot, taped phone calls and the like) or the (non-legal but sort of socially implied) confidence in the sexual partner not to blab to others or the press.
Gannon wasn’t ratted out by one of his partners or Johns, there are no photos of him he didn’t consent to have taken and shared with others, no one dug through his trash or staked out his home and haunts. He put himself out there, on the internet. Anonymously, sure, but this isn’t the first time the internet bit someone on the ass who didn’t understand that anonymity is an illusion once you play around with the web. This isn’t getting a BJ in your own bedroom with the curtains drawn, but nor is it getting a BJ at the base of the Washington Monument after releasing a press release that you intend to do so.
This is neither “he was openly declaring who and what he was” nor “his privacy was violated.” So I am willing to agree that it is silly for people on the left to say that people in the administration must have been screwing Gannon (because I am sure no one had any idea) if you are willing to agree that he didn’t have his privacy violated (because no one penetrated [sorry] his personal space but rather relied solely on things in the public record).
About the only caveat to this is perhaps the fact that some of the confirming details were of full headshots he sent to his web designer, but as a lawyer I can tell you that there is no legal expectation or even implied confidentiality relationship between client and webmaster. Gannon should have cropped his own photos before he sent them to a guy who’s job it is to put photos on the web if he wanted to make sure they would never surface. I mean, geez.
You have mounds of reasons to mock or criticize the left, but this isn’t one of them, I don’t think. Unless you want to give up the right to go after a democratic candidate or reporter who “anonymously” sells weed over the internet or something.
Jeez … those links aren’t working!
Go cartoons/gerbil toons/Donkey Bong …
So I am willing to agree that it is silly for people on the left to say that people in the administration must have been screwing Gannon (because I am sure no one had any idea) if you are willing to agree that he didn’t have his privacy violated…
Does this mean that if we don’t agree that his privacy wasn’t violated, that therefore you’ll think the GANNON MUST HAVE HAD SEX WITH BUSH meme isn’t silly?
‘Cause that would be … well, silly.
No, I didn’t mean that at all. Poor writing, I didn’t mean it as a dare but it sure seems that way upon rereading it.
I find it fantastical that anyone in the Bush administration knew Gannon was an escort. That whole idea is silly, they never would have allowed him in if they knew—the secret service alone would have revolted quite apart from ideology, because that’s the type of thing they look for (grounds for blackmail). You don’t have to agree to anything, as far as I am concerned, to come up with an opinion on a wholly unrelated matter, and sorry I posed it as a challenge.
I’m just wondering if you all really think this was an invasion of privacy, which is the defense it appears Gannon is going to rely on from now on.
aplomb … you must recognize by now that this whole micro-tornado nonsense is, just that, and that Gannon shouldn’t have to mount a defence!
errrrr ……
Well, Diana, as to whether Gannon should mount a defense, that’s an interesting question. The fact is, though, that last week it seemed he would drop out of sight forever, having told a few journalists and posting on his website that he was done and dropping out of site to protect his family. Which would have been one way to handle it which would be hard to argue with.
But in the last few days, he popped up again on Anderson Cooper, and quotes to the WashPo and E&P, with a defense. He didn’t have to mount a defense, but he is doing so, and that’s what I’m curious about, whether you think his defense holds water. The defense was, basically, “they violated my personal life.” I just wonder whether people who like to read this (well written) site and bother to post find that defense persuasive.
aplomb, “defense” implies that Guckert is building a response to a charge or allegation. I like how you use the word “defense” … without actually ever outlining what it is that Guckert is “defending” himself against.
Besides all the hypocritic gay-bashing lefty bloggers of course.
Robin, that’s probably the most interesting question of all. What are the allegations against Gannon, who are making them, and why?
Gannon doesn’t have to defend himself to anyone about being gay. No one should. It would be nice if both the left and right agreed about that, and maybe the ironic fallout of the Gannon affair will be that more people will think this.
As to advertising himself as an escort, that’s a bit different, depending on how libertarian you are—I think you will find a meeting of the minds among a majority on both the right and left among who think prostitution should be illegal, and also you will find a smaller libertarian group of rightists and leftists who agree that prostitution should not be a crime or issue. I personally think prostitution should be illegal, but that’s my opinion.
To the extent that some leftist blogs are showing glee and mocking Gannon simply for being gay, as if this is some sort of proof of conservative hypocrisy, that is sad and disgusting, and I have no problem with conservatives pointing out that it is the leftists are showing hypocrisy here, because they are correct. This is the type of partisan name calling and shadenfreude (never can spell that right) that is shameful and discredits both sides.
But to the extent that the left is calling him out for being a prostitute, I’m leftist, but not so libertarian that I think advertising and engaging in illegal paid sex is simply a private matter. I would think most people on the right have problems with prostitution too. That is what Gannon should be defending.
Go ahead and call certain leftist bloggers hypocrites if they gay-bash, they deserve it and you are right to call them on it. To the extent that the prostitution issue is a problem, though, don’t blame the left for pointing that out, unless you are ok with people engaging in illegal prostitution yourself.
The real issue, if you take off partisan blinders and stop trying to paint either side as hypocrites (the left for gay bashing, the right for embracing a gay man while persuing anti-gay policies and rhetoric), is how the hell did this guy get his hands on a very limited commodity, a White House press pass? Is it really that easy? Can I go up and give them my driver’s license and SS number and get in? Who else tried, besides Gannon, and got a negative response, and why? It seems he got some sort of favoritism going for him, because they knew he was sympathetic to administration policies. Isn’t it a legitimate question to ask why, and scan the public record to figure out who he is and how he was so favored? Isn’t this really a free press issue, where who gets into the press pool should not be a question of whether the person is an ideological soul mate, but rather has some sort of independant credibility as a responsible journalist?
[Note: the security word I must enter to post this is “come.” Just thought I would throw that out there.]
aplomb, you are doing exactly what the lefty bloggers are doing. You are inventing “facts” and then speculating on top of invented “facts” and then feigning outrage at your own speculations as if they were true.
Its despicable when they do it and its despicable when you do it.
And all this bullshit about “responsible journalist” and “independant credbility” is just that – bullshit. I almost believe that the ludicrous posturing and the use of the word “credibility” with journalists is more obscene than the feigned outrage over baseless speculations.
What facts did I invent, and what are my speculations? I think Im going by the record here, I spent some time today reading the latest. I might be able to point you to some documentation you are not aware of if you tell me what you object to. If not, I will retract my points and apologize.
[hah, the security word is peace. The software is screwing with me.]
aplomb, you allege “favorable treatment” ( although how this is bad you of course can’t articulate ) without any evidence. You exaggerate the difficulty of obtaining day passes to the White House. You attempt to imply that others were denied what Guckert got, again without evidence.
In fact, aplomb you don’t have any evidence that this story is anything except an example of outing someone on the basis of their failing to be 100% Democrat.
And you sloppily conflate free press with who gets into the White House press room. All in all, you do nothing but confirm my statements about you.
Hindraker expresses his contempt eloquently.
Aplomb, do you feel there is any logical connection between the allegation that Gannon is a prostitute and the allegation that he’s a White House plant? Would his guilt in one case have any relevance to his guilt in another?
Or is the ILLEGAL GAY MAN SEX scandal just an exciting siren to draw attention to an unrelated allegation that cannot stand on it’s own merits? You’ve done a lot of rationalizing about how it’s okay for people to investigate Gannon’s HOT ILLICIT MAN SEX FOR MONEY SCHEMES because of … uh … THE INTERNET … and … uh … MAN SEX FOR MONEY IS WRONG … and uhm OH BY THE WAY HOW DID HE GET A PRESS PASS? It doesn’t compute, and you should be ashamed of yourself for using the sex angle as a lever on the flimsy, factless press plant angle.
A slavering witless mob is sacrificing a man’s life to get at the Bush Administration because they can’t win honestly, and you’re trying to give them legitimacy. Do you shave with your eyes closed, or are you still able to look at yourself in the mirror each morning?
Come on, people! Let’s get back to our priorities! This thread was about GAY MAN-COCK and ASS, and it’s degenerated into a substantive discussion. Please!
In the words of Slim Pickens, I am disgusted.
But can’t discussion be both substantive and COCKINGLY HOMOEROTIC?
CAN’T IT?
Like I said elsewhere, the LefTogs wanted a scalp, they thirsted for a scalp, they hadda have one… but on the way to GET THEIRS they became confused and chose a man with a shaved head and a waxed chest.
My unnamed source tells me he has photos of JEFF GANNON GIVING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE APPOINTEE JOHN NEGROPONTE A CLEVELAND STEAMER!
*DEVELOPING*
Hmmmm.
You know that somewhere down the line the Republican blogs will have an occasion to “Gannon” someone, and the lefties will go absolutely apeshit. I can’t imagine it would be over being gay or not. But very likely it would involve delving into a person’s background in great detail.
They’ll conveniently forget about this whole sordid episode, but it’ll all be archived to remind them.
Hmmm.
“Gannon”. It’s not just a name, it’s a verb! lol.
“aplomb, you allege “favorable treatment†( although how this is bad you of course can’t articulate ) without any evidence. You exaggerate the difficulty of obtaining day passes to the White House. You attempt to imply that others were denied what Guckert got, again without evidence.”
I can’t articulate why favorable treatment of a pro-administration writer over neutral or anti-administration writers is “bad”? Just think about that for a second, and what it means to a free press. I should not have to articulate why that is important. I would hope that the fate of opposition writers to any number of fascist, communist or totalitarian regimes would serve as the example of why there should never be any such favor.
As for the difficulty of getting a day pass, day after day, for a couple of years, yeah, I have no personal experience. Maybe it is easy. I’m only going by the statements of other journalists who say it is hard, and common sense. Do you think you could go in and get a pass? I doubt I could, and I hope I couldn’t, because I don’t think anyone should be able to waltz in and get that close to the press secretary or the President. Gannon seemed to breeze through and pick one up pretty easily. Should we open up the daily press conference to anyone who asks, and Presidential conferences to whoever wants to attend? That is pretty high minded and thoroughly democratic, but it wouldn’t serve the overall quality of White House reporting at all, and would be a security nightmare, I would think.
As for implying that Gannon got what others didn’t, you are behind the curve. White House reporters are on the record concerning the hoops they jumped through, for day passes and hard passes. As one example, Maureen Dowd still doesn’t have a pass, and McClellan promised to look into it. If you say that, “well, she was seeking a hard pass, and Gannon only got day passes”, that’s nuts. He got them over and over when ever he wanted one. That’s gaming the system, as the day passes are intended for the local reporter from Nebraska or wherever to attend one day he happens to be in DC. Do I have personal knowledge that is the case? No. Does common sense tell me that is the case. Yes. Why are you fighting this?
“In fact, aplomb you don’t have any evidence that this story is anything except an example of outing someone on the basis of their failing to be 100% Democrat.”
If you are willing to ignore that a man who had no journalistic credentials was repeatedly waived through White House security while at the same time he was advertising illegal prostitution solicitations on the web, I really don’t know what to say. I have no beef against the actual journalists who regularly attend the press briefings, even those who are not “100% Democratic”, of which there are plenty. Fox News, for example? More power to the conservative press, as long as they are truly independent.
“And all this bullshit about “responsible journalist†and “independant credbility†is just that – bullshit. I almost believe that the ludicrous posturing and the use of the word “credibility†with journalists is more obscene than the feigned outrage over baseless speculations.”
Well, I hope I never get that jaded. If we don’t have a free and independent press then there cannot be a democracy, period. Yes, many of the main stream journalists are lazy stupid whores, and the quality of news reporting in this country is a scandal in itself. My reaction, however, is not to shrug my shoulders when we see a guy like Gannon get access to the White House press briefings and say the whole system is screwed. My reaction is to start with him as an example, and toss out whoever else is falsely posing as an independent journalist. You can be as cynical and jaded as you want, but there are decent journalists in that room, both with viewpoints from the left and right. You do them a great disservice, and a huge disservice to democracy, when you assume that all of them are no better than Jeff Gannon.
[secret word: volume. Neutral, unless you stretch a bit.]
Aplomb, do you feel there is any logical connection between the allegation that Gannon is a prostitute and the allegation that he’s a White House plant? Would his guilt in one case have any relevance to his guilt in another?
Or is the ILLEGAL GAY MAN SEX scandal just an exciting siren to draw attention to an unrelated allegation that cannot stand on it’s own merits?”
You ask a very good question here, and then the rest of your post degenerates. But I will answer it as best I can.
Most of the White House correspondents have spent quite some time working as journalists, starting at local papers and TV stations and through hard work and success have reached what many see as a plum assignment, the White House beat. I don’t know where you live, but I bet there is a good reporter in your town working on the paper you read or the TV news you watch who would love to get that assignment, and would report diligently and fairly, to the best of his or her ability, about the White House if given the chance. Many good reporters can only dream of getting that chance. Some great reporters end up stuck in local markets, however.
Jeff Gannon had absolutely no experience as a reporter. His first assignment appears to be the White House beat. How the hell did that happen? How did he get in?
Is it because he was a gay prostitute? Absolutely not. So, to answer your question, there is no relationship between his prostitution and his access to the White House. The only issue is, how did he get in at all?
Did the gay prostitute stuff blow this up into a much bigger issue than it would be otherwise? Absolutely! But come on, that isn’t a left or right issue. “White House Correspondent is Gay Prostitute” would be a big issue no matter his politics—it’s the sizzle on a sort of boring but important steak. A pro-Clinton gay prostitute reporter who had no reason to be in the press pool would be a huge issue to you on the right—please don’t deny it.
I am sickened by the people on the left who are hooting and hollering about the gay stuff. But at the same time, I am disappointed by the people on the right who say this wouldn’t be a big deal if the guy wasn’t gay. I disagree with both.
How did a person who had no reporting skills or experience, but was a reliable pro-administration voice, get in there? This should be a huge issue, no matter if you love the President or hate him, if you have any faith in the independent press.
[secret word is “hear”, totally meaningless]
How did a person who had no reporting skills or experience, but was a reliable pro-administration voice, get in there?
Well, the first thing I’ll say is that I’m going to be engaging in some speculation about Gannon here as well, for what it’s worth. Mainly because not a whole lot seems to be known about the guy other than that he was allegedly a former gay escort and that he worked for Talon News.
But everybody seems to be assuming that the guy had absolutely no experience in his past that would qualify him as a journalist of any sort. How do we know this? I mean, I don’t know about you, but I’ve never seen the guy’s resume. Some of those websites that have been dug up make it seem like he was former military. Did he work as a public relations officer (or whatever they’re called)? Hey, AlGore was a military “journalist,” wasn’t he? Maybe he worked for a small town or lesser-known regional paper at some point. Maybe he had some sort of other background as a writer and was good at it. Or maybe he worked previously in public relations, churning out press releases for somebody or other. The fact is, we don’t know.
Another fact is this: although there are J-schools at colleges and universities throughout the country, you don’t have to attend one in order to become a reporter. It ain’t like med school. Perhaps Talon News saw something in his C.V. that they liked, and they hired him. Maybe he bullshitted on his resume and Talon fell for it. Again, we don’t know.
And as for Gannon being “a reliable pro-administration voice,” well, he worked for a known pro-Republican outlet. I can’t say I blame the administration for granting some access to friendly news outlets when they’re buffeted by a mostly adversarial press corps.
But really, those who are interested in digging into this story ought to lay off the gay angle and ask whoever it was at Talon who hired Gannon why they did so. Until then, is it really fair to keep chanting over and over that Gannon had “no reporting skills or experience?” I’d say no.
Oh, and since my previous comment was lacking in salacious innuendo, I present the following:
WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT KNOW ABOUT THE “DIRTY SANCHEZ INCIDENT,” AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?
CITIZEN JOURNALISTS DEMAND ANSWERS!!!
Hey, aplomb, speaking as a real journalist, let me tell you that you don’t need no steekin’ badges to be a real journalist.
Helen Thomas has been in the White House Press room for decades and is still there despite the fact that she died in 1997.
But… back to the issue at hand. Has any noticed that Oliver Willis has got to be, just got to be, a BACKDOOR MAN. I mean, just check out the picture, dude, this is a boy who’s got KY written all over him.
“Perhaps Talon News saw something in his C.V. that they liked, and they hired him. Maybe he bullshitted on his resume and Talon fell for it. Again, we don’t know.”
Well, no. There was no Talon News when Gannon first got the pass. He first got in under GOPUSA, a partisan website, whose leanings can be gleaned from its name, at a time when there was nothing that even purported to be a news organization. It wasn’t the situation where Talon, an existing independent news organization, saw something special in scrappy but untried Jeff Gannon and decided to give him the Talon beat.
Read this Editor & Publisher article:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000808705
Also read this one from E&P, where Ari Fleisher admits he stopped calling on Gannon for awhile:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000807754
Basically, Gannon showed up in Feb. 2003 and was admitted with credentials from GOPUSA. Talon didn’t exist until April 2003. (Im too lazy to find a link, the Kos people are all over it if you care to check.) Ari at some point thought this was fishy because it was too obviously partisan even for him and refused to call on Gannon. So he called the owner of GOPUSA, a Texas Republican operative, and the owner said, oh no, it’s a legit news operation, Talon, which I own, is completely different from GOPUSA, which I also own, even though Gannon was first credentialed under GOPUSA, but forget that. And Ari said, Sure! And Scott said Sure! too, until a couple of weeks ago.
Please put aside partisanship and ask yourself what would have happened in 1998 if someone with no background in journalism showed up with an affilliation with DEMOCRATSUSA.com, and was waived through to ask questions on serial day passes, and the press secretary had reservations about the legitimacy of that reporter until he called the owner of DEMOCRATSUSA.com, and the owner said, hey no, he’s with “Claw News”, which I also own, don’t worry, totally independant from my partisan stuff, and the press secretary said, OK, cool! Honestly, wouldn’t you be upset?
Again, the scandal isn’t (or rather, shouldn’t be although unfortunately it is) the gay stuff. It’s the undermining of a free press. Who let the guy in? Ari and Scott say it wasn’t them, press secretaries are not and should not be in the business of saying who is and who isn’t a legit reporter. Cool, fair enough, and their point is well taken. But who, then DOES make that decision? And who did make that decision in Jeff Gannon’s case?
Honestly, you guys aren’t worried about this stuff?
aplomb, I’ve been seeing wingnuts asking wingnut questions of presidents for years. This guy doesn’t strike me as something so far out of the realm of possibility. I would assume that once one snags a daypass, the next and the next are simplier easier to get. That is my hunch.
I’m still trying to figure out how his COCK got involved.
And I’m sure some right wing bloggers would have gone the same route if it served their purpose but of course that shouldn’t and doesn’t have anything to do with whether the lefties that did are right or creeps.
And the hypocrisy is dumbfounding.
I’m waiting for somebody to reveal that he’s really AFRICAN AMERICAN!
Are you boring? Do you post ridiculous things
and drive people batshit? Do people need a
Captain Marvel Decoder Ring to make sense
out of your posts? Do you have to answer
the same guys posts and then they answer yours
back and forth and on and on yadda yadda yadda?
If so, you may suffer from Trolls Disease.
Herring Plow Pharmaceuticals needs people
between the ages of nine and twentyfour for
a medication research study.
Participants will receive free diagnosis and medication.
Participants will be compensated for time and travel as well.
If you believe you qualify please contact the
Director of Research 1(888)555-6155
Herring Plow Pharmaceuticals
2469 Hershey Hwy.
Bungmunch, Ms.
01812-2469
Having kept an eye on the Jeff Gannon controversy since it started gaining national attention, a couple of thoughts come to mind:
It’s clear to me that the liberal blogosphere is steaming mad over Memogate and Eason Jordan, and are looking for scalps to add to their collection. Having started small with Gannon, they are now moving on to Brit Hume. This strikes me as nothing more than pathetic one-upsmanship by a group of folks who stopped growing on an emotional and intellectual level at the age of 10. They refused to hold Rather to account because they believe the story was true, therefore the documents must have been true, and quite honestly hold the military in as much contempt as Jordan does.
Secondly, does it strike anybody else as ironic that a gay man’s life and career are being ruined by people who follow a politcal philosphy that purports to support Gannon’s “lifestyle choice”? This is the second time in the last four months(Dick Cheney’s daughter) that liberals have attempted to appeal to the prejudice they believe conservatives have toward gays and shame them into not supporting somebody based soley on that. The depths of intellectual laziness the left has sunk to in order to gain political foothold is just pathetically sad.
aplomb,
Thanks for your non-partisan and truth-seeking attitude. I think you’re absolutely right that if Gannon had been a leftie during a Democratic administration, many (though not all) conservative blogs would be making a big deal about this, both for “is he a real journalist or a shill?” and the ILLEGAL GAY MAN SEX angles. And, yes, there would be pictures.
But I think you’re wrong when you characterize Gannon as “a reliable pro-administration voice.” From the Curl article excerpted above (full article at http://www.kingpublishing.com/fc/white_house/story1.htm ):
“We all ask all kinds of questions; we all come to the briefing room with different points of view; we all serve different corporate masters,†said Terry Moran of ABC News. “I don’t know anything about Gannon’sâ€â€or Guckert’sâ€â€private life, and frequently he sounded like a shill for the administration. But he also challenged the White House from time to time with pointed questionsâ€â€from the right. And that always struck me as valuable and necessary.â€Â
Moran’s point is food for thought. Although Guckert’s question to President Bush in the Jan. 26 press conferenceâ€â€about how Bush planned to work with Democrats “who seem to have divorced themselves from reality”â€â€clearly crossed a line, the Talon News reporter occasionally held the president’s feet to the fire. Guckert asked questions about GOP discontent over such issues as immigration, pressed the White House on conservative issues and drew out the administration’s perspective on Democratic initiatives.
This doesn’t put to rest the charge of stacking the press pool. I suspect a President Hillary would want her people to give passes to, say, moveon–even if moveon asked some antagonistic questions–in order to maintain good relations with activists she would like to support her.
I think the important questions are, “Did Gannon get preferential treatment?” and “Was this a bad thing?” One could make the diversity argument. Most reporters are interchangeable, following the same conventional wisdom, asking the same questions. Accrediting Gannon instead of the hundredth middle-of-the-road competent-but-nothing-special reporter may result in more and better information coming out. It’s the same kind of “diversified portfolio” argument that selective colleges use to explain why they reject the straight A guy from a suburban high school in favor of the guy with Bs whose father was shot in a gang war.
aplomb, I find your concern about our free press to be overwrought, especially in light of the fact that you started posting on this thread by excusing pitiful behavior of the left regarding the GAY PORN angle.
And besides, this is a website devoted to sarcasm, satire, and HUGE 8” CUT GAY PORN and your “concerns” are harshing my, if not other’s, mellow (h/t Mike H from coldfury.com).
May I suggest that you head on over to, say, Roger Simon’s blog (rogerlsimon.com) and express your concerns there? There’s a post there already just looking for serious & earnest concern like yours about this oh-so troubling topic. And people ready to debate you. ‘K?
Now.
If we could back to those cocks…
Please.
With sugar.
“despite all the pains he took to distance his GAY PORN identity from his nom-de-day pass”
You seem to be claiming he changed his name to hide his past. Yet he tells us he changed his name only because he thought it was hard to pronounce. So which is it?
By the way, lots of people (including Gannon) are whining about how someone should be able to leave their past behind. Someone needs to explain why his web presence as a hooker persisted long after he first started showing up at the White House.
What’s really hysterical is the idea that there’s no story here (or the idea that the only problem is that his questions were thinly disguised partisan rhetoric). If it had been discovered that a prostitute (regardless of gender or sexual orientation) using a phony name to masquerade as a journalist had been granted daily passes to get into the Clinton White House for a couple of years, we would have seen Ken Starr spending millions to investigate. Somehow we know all about a stain on a blue dress, but we’re not supposed to be curious about whether Gannon used sexual blackmail to jump in line ahead of thousands of real journalists who would like a chance to ask the president a question during a nationally televised live press conference. Not to mention questions about his role in the Plame matter.
By the way, the issue with Gannon isn’t particularly about anything he did. It’s what the White House did. It takes a lot of gullibility to think that this character ended up there for a couple of years without a little help from people in high places.
Look, for a day pass, you have to apply for each day, so it’s not like he got through once, he got through EVERY TIME HE APPLIED. How many background checks is that?
No, this is an inside job, and that’s a fact you can’t argue.
It takes a lot of gullibility to think that this character ended up there for a couple of years without a little help from people in high places.
…whom he was reaming daily in the White House, right? Ari Fleischer and Andy Card and Karl Rove and ol’ Dubya himself. There’s NO WAY he could have been allowed to continue to attend press briefings unless he was SERVICING people in high places as PAYBACK for the access he needed to ASK SOFTBALL QUESTIONS of the press secretary and commander-in-chief.
‘Cause God knows the press secretary and commander-in-chief DON’T LIKE being asked softball questions just for the sake of being asked softball questions. There HAD to be more to it than that.
You guys really are the gift that keeps on giving. Keep ‘em coming. (pun not intended)
How many background checks is that?
Define “background check,” you idiot. The full-monty FBI background check is for a permanent credential. What they do for a day pass is necessarily somewhat less intensive. Probably not more than what a traffic cop does when he runs your driver’s license. And then he goes through a security checkpoint that, I’m betting, makes the airport checkpoints look nonexistent.
There are fools, damn fools, and Kos-holes.
Peter/jukeboxgrad – Your innuendo doesn’t strike sparks here. Trolling around in the underground will not enable you to see the light! Get on with your lives! It’s a brave new world out there! Take a chance! Hatch some new ideas! Call Howard Dean!
YES! THIS THE UNDERGROUND RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY … lurking in the shadows … SSHHHHHH!!!! …. we’re hunting for 8” COCK!
“I say all that big talk ain’t nuthin’ but doodlie squat.”
aplomb gives us an example of his ridiculous sputtering with this paragraph above:
“I can’t articulate why favorable treatment of a pro-administration writer over neutral or anti-administration writers is “badâ€Â? Just think about that for a second, and what it means to a free press. I should not have to articulate why that is important. I would hope that the fate of opposition writers to any number of fascist, communist or totalitarian regimes would serve as the example of why there should never be any such favor.”
Here we see the fevered mind at work. IF Guckert was given any favorable treatment … why any minute now we’ll have Democratic journalists in concentration camps!
Thank you aplomb for illustrating my point with increasing emphasis each time.
You are truly nuts.
jukeboxgrad completes the lesson in rabid silliness with:
“Somehow we know all about a stain on a blue dress, but we’re not supposed to be curious about whether Gannon used sexual blackmail to jump in line ahead of thousands of real journalists who would like a chance to ask the president a question during a nationally televised live press conference. Not to mention questions about his role in the Plame matter.”
Jukeboxgrad without any evidence at all goes beyond mere favoritism. He has Guckert conducting sexual blackmail.
The thought alone probably enough to get jukeboxgrad and aplomb feverishly engaged in self abuse until they have satisfied themselves.
This only gets more nauseating.
Oh, and jukeboxgrad, there are no “questions” about Guckert’s involvement in the Plame issue. There isn’t any reason to think he is involved – certainly his involvement is far far below that of the other bastion of gay prostitution, the New York Times.
> but we’re not supposed to be curious about
> whether Gannon used sexual blackmail to jump
> in line ahead of thousands of real journalists
> who would like a chance to ask the president a
> question during a nationally televised live
> press conference.
No, no, by all means, be curious. Investigate. But as you find yourself curiously attracted to following the GAY PORN angle and the new wrinkle, sexual GAY PORN blackmail, as your primary if not only leads, perhaps you could keep your conclusions to yourself until you actually have evidence that proves a point apart from Gannon was GAY. Last I heard, being gay wasn’t illegal – although I understand that being gay and Republican is frowned upon.
And those real journalists: you mean like these?
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/graham200502160746.asp
Like McGehee wrote, you guys are the gift that keeps on giving.
Ace, you rock! Just sayin’…
D’oh! Stupid cut-and-paste clipboard… Meant to say, Goldstein you rock!
BTW, those photos aren’t of Gannon’s COCK. They’re Microsoft Word documents. Complete forgeries.
“Look, for a day pass, you have to apply for each day, so it’s not like he got through once, he got through EVERY TIME HE APPLIED. How many background checks is that?”
Exactly. Aside from the fact that several reporters seem to remember seeing him wearing a “hard” pass (excuse the expression). And there also seems to be some photographic evidence of that.
“PAYBACK for the access he needed to ASK SOFTBALL QUESTIONS”
Nice job pretending that the only interesting feature of the story is that he asked softball questions.
“‘Cause God knows the press secretary and commander-in-chief DON’T LIKE being asked softball questions just for the sake of being asked softball questions. There HAD to be more to it than that.”
Lots of wingnuts are claiming it’s just not possible that the White House would give him preferential treatment on that basis. You should talk to those folks.
“Define ‘background check,’ you idiot. The full-monty FBI background check is for a permanent credential. What they do for a day pass is necessarily somewhat less intensive. Probably not more than what a traffic cop does when he runs your driver’s license.”
I posted a link to a journalist who had to wait two weeks for a day pass. Let me know the next time a cop keeps you sitting at the side of the road for two weeks.
“IF Guckert was given any favorable treatment”
He got daily passes for a couple of years, despite a complete absence of paid experience as a journalist, despite using a phony name, and despite having a background in illegal activities and was a tax cheat. Nice job minimizing all that to “any favorable treatment.”
Aside from getting in, he was also called on frequently, by both Scottie and the president, including during a rare nationally televised live press conference. And if you think the White House is not extremely scripted and deliberate with regard to who gets called on, then you probably believe in the tooth fairy.
“until you actually have evidence that proves a point apart from Gannon was GAY. Last I heard, being gay wasn’t illegal”
Just wait, Bush still owes some favors to the evangelicals.
Nice job pretending it’s a story about sexual orientation. Also, nice job pretending there isn’t extremely clear evidence that he was (and perhaps still is, since apparently some of the links are still active) a prostitute. As you know, prostitution is illegal in most states.
“And those real journalists: you mean like these?”
Nice job pretending that the only interesting feature of the story is that he asked softball questions.
“And there also seems to be some photographic evidence of that.”
juke, There’s no “seems” to photographic evidence. You’ve either got it or you don’t.
And since you insist, in posting after posting, upon revealing “You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history. “ I am adding your name and address to the Ashcroft Memorial Database of “Those To Be Shot In Front of Their Cats” for purging and cremation on the Day Before the Rapture.
In the meantime, don’t think for a moment that your continued insistance on “COCK DOESN’T MATTER!” blinds us to your true lust and desire in this matter.
I honestly cannot believe the left is snarling and holding on to this story like a pit bull. IT IS SO STUPID. Honestly, if there was a story of the same reporter during the Clinton Administration, I wouldn’t have been surprised or would I have cared. (You cannot compare this to the Clinton scandal since…HE WAS THE PRESIDENT…duh.)
This guy is a nobody, Who expects sterling moral behavior from the media???? The so called white house journalists lost their credibility a long time ago, so I don’t see what all the fuss is about. The guy was obviously liked enough and passed the background for a day pass. It is simple as that. If it was for softball questions, so what? If it was because he was in a relationship with someone, so what? Like none of that ever happened before??
And I bet if we did the personal background witch hunts right now on ANY of the reporters from the Clinton Admin. to this one, we would find more nasty garbage than we would ever want to.
So what the hell is the freakin point?
And more little thing… If being against gay marriage (which is the only anti-gay policy I can think of in this admin.) yet liking gay people is hypocrisy, then there are alot of gays that are hypocrites as well. I guess you would rather we be against gays in general, huh?
This is gonna come back and bite the lefties in the ass….mark my words.
Jukebox, I “seem” to have evidence that you are suffering from a psychotic episode.
If you believe we were supposed to take you seriously, I suggest more counseling.
I suggest a LithiYUM ™ enema for juke to get his mind off the juking.
Roy:”What in the world happened here Gabby?”
Hayes:”Dadnabbit Roy. A whole passel O’ wild eyed lefties broke in here and took every pick and shovel in the store! They was sayin’ sumpthin’ about havin’ ta dig fer the truth!”
Roy:”Gabby! Where are all my pictures!?”
Hayes:”Dadnabbit Roy. They grabbed all yor’ head shots too!”
Alas. Idiots galore and the boss has a hangover. I’m going to have to do the ALL CAPS GOD THING myself. Let’s see now…apostate of hell, taste my steel (whatever), smiting, destroy destroy destroy, yup that’s about it. I’m ready.
OKAY GUYS, SEND IN THE IDIOTS. I’VE GOT MY BIBLE AND THE CAPS LOCK IS ON. now if i can just stay awake.
Ana, I think you scared them away
“There’s no ‘seems’ to photographic evidence. You’ve either got it or you don’t.”
Nice job revealing how naive you are. It’s a still frame from a cspan video. It’s fuzzy, but clear enough to show that it’s a pass with a photo. A day pass has no photo. Did I make that simple enough for you to understand?
“You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history.”
Since you don’t know my race, gender, or sexual orientation, you’re being funny, but not in the way you intended.
“This guy is a nobody”
Exactly. Which makes it hard to understand how he ended up being called on by the president, an experience lots of real journalists pursue for an entire career.
“The guy was obviously liked enough and passed the background for a day pass.”
Not just once, but every day for a couple of years. And he didn’t just get in, he got called on frequently. And the White House is claiming there was no favoritism. If you believe that, let me tell you about a certain bridge in Brooklyn.
“If it was because he was in a relationship with someone, so what?”
Some of us who aren’t as cynical as you think that what the press does is important. We’d like to trust the information we get from the White House press room, and not have to wonder if the information we’re getting is corrupted by the influence of illicit sex or sexual blackmail, or any other form of corruption.
Also, some of us who aren’t as cynical as you actually think that the government belongs to us, and that the government has an obligation to tell us the truth. So when we ask a question like “why was Gannon in there, every day, for so long,” we expect to get an honest answer. So far it looks like we haven’t.
“Like none of that ever happened before??”
Let me know about the prior incident of a tax-cheating hooker spending a couple of years wandering around the White House, and getting called on by the president on live national TV.
“I bet if we did the personal background witch hunts right now on ANY of the reporters from the Clinton Admin. to this one, we would find more nasty garbage than we would ever want to.”
I’m sure lots of righty bloggers are sweating over that right now, but so far we sure haven’t heard much, have we. Face it: no pseudononymous tax-cheating hooker ever spent two years in the White House press room. Until now.
“I guess you would rather we be against gays in general, huh?”
Nice job pretending it’s about his sexual orientation. It’s not.
“If you believe we were supposed to take you seriously, I suggest more counseling.”
When you resort to personal ridicule, it’s a sure sign you’ve figured out that the facts aren’t on your side.
Jukeboxgrad —
Aravosis has since retracted the assertion that Gannon had a hard pass from the White House.
The rest of your allegations have to do with motive.
It is kind of hilarious that jukeboxgrad thinks that: no one has ever before used a pseudonym in journalism, ( the idea that he gave the White House a fake name for his background check – which jukeboxgrad and others keep dishonestly trying to imply is without any evidence ), or that the President or WH spokesman might show favoritism ( wow, there’s a clue that jukeboxgrad fell off the turnip truck this A.M. ).
And yes, jukeboxgrad, it is increasingly clear that the attacks on this guy are motivated out of a latent homophobia.
Actually, jukeboxgrad, personal ridicule can be a sign that the facts are on the side of my arguments, that your passion for invention got old and that I tired of seeing you repost the same ridiculous, silly, debunked and overblown nonsense.
Or, I could just be an asshole.
jukebox, I did not say the last line you reffered to. You make it seem as though I did.
You cannot seriously think that in the last say 12 yrs that reporters who are not well known have not gotten day passes for various reasons, leftwinger or rightwinger, that don’t have SERIOUS nasty little secrets in their lives? Have you ever been around reporters??? There are reporters I have never seen before ask the President questions all the time. I don’t think you have to be “promoted” to the job of asking questions. That is just ridiculous.
No righty or lefty bloggers are sweating over the nasty secret thing, because NO ONE CARES about the reporter’s past, nor should they.
Be careful what you wish for jukebox, you just might get it.
Actually, juke, advanced frame analysis of that fuzzy frame has revealed that the “pass” in question was one from MacWorld 1999 that was somehow photoshopped in. You gotta keep up to speed on this sort of stuff.
jukeboxgrad says:
“Nice job pretending it’s about his sexual orientation. It’s not.”
“Nice job pretending that the only interesting feature of the story is that he asked softball questions.”
What is this story about? What exactly is the “interesting feature?”
Near as I can tell, a guy who has ties to gay prostitution tried to become a reporter, got some passes to the White House, and asked some questions with a right-wing slant.
This is a non-story for a number of reasons: 1) until this, no one knew who Jeff Gannon was, 2) unless he can be tied to the Administration beyond the fact that they might have given him some preferential treatment because he’s a fellow right-winger, no one cares, and 3) Does the President even have to give press conferences? Is there some law, or is it just tradition? If there’s no law, then he can fill the press room with monkeys for all I care.
Anyway, it’s not as if one Administration-friendly reporter is really going to counteract the throngs of Administration-unfriendly reporters. Since I have no problem with reporters being biased, as long as they admit it, this is a non-issue to me.
So while you guys continue to tell us that we don’t get what the issue is, you seem unable to tell us exactly what it is we don’t get. It’s not that he’s gay, it’s not that he lobbed softball questions; what is it then? That he got preferential treatment. Big deal.
Also, some commenters are making comparisons to Clinton’s scandal, which, if I recall, didn’t really work out that well for Republicans in terms of public opinion. Keep that in mind.
This thing is not going to hurt Bush at all. It’s a waste of time. But good luck trying to convince people that they should care about something they just don’t care about.
To me, this just looks like a case where several left-wing bloggers felt the need to trash a man’s life for the sole purpose of attempting to tie something to Bush. What exactly, who know? But he’s got to be guilty of something. He’s Bushitler after all. Whatever.
I’m getting awfully tired of people equating “gay escort” with “gay prostitute.” If the clients have not spoken up, and the prostitution has never been prosecuted, doesn’t that seem a bit hasty in this age of litigousness. While I have no doubt that his RAMPANT GAY COCK should be paid well, I have heard no testimony to this being the case. Just sayin’
“Aravosis has since retracted the assertion that Gannon had a hard pass from the White House.”
I’m well aware of what Aravosis said, and I never claimed Gannon got his hard pass “from the White House.” What I said, and what still appears to be true, is that he seemed to be wearing some kind of a hard pass (i.e., a pass with a photo, which a day pass does not have). What that pass said, whether it was an official White House pass or not, whether it was forged or not, and where it came from, are yet to be determined.
“The rest of your allegations have to do with motive.”
His history as a prostitute is not a question of motive. It is a matter of fact. Likewise for my other statements regarding his lack of paid experience as a journalist, his tax-cheating, and his so-called “news” organization that didn’t even exist at the time he first appeared inside the White House.
“It is kind of hilarious that jukeboxgrad thinks that: no one has ever before used a pseudonym in journalism”
Please provide one such example regarding a journalist who addressed the president on live national TV. You get extra credit if the person is a
tax-cheater and a prostitute with no prior paid experience as a journalist. By the way, Ari Fleischer said “he did not know of any other White House reporters using aliases” (link below).
By the way, do you believe his story that he changed his name just because he didn’t like the sound of it? Just curious.
“the idea that he gave the White House a fake name for his background check – which jukeboxgrad and others keep dishonestly trying to imply is without any evidence”
If you claim the White House knew his real name, then you need to explain why Ari Fleischer said “I always knew him as Jeff Gannon.”
“or that the President or WH spokesman might show favoritism”
I’m confused. Are you conceding that they do? But of course they deny that. I guess you think it’s OK for them to lie through their teeth, then. I’m not as cynical as you.
“it is increasingly clear that the attacks on this guy are motivated out of a latent homophobia.”
Actually, what’s increasingly clear is that the right is desperate to try to turn this into a story about homophobia, because they can’t think of any other way to deflect it.
“I tired of seeing you repost the same ridiculous, silly, debunked and overblown nonsense.”
If you’re bored, change the channel. As far as “debunked,” I notice you can’t be bothered to back that up.
“I did not say the last line you reffered to. You make it seem as though I did.”
I answer different posters in one combined comment. I realize this can lead to confusion sometimes.
“You cannot seriously think that in the last say 12 yrs that reporters who are not well known have not gotten day passes for various reasons, leftwinger or rightwinger, that don’t have SERIOUS nasty little secrets in their lives?”
Nice job trying to claim it’s all been done before. Prove it. Believe me, lots of people are trying. They can’t come close.
By the way, someone using the web to advertise professional services isn’t someone who’s trying to keep a “secret.” No one hid a camera in this guy’s bedroom.
“NO ONE CARES about the reporter’s past, nor should they.”
Nice job trying to pretend it’s about his “past,” even though it appears that various links remained active well after the time he starting showing up at the White House. I guess he wasn’t ready to put all his eggs in one new basket.
“a guy who has ties to gay prostitution tried to become a reporter, got some passes to the White House”
Uh, not just “some passes.” Apparently passes every day for a couple of years, and using a phony name. And he didn’t just get in, he got called on frequently, including by the president during a rare nationally televised press conference. And if you think folks in that room get called on randomly, you probably believe in the tooth fairy.
By the way, most people who are trying “to become a reporter” don’t start out by spending a couple of years in the White House press room. Nice work if you can get it.
“until this, no one knew who Jeff Gannon was”
Exactly. Which makes it hard to understand how he managed to jump in line ahead of thousands of other reporters who would like to get a chance to question the president.
“unless he can be tied to the Administration beyond the fact that they might have given him some preferential treatment”
The White House insists there’s been no favoritism. I guess you think it’s OK when our government lies to us. You’re a lot more cynical than I am.
“If there’s no law, then he can fill the press room with monkeys for all I care.”
What the hell, why even have a press? It’s not as if democracy can’t exist without it, right? What the hell, why even bother having laws?
Nice to know that thousands of our kids are coming home maimed or dead in order to make sure that some folks in Baghdad get to vote, while at home we have folks running around who haven’t got the foggiest idea what democracy means.
“Anyway, it’s not as if one Administration-friendly reporter is really going to counteract …”
Nice job pretending that all there is to the story is his bias.
“It’s not that he’s gay, it’s not that he lobbed softball questions; what is it then? That he got preferential treatment. Big deal.”
I realize you don’t think it’s a big deal if your government manipulates the press and then lies to you about it. I also realize you think this kind of behavior earns us the right to tell the rest of the world how a real democracy is supposed to operate.
“This thing is not going to hurt Bush at all.”
Repeat after me: there’s nothing to worry about, it’s only a third-rate burglary.
“trying to convince people that they should care about something they just don’t care about.”
For something people “just don’t care about,” it sure is interesting to notice that suddenly someone bought the guy a nice suit and is parading him across the media in an attempt to deflect the story. This is especially interesting given that he started out by saying he wasn’t interested in talking to anyone.
“I’m getting awfully tired of people equating ‘gay escort’ with ‘gay prostitute.’”
He posted his hourly and daily rates. What more do you need to know? What’s your point, exactly?
Hey, whoever posted above using jukeboxgrad’s name did a great job of parodying jukeboxgrad.
It read just like him, with that cool stalker vibe and all.
Great work.
Ok jukes. “What’s your point, exactly?” No point. Just felt like typing RAMPANT GAY COCK. Your information that he posted hourly and daily rates seems incomplete. Were these rates for escort services, or were they rates for his Crisco covered torpedo being shoved up your turd-cutter? Did he specifically state that he would have sex for money? Cuz that’d be illegal or something, at least in my state. If not, you are disingenously eliding certain aspects of the man’s story to give your opinion the seeming of veracity. For a poster who demands that others “prove” their reasonings, this seems rather infantile. Prostitute is a pejorative word. If it is being applied incorrectly (and I am not stating that it is) the argument is semantically invalid. There are such things as reputable escort agencies. Many provide studly looking men to hang about as dates for aging hags. Is there any reason to assume that aging Friends of Dorothy might not wish the same service? Describing oneself as “eight inches, cut” may lead others to believe in the more salacious explanation, but unless you have some first-hand knowledge, you are speculating. Frankly, I could care less what Gannon/Guckert does with his jukebox, but in the interests of fairness, I will not refer to him as a prostitute until we have testimony on the matter. No tenga la puerta tu pinge en culo, amigo/a.
“I will not refer to him as a prostitute until we have testimony on the matter.”
You’re really determined to keep your head buried in the sand, aren’t you? The power of denial never ceases to amaze.
“Were these rates for escort services, or were they rates for his Crisco covered torpedo being shoved up your turd-cutter?”
Clearly the latter. There is a link, still active as I write this, to an extremely detailed and explicit customer review from someone who closes by saying “I am lucky to have found this jarhead.” Just as in your own colorful question, virtually nothing is left to the imagination.
The clever software on this blog has this site on a blacklist, so I have to present the URL this way: http://www.male*4*mal*esc*orts.com/reviews/bulldogdc.html. (Remove the asterisks.)
Let me know if the encounter described in this review is consistent with your perception of “reputable escort agencies.”
There’s a lot more evidence along these lines, which clearly proves that Gannon’s work was quite unlike anything you would find via “reputable escort agencies.”
Jukeboxgrad, just in case you thought anyone was taking you seriously, Iowahawk should disabuse you of that notion.
Oh, and Jukebox, I think its wonderful that you still believe in the October Surprise … nearly 20 years after its been debunked. That’s up there with believing in the Easter Bunny.
??????? ???? RSS, ???? ??????? ?? ??????????? ? ?????????????.
? ??????, ????? ???????