« Eason vs Gannon | Main | Comments »

Meanwhile...

The liberal blogs picking over Jeff Gannon/Guckert's carcass apparently have some supposedly groundbreaking news due at some unspecified time. AMERICABlog hints that matching watches (here) and a long retired domain (and other un-presented evidence) means Gannon is toast. The problem is he's already quit, how much more of his sex life needs to be exposed?

From all indications it's simply more gay porn info, or ties to a gay sex ring from the 80's, etc...

Update: The big story is out (NSFW pictures), and shockingly it's about gay sex... I'm sure John Aravosis' mom is extra special proud of him today...

Read the conclusion section, and see how Aravosis argues that the fact that someone may be privately gay should disqualify them from access to the White House, and this is far worse that Presidents banging interns or mistresses. Aravosis make the logically flawed leap that a reporter from a private organization has something to do with the White House, whereupon he drudges up all manner of hare-brained conspiracies. Apparently Aravosis has forgotten the recent speculation about Abraham Lincoln who it was argued is gay.

Aravosis clearly lives in a land of distorted reality if he thinks that the background checks performed on reporters are of the classified variety. If that were the case there are plenty of reporter who wouldn't be allowed in the door. In a time long, long ago sexual preference might have been enough to deny a security clearance, but to my knowledge those days are past. Most likely the reporters are subject to a criminal background check and that's about it. Given that Gannon likely had a security clearance from prior military service he wouldn't have merited any special scrutiny.

Could it be that Aravosis (and by extension Kos, Atrios, and Media Matters) are arguing that the government should conduct exhaustive background investigations on White House reporters? It sure sounds like it... That's a slippery slope I doubt any journalists wants to visit...

At the end of the day, what's on display here is the hypocrisy of those who profess progressiveness, yet revel in "sexually outing" conservatives.

Note: The update link is very busy, and often can't be loaded. A PDF version of the page is available here and here.

Update 2: Heaven help you if you're a Republican male in DC tonight. Showing extraordinary powers of psychic abilities this Raw Story piece attempts to tie Gannon/Guckert to any administration official who has ever been rumored to be gay. Scott McClellan and Ken Mehlman are mentioned in the piece and just about anyone else you can think of (including the President) are mentioned in the comments. But it's really NOT about outing gay Republicans...


Elsewhere:

Jeff Goldstein - CITIZEN JOURNALISTS! We want MORE GAY WITCH HUNTING! THE FUTURE OF THE REPUBLIC DEPENDS UPON IT!

Bill Ardolino analyizes the outing.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Meanwhile...:

» Secure Liberty linked with More On Jeff Gannon

» INDC Journal linked with Gannonapolooza Update (UPDATED)

» CollegePundit linked with Circling 'round the Moat

» The Moderate Voice linked with Major New Allegations In Jeff Gannon Controversy

» Andrew Olmsted dot com linked with They Just Can't Help Themselves

» Spartac.us linked with Rough Trade

Comments (52)

I guess since they have an ... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

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 Kinse... (Below threshold)
mantis:

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

OT: Here's a real hatchet j... (Below threshold)
Palmateer:

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 rule... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

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 rea... (Below threshold)
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?"

So the best way to battle h... (Below threshold)
mantis:

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'... (Below threshold)

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... (Below threshold)
mantis:

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... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

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, h... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

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 a... (Below threshold)

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 [email protected] [email protected] (Deliberate misspellings, there.)

I've read that Gannon had n... (Below threshold)

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 sa... (Below threshold)

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

Kos is obviously still so h... (Below threshold)
Julia:

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. ... (Below threshold)

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

The whole Gannon homosexual... (Below threshold)
Ray Midge:

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 lea... (Below threshold)

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 thin... (Below threshold)
capt joe:

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... (Below threshold)
jim:

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:Ther... (Below threshold)
Ray Midge:

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 y... (Below threshold)
capt joe:

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 America... (Below threshold)

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 h... (Below threshold)

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 ma... (Below threshold)
capt joe:

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

neat

The link in the update does... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

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 y... (Below threshold)
Red Five:

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 gue... (Below threshold)

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 abo... (Below threshold)

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 ... (Below threshold)
Ray Midge:

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 idio... (Below threshold)
lowellen:

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 i... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"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 ... (Below threshold)

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 ex... (Below threshold)

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.

You have to wonder if the m... (Below threshold)

You have to wonder if the moonbats are actually disappointed that Gannon/Guckert was allowed (for whatever reason) access to the White House. Think about what they'd be whining about now if he hadn't:

"Bush didn't allow him in because he is gay! See? You can't be gay and Republican and expect Bush to back you!"

With moonbats, everything is a lose-lose scenario with President Bush.

Aravosis seems to have done... (Below threshold)
jeff:

Aravosis seems to have done some pretty thorough vetting of gay porn sites. I'd say that 'research' was good for a whole tub of lube

Kos' ambition and recent st... (Below threshold)
foreign devil:

Kos' ambition and recent string of losses have driven him to find an issue (any issue) and it happens to be this poor guy Gannon. He's entitled to a private life and Kos has just eviscerated him. I'd be curious to know what's in Kos' own past that he's so hung up on gays. This is not the first time he's gone a bit strange about that issue and I strongly suspect Kos might have gay leanings which he's unaware of or resisting and he's doing the classic 'closet' trip of coming down hard on those they've 'outed'. Whatever, he's doing a real hatchet job on this poor guy that no one's ever heard of. That's the only blessing; the guy's as anonymous today as he was before this. But what's chilling is the way Kos is going at it.

And what is it with the liberal left. I thought they were all for others "rights" and being caring and sharing. So how come they come down hard on anyone who has any hint of gayness in their background. How is it the left has a double standard but they expect others to be tolerant? How can they complain about someone's gay associations when we're all supposed to be tolerant of the gay lifestyle. Isn't it?

I think Foregin Devil has a... (Below threshold)
Ray Midge:

I think Foregin Devil has a lot of the motivation of the left correct on this one. They want their scalp. They've seen the right rack up "victories" and they want one so back too, why, they'll screw over their own principles to get it. But I think there's somehting deeper too.

We all recognize on some level there there can exist evil so profound, that it's destruciton, regardless of loss of innocents, or whatever otherwise deeply held conviction of ours we must strangle in its sleep to overcome that monumental evil is worth it. I used this analogy on another blog, but I'll repeat it here.

What would we all be willing to do, what hypocrites would we be willing to become, to destroy Hitler, knowing his true nature, in 1939?

The left is willing to stop at nothing, murder their own conscience, because as we all know, Bush=Hitler. The cause is just too great for non-wartime morality.

Otherwise decent people have become willing to destroy a man using means that violate their own deeply held principles, because they live in the world of a fever swamp, excusing themselves, saying that it's the right wing bigotry that is destoying the lives of these Nazi's. After all, their hands are bloodless. They didn't pull the trigger, the only gave the bullets.... and maybe put the gun against his head... and only cocked the trigger. But THAT's ALL.

Anyway, if a few principles or people have to get lined up against the wall, well... it's wartime after all!.

To many on the Left the ul... (Below threshold)
Peter:

To many on the Left the ultimate crime is hypocracy. It's a thought trap of theirs. It goes like this...
I have some standards and beliefs about my behavior, as well as what I consider acceptable behavior around me, more importantly around my children. Since my standards are fairly high I sometimes fail to live up to them. Therefore, according to the folks proudly waving this bald scalp in the air, I have no right to have standards, or political opinions, for that matter. After all, I'm a hypocrite.
It's also a very handy dodge, if hypocracy is the ultimate crime then any and all behavior is permitted, no matter how detrimental to self or society. No one is allowed to object to behavior unless (s)he is either perfect or sets standards so low that it is impossible to fail to meet them. Since there is no one living today that is perfect and there is much dispute over the the claims about the One Perfect Son, the only permitted objection to behavior, in some circles, comes from the Left.
Me? Of course I'm a hypocrite. I'm not the man I would like to be, my standards and my reaction when I fail to meet them at least force me in the direction I need to go. Without those standards I wouldn't even try.
Now, I care very little about the private life of others but I do have some major objections to SOME of the political agenda of the larger gay groups. According to the only-sin-is-hypocracy crowd I am not allowed those objections because I'm a dirty hypocrite. I have some serious objections to many other group's agendas, don't get me started on the AARP, even though I'm glad to take the old fart discount, though I refuse to join...after all, I have SOME standards.
It's almost a beautiful thing if one's goal is a brutish society.

What a bunch of bullshit!<b... (Below threshold)
Beth:

What a bunch of bullshit!
For one thing, Jeff Gannon is so minor-league, who really knew ANYTHING about him before this? I still don't care, because he was and is nobody.

The "Secret Service background checks" is a ridiculous argument--they do NOT have time to scour the internet looking for potential press pass recipients on gay porn sites. Give me a break! Do these people actually advocate investigating the sexual activities of every person with the potential of setting foot in the White House? Meanwhile, they're over there accusing half of the Executive Branch of --oh my God!-- homosexuality. Bullshit, and hypocritical.

Yet they call conservatives hypocrites because we're "all anti-gay". (News to me.)

Why the hell would anyone who gave Gannon access to anything have a clue about his sleazy p0rn business?

And HOW do they come up with a Valerie Plame connection? Is he a convenient scapegoat because he's been outed and because he is a known conservative? Jesus, it's not like he's the ONLY partisan in the press room (as said above, look at Helen Thomas, et. al.--although EVERYONE knows who Thomas is and Gannon used to be basically unrecognizable).

Stupid, stupid, stupid, and BORING.

If it weren't so petty, I'd think they made up the stupid screenshots, too. If not, SOMEONE sure put a lot of time online in the p0rn sites.

Every time I go to one of those lefty sites to see anything, I come out shaking my head at the hysteria and desperation. It's pathetic.

So if Gannon is a fake repo... (Below threshold)
liberalstastelikechicken:

So if Gannon is a fake reporter, and Talon news is a fake organization...how does his resignation amount to a hill of beans?

It amounts to NOTHING - p... (Below threshold)

It amounts to NOTHING - period. Any interest that would've been had in this subject has been squandered by playing up the gay angle as if its this big, huge deal. Instead of raising legitimate questions about the veracity of Gannon's press credentials, they instead harp endlessly on the fact that - ohmigod, he is totally gay and junk! It's pathetic.

Gob-smackingly vile, if you... (Below threshold)
OneDrummer:

Gob-smackingly vile, if you ask me.

Beth - Do these people a... (Below threshold)

Beth - Do these people actually advocate investigating the sexual activities of every person with the potential of setting foot in the White House?

They're disappointed and angry that the Bush administration isn't doing that. For 4 years, they've portrayed the administration as either wanting to do stuff like that or actually doing it.

If this story is as insigni... (Below threshold)
bob:

If this story is as insignificant as you say, why are all of you in such a tizzy over it? I sense fear...

Liberals have nothing witho... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Liberals have nothing without the "homosexual," "sexist," "worker" and the "racist" themes. They just have nothing at all without these issues.

However, among those issues, it's the "homosexual" theme that they use to denigrate themselves more than anyone, based upon ideology alone. They decry anyone and everything as being "hate speech" and/or "discrimination" to or about "gays" when/if ANYone writes/says/expresses ANYthing that doesn't cowtow the liberal memes associated with homosexuality, particularly and when there's some religious ideology associated to/with whoever expresses what.

The various legislations elsewhere (Canada, Netherlands, etc.) that slaps "hate speech" accusations on people who, say, cite religious ideology in opposition to homosexual behaviors, and more, these things are the ACTUAL FASCIST IDEOLOGY, not the religious expressions of others, but the punishing retorts that attempt to libel and embarrass the expressions of others.

This Gannon issue is another example of liberals making a non-issue, or trying to, into something it isn't. One individual who voted as a Republican, became employed as a journalist and later gained White House Press Corps. access who someone else accused of being "gay" is then made out to represent something else entirely.

The issue is so simple and is made to be so huge and complex that it seems that the liberal and homosexual community, if that's what it is, is only embarrassing themselves with beating this Gannon thing on and on.

It now appears to me just yet another attempt to make homosexuality a forefront issue of discussion when it is not for most and to belittle anyone/everyone else.

I'd say that it's another example of just how crazy many who associate with homosexuals appear to be based upon their own behaviors and perceptions, to many others. And that's not hate speech, that's biology, sociology, history and literature speaking.

It reminds me of the embarr... (Below threshold)
-S-:

It reminds me of the embarrassingly irrational intoning by former Governor Whosits in New Jersey, in his self pitying self identification as "I'm a gay American" as if THAT was his problem or made his problem a problem at all.

The guy had and has bad character. That he attemtps to assign bad character to being "a gay American" (as if it's cause and effect) is the opinion of him as "a gay American" and NOT the expression of anyone else.

He violated his marriage vows, engaged in various forms of sexual battery/harassment to and about others, used a publicly elected office to p.a.r.t.y.o.n, to put it bluntly, and then he wails on about him being "a gay American."

Oh, I guess that makes bad character and being caught having bad character alright. Otherwise, it makes it acceptable, per his allusion. I don't know, you decide.

Does Senator Barney Frank h... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Does Senator Barney Frank have an FBI clearance, of any sort?

He's gay, right?

Unlike Gannon, Senator Frank actually was captured in the practice of engaging in gay prostitution, by deed or association (details aren't relative to these comments of mine, just that it's a known fact as to Frank's parlayances, among which were certain criminal investigations [charges?] of the sexual kind).

He's gay, right?

He's a Senator, he's in the White House at certain times, right?

He's known to the FBI, certainly been investigated by them, right?

He's gay, right?

He has a live-in companion who is a known gay prostitute, right? Or at least, had, right?

Um, where's the outrage by Democrats? By Frank's "community"?

I STILL have an intuition, ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I STILL have an intuition, however, that this guy, Gannon/Guckert, was never a conservative, but a poser.

I think there's ample evidence to indicate this, that he was, to put it bluntly, engaging in a form of political party espionage. Whatever his motives were, I can't say, but it seems to me that his entire self representation was far too theatrical as "a conservative" to be believable.

I do note, however, that his "gay" affiliations and promotions and such occured PRIOR TO his positioning as "a conservative" on the internet and in the Press Corps. via TalonNews.

It's worth looking into for those who may still have any energy about this issue, and certainly to conservative media sources who want to exercise greater care about who they employ to do what and where and how.

I would have thought that G... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

I would have thought that Gannon couldn't be 'gay' as he's a Republican. In much the same way that Clarence Thomas isn't black and Condi Rice isn't a black woman.

The lefties really should provide a playbook so I'll know how to classify the players into their respective boxes and why it's suddenly bad to be gay.

bob - If this story is a... (Below threshold)

bob - If this story is as insignificant as you say, why are all of you in such a tizzy over it? I sense fear...

Get your senses checked. We don't care about the story itself. We care about what you liberals are trying to do with it. You're bashing this guy (which, as it has been pointed out many times, you'd never be doing if he were liberal himself) in a weak attempt to create your own Easongate or Rathergate. It's pathetic and stupid, and you all need to get over it and over yourselves.

I think the only fear you're smelling is your own.

I'd say that it's anothe... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I'd say that it's another example of just how crazy many who associate with homosexuals appear to be based upon their own behaviors and perceptions, to many others. And that's not hate speech, that's biology, sociology, history and literature speaking.

So wait, many who associate with homosexuals appear to be crazy, and that's biology, sociology, history, and literature? Sounds like -S- has some issues with them queers.

To the stupid, illitierate,... (Below threshold)
n:

To the stupid, illitierate, and uniformed S who commented about Barney Frank.... he's not a senator! Get your facts straight!




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]m

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