I guess since they have an ad for the movie Kinsey on their site we can assume that they support child molestation....
http://www.inoohr.org/kinseyvictims.htm

There's an ad for the Kinsey movie on this site dumbass.

OT: Here's a real hatchet job today by an AP writer on President Bush. Does this guy have an extensive Bush-bashing record?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/ats-ap_politics15feb14,1,2150428.story?coll=sns-ap-toppolitics&ctrack=1&cset=true

I was playing by their rules. It's ok if we do it, but if you do it it's wrong. I see it's still in effect in your side, why can't it be on mine?

Okay, honestly I am not really understanding this whole controversy, at leas the gay porn stuff. A huge part of me sort of thinks "who cares?"

So the best way to battle hypocrisy is with more hypocrisy?

btw It's not my side, I think focusing on Gannon's sexuality or whatever has completely muddied the waters here and wish no one drew any attention to it. There were plenty of reasons to be critical of Gannon without it.

So, to paraphrase the 1990's "Clinton Conjecture":

Is this about sex or about his positions on the issues?

Does anyone believe that if Gannon was on the left that any discussion about his sex life would be off limits?

Or - is this the lefts attempt to "vet" Gannon by giving him alternate lifestyle credentials?

And frankly, who isnt gay these days? According the left, everyone is gay ( recent book about lincoln for example) so is this news?

Does anyone believe that if Gannon was on the left that any discussion about his sex life would be off limits?

If he was on the left and wrote the way he did about gay issues, I'll bet they'd be all over his sex life.

And frankly, who isnt gay these days? According the left, everyone is gay ( recent book about lincoln for example) so is this news?

Citing one book about one person means that the left thinks "everyone is gay"? Interesting. Ok, according to the right, all reporters think that the military targets journalists. Well, the right said one of them did, right? Oh, a better one: The right thinks all university professors are anti-american communists who are glad the WTC was attacked (well, Ward Churchill thinks so for example).

As I have read this stories on the Gannon thing, about the only real issue I see is whether he had/who gave it to him/and when he got the info on Valarie Plame.

The gay stuff doesn't really belong here. And I am not bothered by the use of a pen name, lots of people use pen names. Softball questions don't bother me, Larry King is known for his softball questions, but nobody has argued he should be required to leave CNN for it.

Just Me:

Okay, honestly I am not really understanding this whole controversy, at leas the gay porn stuff. A huge part of me sort of thinks "who cares?"

It's a good old fashioned attempt at character assassination mixed with sensationalism, and neither side, conservative or liberal, is guilt free from using that tactic.

I thought that people who resorted to that were way out of line in the Gannon case. Stick to the issues and leave the personal stuff out, IMO.

It's odd how the liberals are treating this story as if it's on the same level as Memogate or Easongate. To quote Judd Nelson in "the Breakfast Club,"

"Not. Even. Close. BUD!"

You know, part of me wonders if they're making such a big deal about this because they enjoy any excuse to look at g@y p@rn... (Deliberate misspellings, there.)

I've read that Gannon had no access to the Plame affair. and I agree with mantis that bringing his sex into in has truly discredited the whole thing. I don't see much of a story here any way. Even if they did let him in to throw a softball question at Bush, so what? That isn't a crime. Poor guy. I feel sorry for him.

umm..that was suppose to say "sex life."

Kos is obviously still so humiliated to have lost every congress/senate seat he was plugging. EVERY ONE. He'll now do ANYTHING to change the subject, even though he's making a fool of himself again.

So glad he's found something to do with all his free time.

: )

Well, the big scoop is up. He was advertising himself on the web for escort services. Yawn.

The whole Gannon homosexual activity thing is the left at their hypocritical worst.

Seriously, how does his sexuality or sex related activites reflect in any way on White House policy/hypocricy/competency?

Are the left blogs doing this to this man's life to emphasize inadequate press pass screening procedures by whoever does that in the White House? Really? How is it anything beyond the gleeful public personal destruction of a man for (possible) homosexuality or homosexual related activites?

Isn't that EXACTLY what the left claims their principles stand against? What exactly is it about Gannon that allows them to ignore those principles? Is it cause he's written anti-gay stuff in the past? So that's it? This 'burning hypocricy' by Gannon means he isn't entitled as a human to one of their most dearly held, publicly proclaimed principles - that a man should not be judged, much less destroyed - for his sexuality as long as it doesn't harm others?

I don't believe their actions here show us that they don't really believe what they say. I know too many lefty's who believe in that principle too strongly (any many on the right). I just believe this is another example of the left willing to destroy a man, even by means that violate their core principles, because it serves THE GREATER CAUSE.

Why should anyone believe tehm to live up any principles they espouse (whether agreed with or not)when they cast them aside so easily?

I say to the lefties, god help YOU, when your destruction will temporarily serve the cause of the greater good. God help YOU when you need to rely on their "principles" to protect you.

There is no cause or principle higher than the destruction of those with whom they disagree.

I see some posters here learned counterpropaganda tactics from the Limbaugh Institute of Hypocritical Studies (a.k.a. Ole Oxy).

The Secret Service ostensibly conducts a background check of all White House reporters. How'd they miss all this?

The White House has a longstanding policy of issueing credentials only to longstanding, regularly publishing, legitimate news outlets. Talon News had existed for only five (5) days when Guckert received his papers - papers that the Congress did not provide.

Guckert underscores the very obvious fact that "values" is nothing but sales puffery devoid of substance from the right. When one of their own is revealed as a gay prostitute, they scrub all evidence of his existence as a member of the team, and attack the left for being "intolerant."

The left is very tolerant of Mr. Guckert's homosexuality. He is the way God made him.

I am not personally particularly tolerant of his penchant for selling his body for sex. That's called prostitution, and last I checked it's illegal just about everywhere in the US. The homosexuality is genetic; it's the whoring that was a choice.

Finally, Guckert traded his own identity for personal gain - figuratively and literally. He used a nom de plume, thus literally trading his own identity for gain; and he closeted his homosexuality when it proved inconvenient for his mode of employment.

He's a professional two ways:
A professional whore; and
A professional conservative.

I.e., he was conservative because it paid the bills. Not because it was what he really thought.

Apparently the lefties think Gannon is the super secret third man behind the Plame thing. Nonsense, Tom Maguire poked a hole through that balon days ago. See http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/02/know_why_did_th.html

As to his being a partisan with sketchy credentials. What about Helen Thomas? What about Rick Mobhiser (sic)? Both of these are in the same league as Jeff Gannon/Guckert. David gergen in his interview on Reliable sources pointed out that JFK used a particular feamle journalist to bail him out when he got in trouble. This was common knowledge.

Pretty funny how much they are stretching it to get even close to the solid work of the right side of the 'sphere

I'm quite sad to be reading all the reports and comments about Jeff Gannon. I know him and found him to be a bright, thought-provoking journalist. His Washington, DC-based radio show for RightTalk.Com is one of the better conservative shows. Gannon interviewed me a couple of months ago regarding an article I wrote for Police Times on the intelligence community. He was a terrific interviewer. I don't know whether or not the stories I've seen about him are true. I know that some folks are pretty vicious and it's hard to separate the lies from the facts in a story that pales in comparison to the Eason Jordan story. Afterall, Gannon was upfront about being a partisan journalist. Jordan was the VP of the "non-partisan" CNN. Which man is honest and which is dishonest?

BuffaloPundit:

There are a couple things going on in the Gannon situation. One is a relection on the WH in that they allowed a "partisan hack" a press pass. Personally, I have absolutely no problem with this. Others may. Another possibilty is that the WH paid him, ala Armstrong Williams to act as a ventriloquist's dummy and ask "their" questions at press conferences. Personally, I AM somewhat bothered by that sort of dishonesty or subterfuge in a WH. Unleash the dogs on the WH I say and get to the bottom of it. Kudos lefty blogs.

But then there is the personal destruction of the man Gannon. The lefty's have had a field day with his sexuality, trying to tie this aspect into WH wrongdoing somehow... anyhow. "He's gay. And the WH gave him a press pass. But the WH hates gays! They let him in and he's gay! Oh what hypocrites the WH are! Oh what awful background checks they do! Gay I tell you. GAY!"

You try to tell us it's OK to destroy his life, emphaisizing this aspect of it to whatever detriment it causes him, because... Why? Well, because he's a hypocrite... He can be destroyed personally because... he's on the wrong side of the cause. Becasue it's soooo delicious.

Okay, now he's a prostitute (you say, I don't know) That is illegal and while the left is tolerant of consensual sexual activites, it isn't hypocrisy on their part to say this shows he is a bad person. You never said "prostiution is fine" I understand that.

But as you go about destroying a man no one had ever heard of a few days ago, publicly pillorying him for his wrongs, telling us all how this Gannon guy is a despicable human being, it would be nice if the "homo" part of it wasn't your main point of his personal destruciton, or at least less hypocritical.

At least you should have the decency to feign indifference to this aspect of his destruciton, rather than the sheer delight so so obviously take in it. But no - you guys got 'em, you ga that faggit.

yeah sure, buff, anything you say.

Fake names, leftie journos being doing that for years

http://tvh.rjwest.com/archives/006759.html

Ooh, he was (or more to fact alleged) to be a gay sex prostitutde. What is it with you and homosexuality. I thought it was the right that got their buns in a bunch with that. I guess that is hypocrisy for you. next

So if we strip your argument to its core, it is he is gay and he is not on our team.

His crime -> apotasy.

Last I checked, people could believe what they wanted. You must be one of those who call for michelle malkin to be put into a comfort lady situation because she won't participate on your side. yikes, listen to yourself.

A comment I made on Americablog:

Things I have learned from the liberals today:

1) Gay sex is very wrong and must be exposed as such even though they didn't care before.

2) Gay prostitution is suddenly very wrong and must be exposed as such even though they didn't care before.

3) That President Bush has made no distinctions between straights and gays when hiring staffers or letting people (reporters or otherwise) into the White House is very wrong and must be exposed as such even though they didn't care before.

4) One allegedly gay reporter gets into the White House and suddenly its Watergate all over again.

I would add to that here with:

5) Poorly impersonating a conservative poster and using childish, vulgar comments is the best retort liberals can come up with.

Well, since Gannon's quit his reporter job, he is getting a LOT of free publicity...

Maybe it's time to give the escort business another try.

yep, the guys's going to make millions in book deals.

neat

The link in the update doesn't work for me. Have they taken the post down, or is it a screwed up link?

BTW, BuffaloPundit, would you mind explaining exactly what you mean by the "Limbaugh Institute of Hypocritical Studies (a.k.a. Ole Oxy)"? The last time I checked, Rush got treatment (which is something lefties do all the time and are praised for), and during the time of his addiction to painkillers prescribed to him by a doctor, never once said anything hypocritical about drug abusers. In fact, because he himself was an addict (and is now a recovering addict), he pointedly stayed away from making such remarks BECAUSE it would be hypocritical.

If you mean to say that we righties are hypocritical because some of us listen to Rush Limbaugh, then might I gently suggest that you Get Yer Facts Straight (TM)!

Unless I have missed my guess, none of these stories are saying that gay sex and gay porno is bad per se.

You all are interpreting it that way. The stories are political though because while liberals don't really give a rat's ass what people do, watch, or download, conservative do. Given the unprecedented way in which this individual was given press access, the thinking here is that the White House, stepping in to get credentials to a former gay porn impresario, is news.

If this guy were a liberal, you all would be frothing to expose him as a threat 2nd only to Osama Bin Laden. [grin]

However by only talking about the gay stuff and completely failing to address the more substantive issues, Wizbang is demonstrating that while they hate Michael Moore they are more then willing to use his propaganda techniques.

Mr. DeMent:

And we would be no less the bastards for doing so, although perhpaps not the hypocritical, screw our own principles for the good of the cause bastards.

Conrats again. Congrats on your takedown of a man. Congrats on you brave, principled destruction of a human being.

You must be so proud. You must be so proud of your principles.

Buffalo, spare us your idiotic hyperbole. Jeezus f'ing Christ man, has straws ever been clutched at with such desperation and veracity as with this yawner of a non-story. I'm gay. Lynch me. Lynch me.

Furthermore, how is the Whitehouse supposed to know about Gannon's private life, unless he was arrested or under investigation for something? Is this a fucking police state now? Is everyone's private lives stored on some computer in DC? The only reason you know about it was because leftwingers are beating this dead horse like their lives depend on it, and as luck would have it some clown who did Gannon's web site got word of it and spilled the beans.

Get a clue dickhead.

"You all are interpreting it that way. The stories are political though because while liberals don't really give a rat's ass what people do, watch, or download, conservative do. "

Um, this is a pretty big brush you are using there.

I generally don't care what people do, provided what they are doing is legal, and doesn't harm anyone else.

If somebody is gay, and posts their pics on the net, not a real big deal to me, as long as they don't expect me to come look at it or participate in it.

I find the fact that the left seems to have latched onto these aspects the more hypocritical, because it appears as if the position of the left is that it is okay to be gay, and post porno as long as you are actually a liberal, anyone who right of center, had better be straight or else.

You know what the term for falsely accusing someone of a crime?

"Libel per se".

Unless Guckert has been CONVICTED of a crime, accusing him of a crime is a very, very dangerous thing.

I have to say, this is exceptionally flimsy evidence if all they got going for themselves is a bunch of photos that resemble each other, as well as several MS Word documents. I mean, do we really need to go into how easy it is to mod those MS Word files to reflect what someone would want them to reflect?

People would incessantly tell me I look like some kid from a TV show in grade school, and that doesn't necessarily mean I am that person. There are a great deal of bald men on this planet - somehow focusing on pictures of someone who shows a resemblance to Jeff Gannon doesn't quite measure up to "investigative journalism".

Even if this is to prove true, what does it have ANYTHING to do with the accusation that his day-by-day (as opposed to permanent) press credentials were ill-gotten? Spare me the load of garbage that it's to point out the "hypocrisy". It's gay-baiting, and that's all it is. It has nothing to do with his abilities as a reporter, it has nothing to do with alleged improprieties in receiving press passes (even if he had to ask them day by day, and with his actual name - neither of which is a crime). This is a smear job, not something to be proud of.