« Finding Racism Every Time They Look | Main | Zero Tolerance »

How *NOT* to Build a Majority Party #2

Continuing my point that I started here.

A note to the left half of the blogosphere. If your intent is to advance your party's agenda --and I assume that is what you are trying to do-- here is a hint.

If you want to make the case that yours is the tolerant party and the Republicans are intolerant, spending a week in a gay bashing free for all probably is not the best way to make the point.

Fell free to ignore this. I hope you do, really, but I just figured I'd offer you a friendly bit of advice that won't cost you a penny. If you guys think bashing this guy because he is gay will further your political agenda then my all means, continue.

If you want to make the case the the Whitehouse should ban gay people from the media then you just get right out there and make your case to the American people. Say it loud and say it proud. "NO GAY PEOPLE IN THE WHITEHOUSE."

But do me a favor... When you lose the next election, don't tell me it is the American people who are idiots.

UPDATE: Rightwingnuthouse takes apart the "He wasn't a real journalist" canard-- follow his trackback.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How *NOT* to Build a Majority Party #2:

» Right Wing Nut House linked with SUPERHAWK TO KOS: THOSE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES...

Comments (60)

- Do these guys ever take t... (Below threshold)

- Do these guys ever take the time to see what the other "left" hand is doing?....

Paul,You are missi... (Below threshold)
Justin B:

Paul,

You are missing the point. It is ok to be gay as long as you are not a Republican just like it is OK to be black as long as you vote Democratic. Just ask Condi and Colin Powell.

The Democrats are extremely tolerant of minorities as long as they vote in blocks and do not think for themselves. It is dangerous when you undermine the base.

You are such a f**king hyp... (Below threshold)

You are such a f**king hypocrite!! You might wanna delete posts in the future that show you salivating and ridiculing Democrats over a similar revelation, before making such a desperate stand here!

Actually, it's the democrat... (Below threshold)
julie:

Actually, it's the democrats that are salivating and ridiculing. Go drop in on their websites and tell them to delete posts.

coloredfella what the hell ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

coloredfella what the hell are you talking about?

If you were trying to make a point, you might try again in English.

Go to bed Paul ;-)... (Below threshold)

Go to bed Paul ;-)

julie and Paul, Yo... (Below threshold)

julie and Paul,

You embarrassed apologists on the Right are the ones obsessing over the salacious details, because you don't want to address the credible questions of how this character - who would trigger a red flag from a simple FBI background check - would even be allowed in the White House!

I'd be interested in what you guys think are the questions these bloggers are asking as a result of these new revelations? And, I must point out that neither blog posts make direct or pointed accusations about Scott McClellan - those exaggerations are being leveled on Right Blog sites like this one.

If you want to find a similar example of 'salivating and ridiculing' by Wizbang, put the word 'McGreevey' in his Search link.

Hypocrite. You did the sam... (Below threshold)
bob:

Hypocrite. You did the same thing:

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/003322.php

Claiming that Gannon would ... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Claiming that Gannon would have or should have raised red flag or any other color is ridiculous. Maybe someone has some information on him we haven't been shown yet, but so far I haven't seen any claims that he's been arrested, charged with any crime or convicted. Porn sites, gay or not, don't break any laws that I know of. Salon.com says that a day pass only requires an abbreviated background check, anything more than that would restrict press access to the White House. Even a standard background check that doesn't find a conviction can't exclude someone from access. Remember that if he hasn't been convicted he's an innocent man in the eyes of our government. If someone has any proof that he's a convicted criminal or some kind of information showing that running a porn site is illegal please feel free to share it with us. If not stop making claims you can't support. It's time to put up or shut up.

thatfellacoloredOliver:... (Below threshold)
-S-:

thatfellacoloredOliver:

So, the problem that you liberals have with "that guy" gaining White House Press Corps. access is that you outed him as being (as you allege) "gay"?

You allege that some fellow is "gay" so he should NOT be sitting between Helen Thomas and CBS?

He "passed" his "FBI background check" and you allege he is "gay," so he should NOT have passed an FBI background check?

There's this already identified thing that seems to just rile up liberals/Democrats and that is "hypocrisy" and yet, to everyone else, liberals epitomize hypocrisy, and for just comments such as your own if not all the salivating "outrage" about the guy-who-you-allege-to-be-gay-who-gained-a-White-House-Press-Corps-pass.

Here's something to help yo... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Here's something to help you along: Condoleezza Rice is BLACK. She's a black WOMAN. She's not even GAY.

It just came to me what tha... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

It just came to me what thatcoloredfella is talking about. Sorry, but it's your side that misused FBI files to dig dirt on people. They called it Filegate. Ever hear of it? Reading is fundamental, they say. Read this, your fundaments seem to be lacking:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/1197.shtml

Naturally, you have missed ... (Below threshold)

Naturally, you have missed the entire point of the story. The point of the story is NOT that he is gay, no one really cares about that. The point is that a gay male prostitute that had signed on to TalonNews service the week before, somehow miraculously got into the White House Press Room, (when there are people waiting in line for that, and the usual process is to get a press pass from Congress first, but all of that was dispensed with) and then, he gets access to POTUS, in the four White House press conferences, and then lobs not so challenging questions to the President. As I see it there are a couple issues:

1. Why did the Secret Service allow this guy to be credentialed in the first place when he had no journalism experience in the first place.

2. Is the Secret Service in the business of credentialling past escorts?

3. Even with all this said and done, how did Gannon/Guckert have access to the Valerie Plume information/memo?

maybe you wacko's didnt get the memo, but this is not about this guy being gay, but its all about when and how people get credentialed into the White House, having access to the President of the United States.

(oh ya, and it's also about the GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman being gay and advocating anti-gay positions with his finance chair being gay also..I refer you to Blogactive.com if you don't believe me.)

"bob" you really are just a... (Below threshold)
Paul:

"bob" you really are just a moron. To even try compare that post here about McGreevey to the gay bashing going on by the left, proves you are an idiot.

As sad pathetic idiot, incapable of reasonable thought.

BTW Thanks for proving my point. You guys don't deserve to be in the majority.

I thought you guys on the ... (Below threshold)
thatcoloredfella:

I thought you guys on the Right considered this a non-story? Do you realize that you're defending a man who allegedly prostituted himself to men?

This 'innocent man' has also been exposed as a partisan plant, working for a front funded by GOP insiders. And you're right, no laws have been broken.

But, if you're going to commit an arrogant ploy to install a shill mouthpiece - under the guise of un-bias reporting - who brazenly admits to plagiarizing White House briefing memos, let's slip he's been privy to classified documents, owes $20K in back taxes, and oh yeah, the sex stuff, don't you think a better background check or considering other candidates would've been more prudent?

You need Gannon to be the scapegoat, instead of insisting he broke no laws.

The wonderful irony here, is that you need to remain focused on the very sorted details you accuse us of perpetuating. Because, you'd rather not address the complicity of McClellan and the White House.

Sorry Bill you struck out.<... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Sorry Bill you struck out.

1) I hate to bring logic and reason to the party but the Secret Service is not a journalism review board. Their job is to make sure nobody kills the President. What he a threat to the President? No. The Secret Service did their job. A goofy red herring.

2) See also #1 ...Are you saying the Secret Service should be stopping people from entering the WH for activities that are LEGAL but someone deems immoral???? You call yourself a liberal? OK, why not have the Secret Service not let in unwed mothers? (Your logic escapes you)

3) Are you sure he had it? Even if he did, so did other members of the press so why do you care if he had it? Should gay people not be trusted with secrets?

And if this is not about him being gay why do you guys keep focusing on it and posting pictures of him?

Sorry dude, it's gay bashing thru and thru.

You have not made a single reasonable post to support any other position.

thatcoloredtroll-Are... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

thatcoloredtroll-
Are you equating the Gannon 'story' with the McGreevey story, where McGreevey hired his unqualified, non-citizen lover to be head of Homeland Security for the state? And was then blackmailed by this same fraud?

So just being gay is as bad as being a scam artist?
Your homophobic views are not appreciated at this blog.

coloredfella do you underst... (Below threshold)
Paul:

coloredfella do you understand the difference between proof and rantings of whack-job tin foil hat liberals?

"Do you realize that you're defending a man who allegedly prostituted himself to men?"

I'm not defending anyone.... I am saying that you are spending an awful lot of time focusing on the fact he MIGHT be gay.

BTW you lefties, thanks for continuing the gay bashing. Every time you do it, that many more people who see you for the hypocrites you are.

Quite the contrary Les...</... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Quite the contrary Les...

When liberals prove themselves to be hypocritical idiot gay bashers, I very much appreciate it!

I can't speak for Kevin but I suspect he agrees. LOL

P

Are you saying the Secret S... (Below threshold)

Are you saying the Secret Service should be stopping people from entering the WH for activities that are LEGAL but someone deems immoral????

Last time I checked, whoring yourself for $1200 a weekend is not only immoral but its ILLEGAL. You would think that a basic FBI/Secret Service background check could find information that a handful of bloggers can find on the internet. This is ridiculous. The man is a HOOKER, he gets a press pass, sits 10 feet away from the President during his press conferences, and somehow the liberals are wrong for attacking this guy. God forbid the administration has ANY fault in this problem.

what a joke!

Distort, evade and manipula... (Below threshold)
thatcoloredfella:

Distort, evade and manipulate - you Bush Apologists are a hoot!

If you bothered to read the Wizbang link from Bob, your old pal here did some gay-bashing of his own! Wake up people, you're the ones throwing around gay sex charges, we just wanna know why Scott McClellan was so darn stupid!

Oh Bill.. Can I get your th... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Oh Bill.. Can I get your thoughts on congressman Barney Frank?

OH, OK gay prostitution is just fine when a Democrat does it.

coloredfella if you think that was gay bashing you are just an idiot....

Keep it up guys. Lose as many votes as possible.

OhTheBill:No, you ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

OhTheBill:

No, you miss the point entirely. I bet despite having visited many liberal websites with the issue about this guy's alleged sexuality, you didn't look at any of the photos, or follow any of the links. *Not that there's anything wrong with it.*

No, you miss the point. The point of "outrage" by the left is that they allege this fellow, Gannon/Guckert, is "gay" and also involved in "gay prostitution" and is also allegedly "a conservative."

His Press clearance to the White House is not extraordinary, only and except if you want to allege that because Gannon is allegedly 'gay' that he being granted a press pass is somehow outrageous.

If homosexuality in association with Gannon/Guckert isn't the issue, as you allege also, then what's with that smarmy slap there about Ken Mehlman? Democrats NEED Mehlman to be "gay," just as they do any other Republican, if for only to reduce the person down to...a...liberal.

Otherwise, what's even the point of your slapping Mehlman around as you just did? We should all start writing that anyone/everyone with a user I.D. that has the name "Bill" (or, "bill" if that suits you) is a pedophile sleeping with animals. Oh, yeah, now there's an issue to start promoting that liberals could wrap themselves around.

Makes as much sense as anything you wrote here.

Leave it to you, -S-, to co... (Below threshold)

Leave it to you, -S-, to completely cloud the issue. It's not real suprising. The issue is NOT that he is gay, the issue is LESS THAN CREDIBLE JOURNALISTS getting press passes to the White House, the Secret Service not being able to dig up even the most basic information on a background check, and then we have the Valerie Plume affiar, which NONE of you have even mentioned as part of the story. I quote a comment from another blog:

* The Secret Service did a bang up job and can't protect the White House

or

* The Secret Service knew what he was and let him pass into the West Wing on a daily basis regardless, again compromising White House security

or

* The Secret Service knew that he was a prostitute and was instructed to let him pass into the White House

Now following this, we have the fact that within four months of his arrival in the White House he is one of six people in the middle of the Valerie Plame affair. The fact that five months earlier he was a gay prostitute makes the story all that more bizarre.

So where can this story go now? I see at least one or two options.

1. Congress, with its oversight capabilities, can subpoena the White House and Secret Service records to investigate how Gannon got into the White House on a regular basis.
2. Fitzgerald can use this information to further his own investigation."

oh ya, and have you seen th... (Below threshold)

oh ya, and have you seen this? For all those naysayers who think that this story is going nowhere:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 15, 2005

CONTACT:
Stacey Farnen Bernards
(202) 225 - 3130
Hoyer Statement on "Jeff Gannon" Connection to Valerie Plame Leak

WASHINGTON DC – House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer released the following statement regarding revelations that a man who went by the name of “Jeff Gannon,” and who was given White House media credentials despite his lack of qualifications, was given access to classified documents which disclosed the identity of Undercover CIA Operative Valerie Plame:

“Valid questions are being raised regarding the Bush White House’s relationship with James Guckert, also known as “Jeff Gannon,” and his access to documents that revealed the identity of Undercover CIA Operative Valerie Plame.

“This issue is important from an ethical as well as from a national security standpoint. It is hard to understand why a man with little real journalism experience was given a White House press corps credential let alone access to sensitive security documents. In fact, it only raises questions as to the nature of the relationship between “Jeff Gannon” and the White House, and whether there was an alliance of interests that did not conform to ethical and security standards. President Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, called the disclosure of an undercover operative’s identity treason.

“This most recent revelation is only the latest in the growing list of ways that Republicans in Washington are attempting to manipulate the American people through the media and avoid accountability. When the Bush Administration had trouble selling its domestic policies, it unethically paid journalists to promote its policies under the guise of journalism. When the Ethics Committee held Majority Leader Tom DeLay accountable for improper actions last year, the Republican leadership simply removed Chairman Joel Hefley (R-CO) and other Republicans from the Committee.

“I encourage the Special Counsel looking into the Plame matter to include “Jeff Gannon’s” ties to the issue in his investigation.”

ohthatcoloredfella et al:</... (Below threshold)
julie:

ohthatcoloredfella et al:

I'm not embarrassed and i am not apologizing for any one. I don't want to hear the details. But jerks like you come to conservative websites and post them. On your own websites they post hundreds of sickening comments and photos, so don't fucking lecture me about salacious behavior.

You apparently know nothing about background checks. But why would not knowing anything about a subject stop you from opening your fat mouth.

Some of the comments posted by you lefties are along the lines of McClellan giving bj to the whitehouse staff. So, again, don't give me this crap about salacious details.

As to McGreevey, you forget that he was on the verge of being indicted when he played the gay card to try to make himself out to be a victim. Not only does he deserve ridiculing, he deserves, and I have no doubt will receive, a few years in jail.

Watching you idiots hoot and hollar like you have cornored some animal and are going in for a kill is the entertainment and the only thing of news value. So keep it up! Dance for us! You and your little issues are nothing but blog fodder. Now, dance!

Nice try. But notice how th... (Below threshold)
julie:

Nice try. But notice how the press release by the democratic hack jumps to the conclusion that he was given access to classified documents. Got proof? Not that it has ever stopped you people before.

Whoa! Did I miss something?... (Below threshold)

Whoa! Did I miss something? Has it been PROVEN that Gannon was a "gay hooker?" Because if it has not, then you saying that need to shutup.

I have also seen no evidence that he had any access to the Plame documents. He denies it. "Valid questions" isn't going to cut it.

And just what are yall worried about? Your worried this guy got into a press conference? What? Your worried for the President? what IS your point?

I hate to rock your democratic boat, but there are plenty of gay Republicans. I can direct you to a few blogs if you wish. But you need to stop bashing someone's personal life.

I for one would be very hap... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

I for one would be very happy to see the FBI impose on White House jornalists the same kinds of investigation that people in my field have to go through every day in order to get the clearances we need to do our jobs. If they did, 90% of the liberal journalists in the U.S. would be denied access. Peter Arnett, for one, wouldn't even be permitted to get off the subway at L'Enfant, much less get within a mile of the White House. You libs better be careful what you wish for.

And, Bill and coloredfella, do you have any evidence to back up your charges? Or do you consider yourselves the rightful judges of all of humanity, such that your raving made-up charges are all the proof that's needed? Are you the ones to decide who is "qualified" to be a journalist? Maybe you should assume for yourselves the right to decide who gets to have blogs too.

Hundreds to thousands, if n... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Hundreds to thousands, if not millions, of nasty smearing words later by Democr/err, liberals, about Gannon/Guckert, complete with photos and links and pornographic nonsense later, and you have the audacity to write that I "(cloud) the issue"?

Oh, please, OhTheBill, recognize reality, look around you, read something other than your own inner dialogue.

The ISSUE as to Gannon is not singular, is already and from the outset "clouded" among worse pollutants and obfuscations and you continuing to push the "it's the Press Pass clearance" aspect to Gannon's short lifespan in the public eye is nonsense. Partisan, at best, but completely revisionist.

Gannon had a brief foray in the White House Press room. He is not, not at ALL, the one and lone "journalist" to pose partisan if not helpful questions to any speaker in that scenario nor for Partisan reasons. Perhaps liberals are just agawk at Gannon because he didn't ask LIBERAL bent questions, such as the vast majority of existing "journalists" do (which can be boilded down to "why is the United States bad and why is President Bush Hitler" general issue questions).

I paraphrase, yes, but hardly "(cloud)" an issue that is multifaceted at best. Gannon gained no special privilege nor asked no special questions when compared to anyone/many others both past and present, except that he gained and posed from a decidedly conservative, pro-Republican Party position which stands out in horrific contrast to the perceptions of aghast and agaw liberals.

However, the other and more troubling issue that is more clear to those of us who are conservative and from what I've read here and elsewhere remains rejectable by liberals, about Gannon, is that they've used every imagined and conjectured possible aspect to this one individual's life to demean him as a person, based upon his sexuality as it's interpreted by whomever (meaning, the interpretations are vast but mostly they are scatalogical in nature).

Conservatives question issues. Liberals demean individuals. And, the theme that glares out louder and with more neon intensity by liberals than by conservativse is that liberals have this penchant for focusing on homosexuality by whomever and then demeaning a person nearly to death or permanent silence based upon whatever it is they want to or can write/say about that person and whatever imagined behaviors they want to.

If you focused on the issue about Gannon, you'd want to research what the URLs are that he registered and why, or, did not register and why not. He may never have registered them at all, or, he may have registered them for reasons other than "gay prostitution" as most liberals decry. Even IF he registered them for (or engaged in behaviors related to) issues of "gay prostitution," him later gaining a press pass to the White House appears to me to be more a statement about the media source to which he affiliated, TalonNews, than it does about Gannon/Guckert the individual.

Meaning, he gained a WH Press Pass because of the media affiliation and titling, from the brief statement(s) I've read about that, and it doesn't seem so extraordinary, if extraordinary AT ALL, that some lone journalist with some lone media source/business title would be the subject of any greater or any less scrutiny than anyone else. If WONKETTE can be referred to as "a blogger" then Gannon gets to be a journalist, in my frame of reference, as a good parallel example.

There is much personal behavior by many throughout their lifetimes that later is either declared offensive to individuals (they change because they can and it's nobody's business why unless they want to share their reasons and methods about whatever they chose to), and if uncovered, you'd find much, when/if every single person who gains entrance to the WH by means of "journalism" was ever aired.

But, to liberals, it's still a case of someone being "a homosexual" that sets the routine rolling...a person is denigrated in the public forum based upon suspected/imagined even conditions, without regard for the damage that may be done and is to the person involved. Meanwhile, you get a murderer (or more) in the Senate (Democrats, as far as I know), and for lifetimes, and what's worse than that? Homosexuality, pornography, adultery, marriage even, all are rendered boring and routine to many liberals today, attempting to reduce down human life to some cesspool of compulsory physicality.

The issue about Plame, well, ask Robert Novak about that. Gannon seems to have simply copied and pasted press releases.

I still have questions about Gannon as someone who could possibly have posed as conservative, however, just to gain access to a core and attempt just such a flaming as now. It's possible, is all I am suggesting.

You, however, have tunnel vision and are either intentionally avoiding reality(ies) or are just bent on pushing through more hysteria based upon the denigration of another human being. I think both indicate irresponsibility, but then again, I'm not a liberal.

I think it's hysterical how... (Below threshold)

I think it's hysterical how you people can't admit mistakes. Just like Shrub, when asked if he could think of a single mistake that he made in his first term, 'uh....no..i just cant think of any"...what a joke. The complicity of the White House staff is exposed by allowing hookers into the White House, and you say nothing.

What is it with conservatives and not being able to admit a mistake? I think it's laughable and pathetic at the same time.

Try considering this, you l... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Try considering this, you liberals-overtly-fascinated-with-Gannon/Guckert's-sexual-history:

Start from the most offensive place and work forward, as in, just consider the possibility that Gannon/Guckert WAS "a gay prostitute" but that he rejected those behaviors and changed.

Maybe he changed. Maybe he rounded a corner in his person, changed his outlook and more, and became someone no longer any of that, or some of that, or gradually began, at least, to change away from behaviors he began rejecting, toward others.

It's possible. IF all the worst can be true, than so can all the alternatives. Maybe the guy wandered into behaviors he later modified, maybe he made changes, is all I am suggesting, and found other ideologies more acceptable and other behaviors preferable to earlier.

It's as plausible as anything.

About the varous domain names that Gannon (?) registered (?), he COULD have done so to avoid them being used for pornographic purposes. He didn't deploy/put into use those domains, from what I've read, so, they remain registered (but it's still not decided that Gannon/Guckert actually registered them, last I read, just that they're all pointed to the same host or something close to that). So, perhaps they were purchased, then parked unused to avoid pornographic use of those domain names.

It's as possible as anything. For instance, if someone registered "OnTheBillWithDickAndSteve" and then just parked that domain, unused, to protect the integrity of a domain named "OnTheBill", then it wouldn't automatically mean that "OnTheBill" was a pornographer. Just that he/she/it wanted to avoid a pornographic rendition of "OnTheBill."

Although I don't know why, nor am I attempting to guess as to reasons/motives why "OnTheBill" would even want to distinguish one from the other.

Perhaps Gannon/Guckert, others, had reason to prevent pornographic interpretations of their idenmtities, I don't know, but all I am suggesting here is that it is quite possible that whoever purchased whatever domain names didn't do so for purposes of creating pornography, but of preventing it.

It's worth considering.

Gannon/Guckert in his underware is not an uncommon thing. I've seen several males in their underwear, can't say I concluded that that meant they were "gay."

Another possibility is phis... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Another possibility is phishing.

Just like a certain male of certain notoriety can and does maintain a website under a female personna for purposes of soliciting and gaining a high volume of very eager, willing males as readers/site visitors, anyone can pose as anything given certain motives inorder to gather whatever they chose, as long as it's not of the illegal kind.

Immoral, yes, but there are certain behaviors by certain groups for certain reasons that fulfills a more compensating morality, under certain conditions. The issue of pornography alone is a very serious one and certainly one that some interests on behalf of the public need to keep an eye on. So, there are more layers to the trifle here than may immediately meet the liberal need to gossip to death anyone and everyone about who is gay and who isn't.

So, I see now OnTheBill has... (Below threshold)
-S-:

So, I see now OnTheBill has resorted to the liberal standard of insulting all conservatives ("you people"). Hey, we're THE PEOPLE, OhTheBill, so deal with it. I think you've run out of rationalizations.

It doesn't have to do with ... (Below threshold)
Jay:

It doesn't have to do with the fact he is gay. A whore is a whore.

-S-, this is by far the bes... (Below threshold)

-S-, this is by far the best comments I've heard ...I actually laughed out loud when I read them...

"Perhaps Gannon/Guckert, others, had reason to prevent pornographic interpretations of their idenmtities, I don't know, but all I am suggesting here is that it is quite possible that whoever purchased whatever domain names didn't do so for purposes of creating pornography, but of preventing it."

Did you actually see the pictures of him? This line of reasoning is HYSTERICAL! You're assumption that "well he had porno pictures of himself, but....he really wasn't INTENDING on using them" is tantamount to "well officer, I really wasn't going to USE that crackpipe, its only in my car for decorative purposes"...GANNON is the one who registered the sites, GANNON is the guy who posted nude pictures of him sprawled out for the world to see, GANNON is the one who the secret service let in to the White House, 10 feet away from POTUS, GANNON is the one who had the Valerie Plume documents, and here we go with the conservative "MORAL MAJORITY" republicans trying now to DEFEND the hooker, and saying "well..he really didnt' MEAN to post those pictures of him urinating"

S, you outdid yourself on that last post. Keep them coming, maybe you can find some WMD in Iraq in your next comments. LOL

GANNON is the guy who po... (Below threshold)
julie:

GANNON is the guy who posted nude pictures of him sprawled out for the world to see

Admit it, Bill. It gave you a stiffy.

OhTheBill: I was going to ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

OhTheBill: I was going to write here that I can understand your perspective, although I don't, at all, reason as you do and have; however, I just read through your attempts ongoing to ridicule me and others based upon your own allegations and misperceptions that "morality" among others means there's something there for you to denigrate.

So, no, I now do not understand your perspective, in any compassionate sense. I understand your defective approach toward logic in this issue, I don't understand your emotional negativity toward and about your incorrect assumptions about what others are, as per your own prejudice, supposed to think, feel, assume and opine.

That is, you are a prejudicial thinker. You "reason" by way of subjective emotional, and quite negative, assumptions about other types of human beings and behaviors that you have no first hand compassion about and/or for.

Therefore, what and how you express what you've focused on here, earlier, is, in fact, an insight into how a certain frenzy is obtained and maintained by prejudice based upon false assumptions about others as categorizing certain sets of behaviors, types, characteristics.

Which is prejudice. You categorize discrimination in your very words and approach to this issue, with your use of this issue to vent your prejudicial perspectives.

I've just now finished reading that download that Wizbang made available of that website content that's since been deleted (and I've deleted it from my harddrive after reading it so won't be able to engage in any cut'n'paste references to the information, if not conjecture, that that site provided), and see that there's a bit of history about Gannon that I hadn't earlier read in quite so many words (read references to the key aspects, however), and here's what I concluded after reading that website, that information, and your comments:

there's "moral outrage" by homosexuals and comingled otherwise liberals that Gannon gained a Press Pass to the WH while being, in their/your vernacular, "a whore," while you're therefore "outraged" because of that because that "whore" (again, liberal tag for Gannon, based upon reading that website, downloaded, since deleted, also now deleted from the internet in it's original, I see) being "a whore" but also declaring as "a conservative" while Republicans and the Bush Administration refuted "gay marriage."

So, you conclude that this one fellow is worthy of being denigrated and ruined because there's an unproven assumption that he is "a whore" (find the people who paid him to engage in sexual acts and then I'll rethink this) and that because "a whore" is a Republican, and because Republicans refuted "gay marriage," that all Republicans are "hypocrites."

Close enough synopsis, yes? You've tried to include the Valerie Plame situation but that's already been largely discounted by Gannon and others and until something else appears that correlates the parties, it is still conjecture.

And, there are many millions of other Americans who are not Republicans who also "reject 'gay marriage'" so it's not necessarily some Republican thing. Even Howard Dean said yesterday and the day before that he "never endorsed gay marriage" so...the attempts to make this a problem of and about "Republicans" is still tenuous at best, if at all.

I'm going to repeat this: human beings change their behaviors and beliefs all the time. Most who survive over longer periods of time than do others are known to be even moreso flexible than others. Meaning, people can and do engage in lifestyles at certain times of their existence that they later abandon, even revile, and replace with other beliefs and other behaviors.

Even IF this Gannon fellow WAS ever "a whore," based upon the conjecture some have attempted to proliferate about him after viewing a website he designed (I think that's the story), is there evidence that Gannon is NOW "a whore"?

Is he or has he recently engaged in sexual activity for which he's been paid? That is something, yes, to consider in relationship to his character, but it's still speculative unless there's current evidence of him doing so.

That he gained White House access as a journalist is still not a huge deal to many based upon who else has also, likewise, gained similar access and how...look over the others present, expose their sexual behaviors and web activities throughout their adult lifetimes and then come back here and complain about Gannon if you find that out of the entire bunch examined, you've found nothing of any note in their pasts and/or presents.

I am not finding any prostitution references admirable about Gannon, whatever, whoever he is. I'm just saying that he's one individual, that the entire line of assault upon him so far, to my read, is conjecture. I agree that there is smoke there (that website is awful that he supposedly designed, in design and theme), but I have no idea as to whether or not the website he supposedly designed and was pictured on represented any fantasy versus reality and what, if any, reality resulted.

Again, anyone can create and host whatever website they want to. There are millions of false pretenses and identities on the internet and to capture pornography and sexual predators, it's necessary to first find them. You find them by posing a lure. If you want to catch ducks, you go where the ducks are.

That's my only point. There's nothing approaching ridiculous in what I just wrote. However, the liberal community on the attack about Gannon are doing so based upon a smear tactic: it's called, "find the homosexual and expose him if he's a conservative" and it makes no sense to anyone except people who have, themselves, a problem with homosexuality of an undisclosed sort.

BUT, the issue again comes back to, as it has on sites and about issues time and time again, by liberals, about "gay marriage." You wage some social war of demeanment about others with some demand that your needs proceed, that the feelings and opinions and ideologies of others be humiliated, demeaned, and yet you anticipate that that'll garner beneficial energy.

As Wizbang originally pointed out, it's no way to organize support for your party/Party. All it does is further convince others to run the other direction.

Conservatives aren't inherently "hypocrites." There are millions of us who are not. One person does not a hypocrisy make but so far, liberals continue to attempt to embarass others based upon their private lives based upon behaviors that liberals consider just fine and dandy. Again, I write, where's the outrage?

Another thing: that "whore... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Another thing: that "whore" aspect to the homosexual community, particularly among males, is more common than not. Promiscuity, from what i understand over a long period of time of hearing about how and what gay males do and why, promiscuity is pretty much a way of life for most, if not desirable. Even among dedicated pairs, they still consider promiscuity an aspect of their "lifestyle."

So, in that context, IF Gannon's past activities were actual and not theatrical, as represented on that website, and IF he's, then and therefore, "a whore" to liberals, then, therefore, to "whore" is an aspect of many male homosexuals.

Look, those aren't my opinions, I am just trying to follow the overall logic of this issue, as written and perpetuated by liberals based upon Gannon's supposed homosexuality at some time in his past (present isn't established, perhaps should not be due to concerns of privacy), Gannon's supposed homosexuality equates with him being "a whore" and the lifestyle practices he promoted are relatively common to many male homosexuals, therefore, to follow the logic, male homosexuals are "whores."

I mean, clarify that. I'm just saying that Gannon's supposed homosexual escort behavior, deemed to be representational by liberals as "a whore," is more common than not among male homosexuals, among which many enjoy promiscuity as an aspect of that lifestyle choice.

So, perhaps liberals should define what and who "a whore" is and is not...because, the feigned moral outrage that is using Gannon as fodder to fan the social flames seems quite empty in passion.

Hey lefties, is that your f... (Below threshold)

Hey lefties, is that your fax machine I hear going off? That fella in Abilene has your next storyline ready. Run. RUN! Get it while it's hot!

Well -S- shows how little h... (Below threshold)

Well -S- shows how little he understands the gay aspect of this story by referring to homosexuality as a "choice".

I define "whore" as a person who trades money for sex. As in the sex business that Gannon has been caught red handed in.

As for this:"Even among dedicated pairs, they still consider promiscuity an aspect of their "lifestyle."

Could you be any more offensive? "Even emong dedicated pairs?" Who are you to speak about dedicated partners? Are you a psychologist? Or just a conservative who thinks he has the "411" on the gay community. This is by far the most irrational thing you've said.

You can try to generalize behaviors of the gay community, you can try to call us (us being gay men, I am included in that statement) whatever names you want, or generalize whatever behavior you think we show, but the fact remains that GAY or STRAIGHT, a person who exchanges money for sex is a WHORE.

Straight people are whores to, and the inference that all gay people are whores, or that somehow we accept that behavior as acceptable is ludicrous.

-S- says:Close eno... (Below threshold)

-S- says:

Close enough synopsis, yes? ....UH NO, not at all.

You've tried to include the Valerie Plame situation but that's already been largely discounted by Gannon and others and until something else appears that correlates the parties, it is still conjecture.

Did you not read the press release from the House Democratic Whip saying "“Valid questions are being raised regarding the Bush White House’s relationship with James Guckert, also known as “Jeff Gannon,” and his access to documents that revealed the identity of Undercover CIA Operative Valerie Plame."

those are not my words, I didn't somehow "make up" the Valier Plame angle of the story, it was, and has been part of the orignial story by John Aravosis of Americablog.com. Maybe you should research the original story before you start accusing me of inventing this. This whole exchange is hysterical.

Looks like I'm a bit late f... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Looks like I'm a bit late for this one...

Paul wrote:

If you want to make the case that yours is the tolerant party and the Republicans are intolerant, spending a week in a gay bashing free for all probably is not the best way to make the point.

Hell must have just frozen over. Paul I completely agree with you on this entire post.

There may be some issues with Gannon, but the ones that would be the most important dont really have any proof behind them, and are basically nothing more than conjecture.

Whats left? It appears that Gannon may have been an inexperienced journalist who had access to the WH and asked lame questions....

The character assassination that has gone on has been completely out of line, apalling, and yes, hypocritical on the part of some blogs that I have seen. I have heard arguments about using any and all means to bring people down, and I completely disagree with that thinking. Dragging Gannon through the mud like that was completely wrong.

I have no problem with people who are continuing to investigate other leads, and maybe they will come across evidence that is worth considering. Maybe the guy did have access to classified documents, and maybe he's associated with the whole Plume ordeal. Maybe. I'll consider that when/if something more substantial comes up.

Did you not read the pre... (Below threshold)
julie:

Did you not read the press release from the House Democratic Whip saying "“Valid questions are being raised regarding the Bush White House’s relationship with James Guckert, also known as “Jeff Gannon,” and his access to documents that revealed the identity of Undercover CIA Operative Valerie Plame."

And, again, where's the proof? Just writing "and his access to documents...." is not proof.

All sexual activity is choi... (Below threshold)
-S-:

All sexual activity is choice, InTheBill, unless it's forcible and you're the victim.

However, you need to get over the psychology of homosexuality as inevitable compulsion, despite the sparkly contemporary pop psychology, otherwise, then, accept the whole ball o' New Age Occultism because the whole "I can't change" thing is an indication that there's no motivation to change.

However, I knew -- KNEW, as in, was certain -- that you would continue to misunderstand what(ever) I expressed since you long ago motivated over into what I later concluded was your original and only point in and about this issue (and doesn't Gannon provide you with the tool to do just that) and that was to solicit and engage in any public debate possible about the nature of homosexuality and an interpretation of morality that provides you with your misperceptions about everyone else.

You are a great example of someone who needs prejudice to even communicate. The thing with many contemporary prejudicial sets, however, is that they rely on the support of others of the same prejudicial mindsets inorder to continue. You feel comfortable in your prejudice because you assume it's well supported.

But, prejudice is prejudice, whether it's popular or not. And you're prejudiced.

Was there something else you needed to add here about your "lack of choice" and various impending destinations and behaviors that you have no control over, cannot change even if you wanted to, and are destined to become, regardless? Compulsions are like that, they mislead you into assuming that you lack all control over certain behaviors. You can be free. Recognize that and you'll start to be.

"Choice": isn't that a liberal term? Whatever happened to respecting individual choice, anyway?

OnTheBill:But Gann... (Below threshold)
-S-:

OnTheBill:

But Gannon hasn't been EVIDENCE TO HAVE TAKEN MONEY FOR 'SEX'. That's where you and yours make among other huge leaps of conjecture (actually, lies is more accurate unless you are aware of exchanges by Gannon for profit with sexual activity as product offered and delivered). Gannon pictured in his underware and designing a website with naked males exposing themselves does not "a whore" and/or prostitution make.

You define "a whore" in the same way I did earlier. And yet the very thousands of nasties about Gannon (and, let's see, several other Republicans in the Bush Administration described in quite explicit terms and situations similarly, all of which are pretty nasty lies being made by what appear to be insane liberals based in and about homosexual themes, some of which are prostitution based but most of which are simply homosexual scenarios) are again and again, just fantasies run amok by others.

If Gannon is "a whore" for designing a very bad website, then there are many more "whore(s)" for you and your liberal buds to go and get.

So, you suggest, if we follow your logic, that bad website design is evidence of someone being "a whore"? No, then where's the evidence that Gannon did anything other than design a bad website? Because, so far, I don't find that in anyone's story.

Even the other nasty stuff -- you couldn't resist trying to smear from your own imagination Ken Mehlman -- is simply conjecture from the source, indicates a bad source, is what I mean, not a bad subject.

No, YOU raised the issue of Valerie Plame, I didn't. You earlier on referred to some outrage factor about Gannon as being somehow covertly involved in that, and that because he's "a whore" that that's outrageous that he was allowed to so operate, whatever.

That's complete nonsense. At this point, the only point you've made is that you have no point other than you think you need to continue to address comments to me and quote parts of my comments. Why, I have no idea.

If and when you actually have a point, please return and explain what it is. Otherwise, you continue to prove that this entire thing about Gannon to liberals is really all about "homosexuality" and violating an individual's privacy and credibility just to be destructive. No? Then why are there so many hundreds of thousands of words by this point that communicate nothing else?


And, OnTheBill, you needn't... (Below threshold)
-S-:

And, OnTheBill, you needn't share your sexual orientation as being a gay male. I knew it with your first comments based upon what you wrote and why, why you're so involved in this issue...

Of course, OF COURSE, heterosexuals can also be involved in prostitution. Did I suggest otherwise? No, I didn't.

I didn't generalize about homosexuals but you sure have. As a "gay male," you evidence more prejudice about homosexuals than most any heterosexual I have ever read or heard.

A well recognized fact, by the way, by nearly everyone else.

It's not a generalization to discuss behaviors. It's not racist to discuss racial issues. It's not negative of any defect to discuss other human activities and conditions. Unfortunately, the whole gay thing has been clamped down in fear BY homosexuals about homosexuals, such that there is an end to reasonable discussion about differences and issues and it's brought about BY homosexuals, not by hetereosexuals.

AT this point, most of us are very tired of even reading about the ongoing insistence by homosexuals that their homosexuality be the forefront of discussions. I know I am...

Gannon's a gay male only so much as liberals need him to be, and you appear to have manufactured yet another issue using Gannon to flame those fires such that you can continue making "homosexuality" some forefront discussion.

In other words, WHATEVER Gannon's sexual behaviors are, were or will be is his business. I have yet to read how another stranger's sexual relationships have anything to do with you or the many other strange liberals jumping on this guy. Oh, yeah, "he's a whore" so that means you can and should jump on him.

Let's seee, homosexuals deem harrassment of them as bad, and yet you don't hesitate to harass someone else? What did I miss there? Gannon's presumed to be "gay" so that means he can be harassed...by...other gays? What?

But, yes, the promiscuity factor of most among gay males is a well known and highly visible thing. I'm sure if you were honest with others, you'd agree with that.

-S- writes:Howeve... (Below threshold)

-S- writes:
However, you need to get over the psychology of homosexuality as inevitable compulsion, despite the sparkly contemporary pop psychology, otherwise, then, accept the whole ball o' New Age Occultism because the whole "I can't change" thing is an indication that there's no motivation to change.

This is laughable as much as it is insulting.

Orientation is not a choice. Yes, sexual behavior is a choice, but orientation is not. You're confusing two completely seperate issues (as many bigots do.) If we went through with your line of thinking, then you could go ahead and "change" and be gay if you so deemed, but I gather that's not a choice you'd like to make.

But, yes, the promiscuity factor of most among gay males is a well known and highly visible thing. I'm sure if you were honest with others, you'd agree with that.

As soon as you wrap every person into one group, "gay males" or "blacks" or "asians" or whatever group you choose, your arguments lack validity. Whether you choose to believe me or not, I am not a promiscious gay male. And I am honest with myself and all others, so your logic is completely wrong. Generalizations don't get us anywhere, and to both of our dismay, labels like "liberal" and "conservative" don't do anyone justice. I'll conceed that I'm guilty of labeling you a conservative jerkoff, but you're just as guilty of labeling me a promiscuous gay male. NOBODY is in the right, not me, not you. So why don't we just BOTH dispense with the sweeping generalizations, eh?

OhTheBill, have they isolat... (Below threshold)

OhTheBill, have they isolated a homosexual/heterosexual gene sequence?

re the Valier Plame thread ... (Below threshold)

re the Valier Plame thread and how and if Gannon had access: The New York Timess explains this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/politics/11gannon.html?oref=login

Mr. Guckert said in a March 2004 interview with his own news service, in which he was referred to as Mr. Gannon, that the classified document had been "easily accessible." The two Democrats questioned how a person with "dubious qualifications" had access to such a document. The Democrats also wrote to the Secret Service seeking an explanation of how someone using a pseudonym was cleared to enter the White House daily press briefings as well as a presidential news conference last month. They said in their letter that allowing such a person in "appears to deviate significantly from heightened security measures you have employed recently."

You've been played – again!... (Below threshold)
julie:

You've been played – again!

He didn't say it was "easily accessible" to him, let alone accessible to him at all. Gannon statements appear intentionally vague. The same people who point to his ambiguous phrasing and call it a smoking gun, also accuse him of lying about everything else. It's pick and choose. Print phrases and not the entire interview. Ignore the fact that the FBI never laid a supeona on him.

You call him a poseur, a big lying fraud about his entire life, yet you want some ambiguous phrase he utters to be viewed as evidence of some sort of nefarious plot. You say believe this -- but everything else is a lie!

Dance!

At first I thought Gannon w... (Below threshold)
mantis:

At first I thought Gannon was worth investigating for the Plame deal and possibly closer relationship with the WH than is apparent, but the sex crap has made it all very distasteful. However, I do like how -S- reveals his attitudes towards gays with comments like this:

that "whore" aspect to the homosexual community, particularly among males, is more common than not.
and this:
I'm just saying that Gannon's supposed homosexual escort behavior, deemed to be representational by liberals as "a whore," is more common than not among male homosexuals,

Ah, yes. More gay people prostitute themselves than do not. I think it's safe to assume -S- doesn't know many gay people.

- The salivating pack of ya... (Below threshold)

- The salivating pack of yapping dogs on the asshat left "NEED" every controversy concerning conservatives they can "Find, fabricate, hullicinate" desperately... You probably would too if you were on such a roll of losing propositions as they are....

- At this point they've thrown all caution to the winds and will use any tactic they can to attack.... Most be an awful feeling to no you're a loser in a losing battle....

- Personally it looks like whats really got their panties in a bunch over Gannon is the fact that he was taking up a seat at the press gaggles that a good fair and balanced ravenously partisan liberal "journalist" could have been occupying so that the usual lefty meme's concerning WMD's could be asked for the 10,000 time....

- Ok... We really do know the leftturd peacniks are scared shitless of being drafted.... We get it already. Maybe if we just give all the liberal cowards a "draft avoidence" card they'd shut up already.....

<a href="http://digbysblog.... (Below threshold)

Read this

"Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in the middle of the family values White House living room"

We have a man whose biggest cheers on the campaign trail in 2000 were when he would solemnly swear that he would "bring honor and integrity back to the White House" --- and everybody knew very well that he was talking about fellatio in the oval office. After his recent reelection in 2004, stories abounded about how the issues of moral values, the impact of evangelical Christians and, most importantly, the movement to allow gays to marry had tipped the balance in what was a very close election. Now we find out that a conservative gay male prostitute was given highly unusual access to that same family values white house. There isn't a story there?

- In the same vein that the... (Below threshold)

- In the same vein that theres a "story" in the fact that liberal journalists outnumber conservatives 4 to 1 on the major US newspaper staffs.... Yes a story but hardly front page 60 pt font news... On the other hand if Gannon is implicated in the Plame leak that would be a horse of a different color.... but even before you get to him why isn't Movak being subpeonied.... thats an even bigger question....

- Novak that is....... (Below threshold)

- Novak that is....

Pay no attention to the ... (Below threshold)
julie:

Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in the middle of the family values White House living room"

Hallucinating again? Admit, it. You're hot for Cannon.

We have a man whose biggest cheers on the campaign trail in 2000 were when he would solemnly swear that he would "bring honor and integrity back to the White House" —

And he did.

and everybody knew very well that he was talking about fellatio in the oval office.

It was a start.

After his recent reelection in 2004, stories abounded about how the issues of moral values, the impact of evangelical Christians and, most importantly, the movement to allow gays to marry had tipped the balance in what was a very close election.

Stories abounded by the left because they thought they could use it to disparage the people who voted for Bush. In a questionnaire that was meant to skew, ie, single issues vs. a question that covers multiple issues, moral values received 22%. And no, it was not a close election. Even with the media on your side, a fat cat like Soros, the Hollywood idiots, and that pig Moore, you still lost.

Now we find out that a conservative gay male prostitute was given highly unusual access to that same family values white house. There isn't a story there?

He attended some press briefings. Story? Yeah, how once again the left will lie and misrepresent anything.

LOL, this may be the most l... (Below threshold)

LOL, this may be the most ludicrous post yet...Julie wins the prize.

Returning integrity to the White House. Hmm...let's see about that, he never really won the election the first time, started a war that was based on complete lies and fabrications, allowed his subordinates to allow American soldiers to torture prisoners of war. Ya that is returning the integrity of the office.

you people should start your own talk show or something, your totally inane and divorced from reality. Julie's post proves it.

I had a pithy response for ... (Below threshold)
julie:

I had a pithy response for you, but I've changed my mind. Who am I to talk you out of your many delusions? It must be frustrating to be you, Bill -- always a loser, people laughing at you, refusing to take you and your b.s. seriously. But, hey! I really don't give a shit!

p.s. - Gannon who? Haaaaaaa... (Below threshold)
julie:

p.s. - Gannon who? Haaaaaaaaaaaaa!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy