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

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 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 democrats that are salivating and ridiculing. Go drop in on their websites and tell them to delete posts.

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 ;-)

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 same thing:

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

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:

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

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 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 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 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.

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 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 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...

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 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 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 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 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 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 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:

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 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? 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 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 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 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 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 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.

I