« Honoring the greatest generation | Main | Truth and consequences »

Kurtz Makes It Official- Gannon Critics are Idiots

Kevin reported it a few days ago but now Kurtz has the story. The sum total of the Gannon nonsense is that there were naked pictures of him on the internet from years ago.

Jeff Gannon Admits Past 'Mistakes,' Berates Critics

Jeff Gannon, the former White House reporter whose naked pictures have appeared on a number of gay escort sites, says that he has "regrets" about his past but that White House officials knew nothing about his salacious activities.

"I've made mistakes in my past," he said yesterday. "Does my past mean I can't have a future? Does it disqualify me from being a journalist?"

Gannon chastised his critics, breaking a silence that began last week when liberal bloggers disclosed his real name, James Dale Guckert, and a Web page, which he paid for, featuring X-rated photos of himself. "Why would they be looking into a person's sexual history? Is that what we're going to do to reporters now? Is there some kind of litmus test for reporters? Is it right to hold someone's sexuality against them?"

It is only acceptable to use ones sexuality against someone if you are a liberal. A liberal can bash someone for being gay but if a conservative has the temerity to say that a family with a mother and a father is the best environment in which to raise a child, they are evil, bigoted hate-mongers. Doesn't everyone know the rules by now?

Dismissing speculation that he had a permanent White House press pass, which requires a full-blown FBI background check that usually takes months, Gannon said he could not get one because he was required to first get a pass from the Senate press gallery, which did not consider him to be working for a legitimate news organization. Instead, he said he was admitted on a day-to-day basis after supplying his real name, date of birth and Social Security number. He said he did not use a pseudonym to hide his past but because his real last name is hard to spell and pronounce.

Oh my gosh, he used a pseudonym! The horrors. Authors and reporters never do that!

This whole episode was the liberal blogosphere's version of a virtual shoe throwing. The lefty bloogers did little more than throw their shoes at Gannon while shrieking "You Lied! You Lied!"

Another proud moment in liberalism.


Comments (168)

you, kurtz, and gannon are ... (Below threshold)
dade:

you, kurtz, and gannon are confusing the issue. being gay isn't a problem. being a prostitute posing as a journalist in the white hour press is. how did that happen? can you explain it?

The "some" total? Looks li... (Below threshold)
Educated Moderate:

The "some" total? Looks like there are more idiots around than just the "Gannon idiots"...

How typical, if you can't a... (Below threshold)

How typical, if you can't address the points made in the post, find some grammar error to point out. I guess that allows you to ignore the utter hypocrisy of the team lefty blogs in their little circle-jerk over the Gannon story.

I think it's hilarious that... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

I think it's hilarious that conservative Gannon apologists keep saying he was "outed". The fact is, Gannon put up all of the websites that he used to pimp himself for everyone to see. I would hardly call pictures that you put into the public realm "private". Gannon isn't the central story, but rather an interesting sideshow illustrating the insulary nature of the Bush administration. They go to great lengths to innoculate themselves from criticism. This is just the tip of the iceberg. "Scratch a lie, catch a thief". (From "Ray")

Being a prostitute posing a... (Below threshold)
Adam:

Being a prostitute posing as a journalist? What the hell are you talking about?
He was one in his past, but as Gannon put it, does his past mistake mean that he shouldn't have a future, and that he was no longer qualified to be a journalist?
The whole thing is completely irrelevant to his career as a journalist, and was nothing but a blatant smear fest.

You neocons have missed the... (Below threshold)
John Libert:

You neocons have missed the point entirely. Liberals do not care that aka Gannon is homosexual -- only that he exemplifies administration and conservative hypocrisy regarding the issue of homosexual rights. The fact that he was able to gain access to White House press conferences with only questionable journalism credentials indicates that he had some inside connections in spite of his now known association with pornographic websites. The "newpaper" he worked for is known for their gay-bashing articles, yet he seems to lead a secret alternate private life. And his life would have remained private were it not for these ironies. After all -- IT'S THE HYPOCASY, STUPID!

Additionally, nobody is "ba... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

Additionally, nobody is "bashing" Gannon for being gay. They are mearly pointing out the hypocrisy of his political views. The real issue here is how Gannon got a never-ending series of daypasses to the white-house, when legitimate journalists are left out. I could care less that Gannon is gay, in fact, unlike so-called "conservatives", I want him afforded the same rights that every hetrosexual man and woman enjoy in this great country. Lastly, Gannon got into the white house originally as a member of the "news orginization" GOPusa, which is obviously not an "independent" news orginization. You apologists are really hypocritical. I guess it's only ok to be gay if you're a "conservative" eh?

I openly call for Gannon to... (Below threshold)
Joe:

I openly call for Gannon to be replaced with ANOTHER partisan rightwing shil - OR - or the immediate removal of all partisan leftwing shills. Let's end the hypocrisy.

"Additionally, nobody is "b... (Below threshold)
Joe:

"Additionally, nobody is "bashing" Gannon for being gay."

No, you just talk about it an AWFUL lot.

I for one do not care if he... (Below threshold)
Rob Hackney:

I for one do not care if he is a flaming fag or whatever.

Prostitution is something else entirely, and not the sort of person who I think the PRESIDENT should give the time of day too.

Adam asks above, as Jeff Ga... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

Adam asks above, as Jeff Gannon asked in his interview on CNN "should my past prevent me from having a future?" Perhaps some perspective would help answer this question. Should somebody who's served time in jail for petty crimes like smoking pot lose his future because of his past? Felons who've paid their price in jail aren't allowed to vote in this country and you can ask this question with a straight face? Of course your past is relevant. You can't commit a crime (isn't prostitution a crime?) and then try to wipe the slate clean the next day because you've "changed". There's something called consequences, and you pay them whether you're straight, gay, conservative or liberal...

I'm noticing a trend of lat... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I'm noticing a trend of late.

Every time libeals are exposed for the hypocritical moonbats they(most of them) are, people go nuts in the comments section trying to defend them...

Like I keep telling r.a. quit whining that light is being shown on them and try to clean up the mess on your side.

i'm sorry, i had the pictur... (Below threshold)
blue:

i'm sorry, i had the pictures of this man sent to me, and it made me sick. I believe if anyone repents, then they get a clean slate... but something is wrong with this guy. Suppose my son somehow came in contact with him... he would have no idea this man fights the demons of homosexuality. I think the president and his staff should keep men who engage in these acts, even if it is in their past, out of this White House. It makes our president look bad.

Nice work Paul, obfuscate t... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

Nice work Paul, obfuscate the real argument with some more liberal bashing generalizations that bear no relavence to the issue. Maybe you should take over Gannons spot in the press corps>..

Actually, the outing of Jef... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Actually, the outing of Jeff Gannon has revealed the answers to a number of puzzling questions that have dogged America for years. Did you know that:

Jeff Gannon sabotaged Apollo 13.

Jeff Gannon invented time shares.

Jeff Gannon beached the Exxon Valdez.

Jeff Gannon started global warming.

Jeff Gannon invented lint.

Jeff Gannon started the Fox News Channel.

Jeff Gannon outed Valerie Plame. (uh, sorry, that’s old news now)

Jeff Gannon forged 100,000 Bush ballots in Ohio.

Jeff Gannon stole the 2000 presidential election in Florida.

Katherine Harris is really Jeff Gannon.

Read more of this stunning expose here:
http://mikesnoise.typepad.com/noisepage/2005/02/the_ultimate_je.html

Hey Joe, there's nothing wr... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

Hey Joe, there's nothing wrong with being gay, and therefore, I have no trouble talking about it. Gayness is normal. Conservatives are the ones who have trouble talking about it. Gay Gay Gay! See? It's not that hard.

Hey Mike, Nice effort tryin... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

Hey Mike, Nice effort trying to downplay the importance of the Gannon story by making light of it. If only you had been so protective of someones right to privacy when the whole Monica L., Bill Clinton thing was going down (so to speak). A 40 million dollar inquisition that established nothing except for confirming that Slick Willy likes a nice BJ. I guess policing peoples sexuality is only ok if it's a liberal eh?

Jeff Gannon killed Yasser A... (Below threshold)
Puppy:

Jeff Gannon killed Yasser Arafat, and he gets a press pass?

Bottom line - gays should h... (Below threshold)

Bottom line - gays should have all the rights everyone else does, except the right to be politically conservative.

Nice try triticale, once ag... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

Nice try triticale, once again you pretend that the issue is gayness, rather than access. Just so you know, there are just as many gay conservatives as liberals. They just can't come out because they are afraid of the reprecussions. After all, who forced "Jeff" to resign from Talon News? Talon won't even talk about him now. I guess once his sexuallity was known, Talon had no more use for him given his newly disclosed "liability". Conservative won't touch him with a ten-foot pole now (or even an 8 inch one). You don't get it do you? Conservatives want to ammend the constitution to make Gannon a second class citizen. Being a gay conservative is like a black man joining the Klu Klux Klan. If all this whole issue does is force conservatives to look at gayness in a new light, then perhaps something good can come out of it.

Chadwig -- way to ignore th... (Below threshold)

Chadwig -- way to ignore the issue of Clinton's perjury. Stop buying into all the left's myths.

As for Gannon -- unless you have a record of him being convicted, be really, really, careful slinging around accusations of criminal activity.

Wow, Paul. You sure got 'e... (Below threshold)

Wow, Paul. You sure got 'em riled up for calling them on their shit.

If Gannon had been an ex-pothead, as Chadwig asks above, there is not a chance in hell anyone would have run with this pretend "story". What are they going to do? Show the guy sitting there with a doobie in his mouth? How exciting would that be?

There is exactly one reason they took hold of this thing: they done found theirselfs a FAYgit, his big ol' gawDAMN FAYGIT PECKER was a-hangin' out thar, and they gonna STRING his FAYGIT ASS UP.

The rednecks who did this are pretentious, self-righteous morons- the guys who substitute mob-feeding for thought. And the present attempts to rationalize this lynching are pathetically disingenuous.

Liberals have accused conse... (Below threshold)
delphi999:

Liberals have accused conservatives of being racist sexist homophobes for so long they actually believe it now. When Gannon turned out to be gay (if he is at this point I don’t even know what to think of this fiasco of a ‘scandal’) they seemed to expect all of the homophobic conservatives would realize their deep burning hatred for gays and reject him? So the libs run around saying ‘hey your boy Gannon is gaaaaay!’ and the response from most conservatives was something along the lines of, 'uhm… so what?’ Gannon used to be a male escort (I guess…?). Most conservatives, who understand all about repentance and forgiveness, agree with Gannon’s point that mistakes in the past do not mean he has to hide under a rock the rest of his life to atone for his past sins. This failure to live down to liberal stereotypes of conservatives course seems like hypocracy to the ‘open minded’ and ‘tolerant’ liberals who never ever stereotype vast groups of people.

Mike's "expose" (see above... (Below threshold)
Gill:

Mike's "expose" (see above) of all that Gannon-Guckert has ever revealed or done is a typical Rush-Limbaughian gambit that consists of nothing more that lies and hyperbole to serve the ignoble purpose of seeking to diminish by ridiculous comparison the wrong that has or is now taking place.

It is time to see through this intellectually fraudulent ploy.

Being a prostitute posin... (Below threshold)
dade:

Being a prostitute posing as a journalist?...
He was one in his past, but as Gannon put it, does his past mistake mean that he shouldn't have a future, and that he was no longer qualified to be a journalist?

the answer is yes, being a prostitute in the past should prevent him from being a journalist in the white house. why? you ask. Because a prostitute in the white house compromises everyone in the white house, in other words blackmail. Now when people in the white house defend him, are they defending him because they believe in his defence or are they affraid of something?

Jeff Gannon in the Washington Post article says he will still try to find work as a journalist. Do you think the white house would let him back in if he asked? Do you think he should be let back in?
if you are correct in your assessment that people's past (even if it's by 3 months) should remain in the past then i gess the answer is yes.

a different question. had it been a female prostitue would people's reaction have been different? how?

"Of course your past is rel... (Below threshold)
Adam:

"Of course your past is relevant. You can't commit a crime (isn't prostitution a crime?) and then try to wipe the slate clean the next day because you've "changed". There's something called consequences, and you pay them whether you're straight, gay, conservative or liberal..."

But particularly if you're conservative, and particularly if you can use it to make some ironic statement about the administration's hypocrisy.

Of course, giving a conservative writer access to more things than some, when it turns out that the writer was once a gay prostitute, makes the anti-gay marriage Bush administration hypocrites.

Give me a break. If this was about legal consequences, someone would have reported this to the police. This isn't about consequences--this is about attacking someone who you dissaprove of.

For those of us who are not against gay rights, but also voted for Bush, the hypocrisy here is not quite so obvious--at least, not on Bush's side.

Homosexuality isn't dirty unless it can be used against your opponents, right?

Gannon isn't the central... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Gannon isn't the central story, but rather an interesting sideshow...
The sideshow is trivial and not interesting in the least except to those that are easily redirected from pertinent issues. Worse still, hacks use the trivial issue, unjustly, to attract attention to the perceived relevant issue yet fail to advance that issue beyond the trivial component. Kind of ironic.

"[I]nsulary nature of the Bush administration"? They permitted, no actively recruited and engaged according to the most vitriolic, a supposed gay man into their lair. Is this not antithetical, according to the Liberati, to the Conservative ideoology? How is this representative of insularism?

"They go to great lengths to innoculate themselves from criticism. This is just the tip of the iceberg."
Explain your statement. While every administration tries to present the best argument/defense for its policies and deflect or minimize its errors (as I'm guessing everyone on the planet is apt to do), I fail to see how this Gannon episode applies in any way to an "iceburg" of inoculations. What did the Bush administration do to or with Gannon to insulate themselves to or from anyone or anything? I don't see the connection. I think I sense conspiracy theory here, but I don't want to prejudice your answer before commenting further.

Hey Robert, firstly, I don... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

Hey Robert, firstly, I don't go for myths- not religious ones, and certainly not historical ones. I am no Democrat, be sure of that. As for Clinton (whom I despise for other reasons), his perjury was committed as a direct result of the investigation into his sex life. He lied, yes, but to a question that should never have been asked. Clinton did not post pictures of himself on the internet getting blown by Monica. The "independent" council should have never gone there. The whole affair was politically motivated and to deny that is simple denial. I actually think the oval office blow-jobs were Clintons most endearing quality. I have no partisan motivations. I operate on facts. Part of my anger over this story stems from my thirst for real information. Gannon was taking a seat from someone who could've asked a real question, with real implications about the future of our nation. A reporters job is not to be a cheerleader, or a wonk (on the right or left), but rather, to question the government. The bully pulpit that is occupied by the President is enough of a platform that he doesn't need the assistance of the free press. The press' job should be to expose, debunk, question, deconstruct, and unflinchingly audit the decisions and policies of those in power. Period. Someone re-writing White-house press releases is a propaganist, not a journalist. Period.

As far as throwing around accusations of criminal activity, accusations are a neccesary pre-curser of an investigation, which is a neccesary pre-curser of an indictment, which is a neccesary pre-curser of a conviction. Any objective look at the sites that Gannon had up (some still active as of Monday), would lead any reasonable person with no axe to grind to believe that he was/is a prostitute. My beef is that he is a prostitute for a White House terrified of critisism, not that he's a $1200 a weekend, fake military, stud-monkey..

Repentance by us, and forgi... (Below threshold)
Gill:

Repentance by us, and forgiveness by Christ are truly marvelous things. However, sometimes these terms are used only to deflect justified criticism. Such crass manipulation of good and decent people is actually terribly evil. Such obvious insincerity should be an alarm for all of us who try to live up to Christ's ideals. We need to rebuke those (especially those in public positions) who, in seeking to cover their own evil-doing, exploit the words and beliefs of genuine Christians.

What is Wolf Blitzer's real... (Below threshold)

What is Wolf Blitzer's real name?

I bet it isn't "Wolf" or "Blitzer"

Baron

I see the left is busy thro... (Below threshold)
mshyde:

I see the left is busy throwing lots of shoes. Could be they'll find themselves walking around in the cold barefooted.

There's no way to win this ... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

There's no way to win this debate with liberals and their dishonesty. If a check had been done and revealed that Guckert/Gannon was gay and had possibly been a male prostitute in the past and he was excluded for that they'd be screaming that conservatives are homophobes and pointing out that he was never convicted. Since he found a loophole that allowed him to get a pass just like a liberal could have done the administration isn't vigilant enough. They say the fact he might or might not be gay doesn't matter, if it didn't matter they wouldn't be screaming it at the tops of their lungs. We'll just have to do like we always have to do and be satisfied that we didn't stoop to their level. It's a compromise for both sides really, we have to listen to them brag about their great victory and try to keep a straight face, they have to pretend the trophy they bagged when they caught Gannon is comparable to bringing down Dan Rather and Eason Jordan. They can't even be honest with themselves, as this clearly shows, so why in the world would we ever expect them to be honest with us?

"Gannon was taking a seat f... (Below threshold)
Adam:

"Gannon was taking a seat from someone who could've asked a real question, with real implications about the future of our nation."

Oh give me a break. Taking a seat? Everyone is free to ask questions at a press conference, and regardless of who they are (even if they'd asked hardball questions in Gannon's seat) whoever is being asked decides on how to answer the question or if to answer it at all--and when they do, the answer they give is often not satisfactory to either their supporters nor their critics. It's the nature of politics.

And what are you saying? That because Gannon didn't ask the right questions, he deserved to be publicly humiliated?

I thought the Lewinsky scandal was idiotic at the time and crossed a line that should not have been crossed--I said so then and I'll say it again now. But if liberals thought it was wrong then, then why is humiliating Gannon ok now?

By your logic, when you don't like how someone's acting in their post, it's morally fine to dig into unrelated matters in order to publicly humiliate them.

So the next time an official you like is dealt that fate, remember that--someone out there disagreed with him enough to destroy him personally and professionally.

I've never been a big fan of the ends justifying the means.

The issue is not his gaynes... (Below threshold)

The issue is not his gayness, but his fakeness and the fact that he sold sex. If a female "reporter" had been revealed as a working prostitute masquerading as press, I think people would have noticed.

If someone in the White House wanted a fake reporter in the press pool, they could have found someone more qualified than James Guckert, who had never published a word before reaching the height of his "profession". It seems obvious that someone wanted James Guckert specifically in the White House, and the cover story was that, without ever writing anything for publication, but after spending $50 and two days taking a course in GOP activism, he was more qualified to cover the White House than, say Maureen Dowd of the NY Times, who could no longer obtain a press pass after nearly 20 years of covering the White House.

The question is not, "Who wanted a fake reporter in the White House?" The record shows that the White House has abused the First Amendment by buying reporters, so that's nothing new, but obviously they could have found a lot of real writers willing to take the money.

The real question is, "Who wanted a specific male prostitute in the White House and had enough juice to give him the cover of being a reporter?"

Follow the money, people.

Anonymous drivel lives up t... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

Anonymous drivel lives up to his moniker by trying to take me to task for my following statement: (actually, he seems like a smart person, I just thought it was funny)


""[I]nsulary nature of the Bush administration"? They permitted, no actively recruited and engaged according to the most vitriolic, a supposed gay man into their lair. Is this not antithetical, according to the Liberati, to the Conservative ideoology? How is this representative of insularism?"

Insulary - narrowly restricted in outlook or scope.

You mistakenly thought I was talking about sexuality when I was talking about the market-place of ideas. A quick history of Bush's cabinet appointments indicate quite decisively that he is insulary. Powell, O'Neill, Clark. Any dissenting voice is purged.

and:

""They go to great lengths to innoculate themselves from criticism. This is just the tip of the iceberg."
Explain your statement. While every administration tries to present the best argument/defense for its policies and deflect or minimize its errors (as I'm guessing everyone on the planet is apt to do), I fail to see how this Gannon episode applies in any way to an "iceburg" of inoculations. What did the Bush administration do to or with Gannon to insulate themselves to or from anyone or anything? I don't see the connection. I think I sense conspiracy theory here, but I don't want to prejudice your answer before commenting further."

There is a difference between putting the best spin on things, which is the right of any administration, and using taxpayers dollars to secretly pay supposedly independant journalists to promote controversial ideas, as in the case of Armstrong Williams. Gannon was taking the seat of a legitimate journalist (see my post above). Creating fake news reports that masquerade as objective and sending them around the country to promote your policies is wrong. How many more "journalists" were paid to be propogandists? That is the iceberg to which I refer. And just like our real life icebergs, this one is starting to melt. (green house gasses or white house gasses?)

I welcome the conversation..

"If a female "reporter" had... (Below threshold)
Adam:

"If a female "reporter" had been revealed as a working prostitute masquerading as press, I think people would have noticed."

An interesting and baseless claim. Do you have any reason to believe that?

"If someone in the White House wanted a fake reporter in the press pool, they could have found someone more qualified than James Guckert, who had never published a word before reaching the height of his "profession". It seems obvious that someone wanted James Guckert specifically in the White House, and the cover story was that, without ever writing anything for publication, but after spending $50 and two days taking a course in GOP activism, he was more qualified to cover the White House than, say Maureen Dowd of the NY Times, who could no longer obtain a press pass after nearly 20 years of covering the White House."

First of all, Guckert was not a "fake" journalist--just a low-profile one who happened to be conservative and therefore, was less likely to criticize the administration.

Maureen Dowd is and has always been an unhinged columnist; do you really think she contributes anything important, other than a few giggles to the people that agree with her? She takes every potshot at those who disagree with her that she can; do you really think that she's making the administration answer any more "hardball" questions than Guckert did?

but the bottom line here is, what's your point, Repack Rider? Are you saying that just because you don't like someone's methods or don't feel that they're up to a certain post, that you're perfectly justified in using unrelated private information to humiliate them? That so long as they're people on the other side of your political spectrum, it's ok to treat them like dirt?
That since someone is up the administration's ass, asks softball questions, and clearly has a different bias than the mainstream media, that is, the opposite bias--just because they have a bias you happen to disagree with, it's ok to destroy them personally?

What is your point?

Dade, again I hear the blac... (Below threshold)
WendiSue:

Dade, again I hear the blackmail charge, and again I must ask, in what way was Gannon a blackmail risk? He did not work _for_ the WH, he only got daypasses. He did not have access to classified documents.
If he'd been a security guard or a WH secretary I'd agree that he was a security risk because of blackmail, but since he was just a small potatoes reporter with little influence anywhere, I just don't get what sort of security threat he could have been blackmailed into creating.

Typical rightwing hypocrisy... (Below threshold)
Galbraith:

Typical rightwing hypocrisy.

The issue is NOT that Gannon is gay. The issue is that Scott McClellan (and perhaps even Dear Leader George Bush) may have had SEX with a male prostitute in the Whitehouse, and nobody cares. That's OK ?!?!

Clinton gets an (unpaid for) BJ from a woman and he's persecuted for it by religious zealots who can't keep their noses out of people's private buisness.

Mshyde wrote:"I se... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

Mshyde wrote:

"I see the left is busy throwing lots of shoes. Could be they'll find themselves walking around in the cold barefooted."

I guess that's one more way that the "left" is more Christlike than the "right"

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

...being a prostitute po... (Below threshold)

...being a prostitute posing as a journalist...

Lord have mercy, ban those and you won't have anything left!

I keep seeing commentary fr... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

I keep seeing commentary from the Gannon defenders (if only they were so protective of the average gay man), about how terrible it is to dig into someones "private" life. I ask again: how is posting something on the internet for everyone to see "private"? If you want something kept private, you write it in a diary, or do it where nobody can see. He put up these websites, even updating them as recently as two months ago. Tell me again how a publicly viewable website is in any way "private life"????????

The issue is that Scott ... (Below threshold)

The issue is that Scott McClellan (and perhaps even Dear Leader George Bush) may have had SEX with a male prostitute in the Whitehouse, and nobody cares.

Reading stuff like this, I'm having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.

Leftie: "The issue is not ... (Below threshold)

Leftie: "The issue is not that Gannon is gay."

Rightie: "Then why did these morons lead the entire story with pictures of the guy's erect weener?"

Leftie: *sticks fingers in ears* "MAHMAHMAHMAH CAN'T HEAR YOU CAN'T HEAR YOU"

Typical. Dress it up with high-sounding pretentious rationalizations all you want, guys. You're pwned, dude.

I can't believe that people... (Below threshold)

I can't believe that people are defending the principle that an alleged male prostitute who published sexually explicit photos of himself on the Internet belongs in the White House press corps.

Put down the partisan blinders for a moment. The guy's a shady character whose access to the White House and confidential information is highly suspect. Something stinks here, and we're better off that he has been revealed and no longer will be around the president. We'll also be better off if the people who gave him this access are identified and investigated.

"...being a prostitute posi... (Below threshold)

"...being a prostitute posing as a journalist...

Lord have mercy, ban those and you won't have anything left!"

This is what they call a takeaway point. :)

Guckert/Gannon or GG is jus... (Below threshold)

Guckert/Gannon or GG is just an extension of the Bush administration program of manipulating the consensus. 1st they prostitute journalists by paying them to represent the Bush agenda, ie Armstrong Williams, then they hire prostitures to be pretend journalists. So devious. Obviously too complicated for George W. to have had a hand in, but just twisted enough to have the fingerprints of Karl Rove. see http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/hot-karl.asp

Hey Pavel,Pretendi... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

Hey Pavel,

Pretending you won a debate isn't the same as really winning one. I have yet to see you address any legitimate points in this diologue.

Some folks are upset that G... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Some folks are upset that Gannon was a "fake" journalist, but don't seem too upset about the Ralph Nader supporter/"journalist" who was doing the same sort of thing (getting day passes) and writing for a hard-left blog.

"Fake" name? Gannon checked in each day under his own name (Guckert), and wrote under his pseudonym, much like many TV and news personalities use stage names.

Maureen Dowd wasn't denied access to the White House, she just didn't have a "hard pass," which is handed out in a much different manner than the day pass Gannon took advantage of. Dowd could have gone though the same procedure and gotten in.

Complaining about Gannon's access is much the same as complaining about someone taking the White House tour. You might note cases in the past where "day pass" reporters have asked all sorts of questions. A dog fancier magazine sending a reporter in to ask about the President's dog, for example (yes, that is somethign that comes up a few times a year). Access to the White House press room isn't dependent on being a "serious" journalist, just on having some sort of connection to something like a news source. If an unknown reporter showed up on Monday, reporting for a brand-new magazine covering novels, and wanted to ask the President about that steamy book he supposedly likes so much, should they turn him away because it's a new publication with no track record, or let him in?

...and if being an, unconvicted criminal with a shady past is a barrier for White House access, shouldn't unconvicted murderer and famous drunk/womanizer Ted Kennedy be kicked out when he comes to try and do business?

Let's stop pretending that ... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Let's stop pretending that Clinton got into trouble for what he was doing with Monica Lewinsky. The matter would have never been pursued if the prosecutors weren't trying to establish a pattern of sexual harrassment. Nobody on the left could see beyond their indignation long enough to realize that he was being grilled over obstructing justice and perjury and a pattern of harrassment because he couldn't keep his fly zipped. If he had been honest from the start the Monica thing would have never made it into the impeachment hearings. Clinton had a choice in the matter, lie and take the chance he would be caught committing perjury, or be honest (hardly an option for him) and let the right prove we didn't care what two adults did in the privacy of taxpayer paid for temporary home. The left's response at the time was to try to bring up previous rumors that showed that it was them that cared about sex practices of residents of the White House if they were republicans. It made into the impeachment hearings precisely because he attempted to obstruct justice and did commit perjury. Is that clear enough or do we need to define "is" for you lefties?

Gee, Paul, thanks for anoth... (Below threshold)
Gannon Who?:

Gee, Paul, thanks for another moonbat swarm. Paul sez jump and the moonbats ask, "How high?"

chadwig said:"[Clint... (Below threshold)
George:

chadwig said:
"[Clinton] lied [about sex], yes, but to a question that should
never have been asked.

Now we are not allowed to asked defendants in sexual
harassment cases about their sex life even if the question
seeks to demonstate the pattern of similar past activities.

Clinton was under oath. There was no excuse for lying.

For the record: Felons can ... (Below threshold)
julie:

For the record: Felons can regain the right to vote. They just have to apply, demonstrate they have been rehabilitated, etc. It takes some effort but it's do-able. But, hey, it's easier for the left to lie and whine about it.

Question for Bullwinke:... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

Question for Bullwinke:

Did the 40 million dollar inquisition into Clintons supposed history of sexual harrassment uncover anything besides the perjury charge? My point is how did an investigation looking into whitewater (nothing found) morph into an investigation into his supposed pattern of sexual harrassment (never established)? Politics is how. I wonder how the average person, under scrutiny of 40 million dollar investigation into thier sexual history, would come out looking. I'm guessing that most people would be relieved if all they came up with was that you lied about having sex.

Julie:You are corr... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

Julie:

You are correct regarding felons being able to regain the right to vote if they take the neccesary steps. However, the overwhelming majority do not pursue it.

I do however, stand corrected, and offer you a deep bow of contrition.

Ironically, the notion that... (Below threshold)

Ironically, the notion that Gannon was simply a plant to make Bush look good is now being challenged by ABC's Terry Moran, a guy not well loved by conservatives to say the least :

"I don't know anything about Gannon's—or Guckert's—private life, and frequently he sounded like a shill for the administration. But he also challenged the White House from time to time with pointed questions—from the right. And that always struck me as valuable and necessary."

Moran's point is food for thought. Although Guckert's question to President Bush in the Jan. 26 press conference—about how Bush planned to work with Democrats "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality"—clearly crossed a line, the Talon News reporter occasionally held the president's feet to the fire. Guckert asked questions about GOP discontent over such issues as immigration, pressed the White House on conservative issues and drew out the administration's perspective on Democratic initiatives.

While many White House reporters oppose advocacy journalism in the briefing room, Moran vehemently objected to the course of action that led to Guckert's resignation.

"Whatever the ostensible rationale, it seems clear to me that `Gannon's' personal life was investigated and targeted by some bloggers because they did not like the ideas he expressed in his questions. That is chilling to me," he said.

That sums up my feelings on the matter almost exactly. I think there has to be someone there asking questions that matter to conservatives. Lots of conservatives have problems with Bush on such issues as immigration.

If felons can have the righ... (Below threshold)
ridgerunner:

If felons can have the right to vote why can't their right to own a firearm be restored? Is one more dangerous than the other?

...(actually, he seems l... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

...(actually, he seems like a smart person, I just thought it was funny)
Yes, the operative word is "seems". I'm really a knuckledragging troglodyte that drivels should the right neurons fire.

You mistakenly thought I was talking about sexuality when I was talking about the market-place of ideas.
Yes I did since the post was narrowly scoped. I still disagree with your assertion that "[a]ny dissenting voice is purged" and that "he is insulary" since Bush and Rove have gone to great lengths to open the tent, but that is a debate for another day.

As far as A. Williams and payola, his behavior and the administrators that allowed remuneration were clearly and egregiously wrong. However, I question the loss of a seat to "legitimate journalist[s]". As I understand it, Gannon stood in line, daily, just like everyone else had the opportunity to do and scored a box seat - well, maybe not Helen Thomas's seat but he surely made it to the bleachers. If he was the aggressive, early-ideological-bird, then more power to him. In a manner of speaking, "the Lord helps those that help themselves". (Sorry about the frivolous use of religious paraphrasing but it seems appropriate as well as teasingly incendiary to the philosophical Left.) Now, if there are paid advocates in the mezzanine, I sure want to know about them too. However, consider what the pro-Gannon lobby observes:

PRESS CONFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT
January 28, 1997

[REPORTER]: Mr. President, in your inaugural address eight days ago, you outlined some quite lofty goals -- for example, the education proposals you were speaking about today. But in the days since, many questions in the press and in Congress have focused on issues like campaign fundraising. My question is whether you are worried that the well is being poisoned even now for the realization of these goals before you can even get out of the gate, particularly on the issue of bipartisanship?

PRESS CONFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT
January 26, 2005

[REPORTER Jeff Gannon]: Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?

Notice a slight similarity in tone here? Wouldn't you say these are both softball questions to elevate the CIC and diminish his critics? Wouldn't you say that both reporters' questions, in surprising accordance, inquire about the President's ability to handle the most recent antagonism consequentially produced from rancorous political positioning? I'm sure you noticed the respective bylines that dated these press conferences (almost to the day) - they are post election press conferences almost immediately subsequent to a successful reelection campaign. You might say that the press environment was about as similar as could be created given the passage of time except that the CIC had changed parties though the press, overall, probably hadn't. I find the similarities eerie while I find the collegial assault on Gannon particularly telling and dissimilar.

This is what some call "hypocrisy". The liberal assault bloggers might want to review their dictionary again since they seem to enjoy tossing the word around a bit liberally. Since it was Gannon's question that agitated the hornet's nest, it seems unfair that only he get stung. The investigations into his sex life are irrelevant - unless, of course, you advocate excruciatingly detailed review of all the daily riff-raff that attends. I dare not extend that required review to the upper echelon journalists since they are always above reproach. I mean why would anyone question Dan Rather's motives? He's just so professional and fair.

While Gannon was excoriated by his peers and what I would call sub-peers in the most derogatory context as possible, another "legitimate journalist" was allowed to skate without so much as a hiccup. Did anyone question the motives, affiliations, incentives, ideology, or possible remuneration of the Liberal brethren kissing up to Clinton? I sure don't remember anything of the sort and questions of this sort have been posited for our entire modern age. Where was the outrage? It is only outrageous if a self-described or externally-labelled Conservative suggests a reasonable, yet less than biting, question. This is a problem too and should not remain ignored. Alternate media is ensuring that this double standard, or hypocrisy, does not go unchallenged. I hope the Liberal sorts will recognize this elephant in the tent as well.

I'm not pretending. Anyone... (Below threshold)

I'm not pretending. Anyone who can seriously suggest that Gannon's gayness was irrelevant to this "story" is being dishonest.

There is exactly one reason this thing the leftie-blogs were drooling over this "story" - web photos of a gay man with a hardon. They pretended - and you are still pretending - that scandalous titillation is somehow synonymous with a "story," that lead-in pictures of guys with boners is can somehow be made bona fide.

The fact that you guys have now mobilized to tell us why leading a story with lurid sexual photos is not about the subject's sexual behavior is simply another example of the intellectual dishonesty of the guys who have captured so much of the left - and why, if this kind of nonsense that passes for "thinking" on the left is not utterly excreted by the loyal opposition, it is destined for complete irrelevancy.

Pavel :I'm not ... (Below threshold)

Pavel :

I'm not pretending. Anyone who can seriously suggest that Gannon's gayness was irrelevant to this "story" is being dishonest.

Gailbraith :

The issue is that Scott McClellan (and perhaps even Dear Leader George Bush) may have had SEX with a male prostitute in the Whitehouse, and nobody cares. That's OK ?!?!

Pavel, I'd say you're right, and I think Gailbraith's attitude is probably more common than the lefties here would ever acknowledge.

You need to get a few thing... (Below threshold)
Anne:

You need to get a few things straight: first of all, Gannon was not a journalist. He had no accepted credentials, no education, and really, no talent (but that last is beside the point). Just because you post blogs doesn't make you a journalist, just as being able to locate your spleen doesn't make you a doctor.

As such, Gannon had no business being in the White House press - for a day, let alone two years.

Next --- who invited him to the White House Christmas party? Who leaked information crucial to national security (the exact time of our first strike on Saddam, the Plame matter) to him? Who told him about Mapes and Rather before the whole thing happened? Whoever that is, he is the key reason a non-journalist with no background got a seat in the press corps. And he committed treason by exposing national security secrets.

Finally, while some may be easily placated by talking points, I find it fascinating that one can call events "in the past" when one has the ability to drop web accounts with AOL and other providers, thereby making certain that such "past" matters truly are in the "past." Had Gannon dropped his active gay military sex websites a few years ago, maybe even a few months ago, his story might be plausible and said sites would not have been clickable. He did neither. A self-described 'two holiday a year' churchgoer, Gannon is now going about cloaking himself in Christianity as armor. As a Christian, I find this insulting and degrading by proxy. Yet you uphold him for such acts of hypocrisy. Count me among the conservative camp that wants nothing to do with supporting this vile miscreant who hasn't had the time for reflection and finding God between the week it took for him to be exposed for his filth and his "coming forward" to God. Sticking up for him gives all conservatives a bad name. No thank you.

Chadwig, go read a book abo... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Chadwig, go read a book about Whitewater and tell me all those felony convictions, 15 on them that I remember, then come back and tell me it resulted in "nothing found". Facts are funny things, overlooking them doesn't make them any less true. You're either being dishonest when you say there was nothing found or just don't know the difference, either way it puts in a bad light. Is it a case of ignorance or dishonesty? It must be one or the other.....

AnonymousDrivel rightly poi... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

AnonymousDrivel rightly points out that there are shills for the left and right regularly asking questions with a paritisan slant and daily briefings. The difference between the two questions he provides is that the question Gannon asks is based on a lie. Harry Reid never talked about "soup lines", that was something Gannon picked up from Rush Limbaugh. This is the way things work among supposed conservatives (I'm more conservative than most of them surely), they keep repeating things until they take on an air of reality. How many times have you heard that Clinton "could have had Bin Laden" (S Hannity). How many conservatives believe (even now) Saddam was complicit in 9-11 (see the PIPA study). The left is equally guilty of course, passing on bogus information in the same manner. Both sides should be called out for the ideologues that they are.

AnonymousDrivel mistakenly thinks that the problem is the question, rather than the access. Remember that Gannon was attending briefings before Talon News even existed. Why was he allowed in?

Ask yourself honestly, if a reporter during the Clinton era had asked a question premised on a misrepresentation of a Senators words, and it was easily discovered that he had a website where he apparently was prostituting himself (and where impressionable young minds could easily access it), do you think the right would not have used this information to try to discredit the reporter?

Be honest with yourself.

After you do that we'll dis... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

After you do that we'll discuss how there was a pattern of sexual harrassment proven, just little details like the lawsuit Clinton lost where he had to pay $850,000 to paula Jones and how that ultimately led to his disbarment by the supreme court, just don't want to confuse you with too many facts at a time. The facts just destroy any chance for a liberal to work a little dishonesty into debate, don't they?

Bullwinkle:How man... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

Bullwinkle:

How many of the Whitewater convictions were of Clinton?

Exactly...

That's immaterial, at least... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

That's immaterial, at least by the figures you gave. You are complaining about $40 million spent, not all of it was spent on Clinton, that was the whole amount spent investigating everyone. The investigation of Clinton did result in impeachment, disbarment, and fines. He was lucky, smart, and corrupt enough to have covered himself very well. He should have been convicted of perjury, it's clear to anyone with a junior high reading level that he was guilty of that and obstructing justice.

Bullwinkle your facts are f... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

Bullwinkle your facts are funny. Clinton "settled" a lawsuit, in which he admitted no wrong, and offered no apology. He did not lose a lawsuit. In fact, the only court that did rule on the lawsuit dismissed it outright. It was headed to the appellate court when it was settled. The settlement was a clear loss for Jones, only recieving enough money to pay for her attorneys.

I answered you, now you ans... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

I answered you, now you answer my question. Who authorized the special counsel? Surely you are aware that he didn't just set out to do it on his own. Who reauthorized it? Don't complain about expenses, tactics, areas of inquiry or results when your guy's Attorney General ordered the investigation. Ken Starr was following orders that came directly from the Clinton administration.

Only a liberal could think ... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Only a liberal could think having to cough up $850,000, suffering disbarment and a $25,000 fine to the Arkansas state law board wasn't a loss. You think that's some kind of victory?

Wow. Go read this, regardi... (Below threshold)

Wow. Go read this, regarding the position of some honest lefty journalists about this "story":

http://www.kingpublishing.com/fc/white_house/story1.htm

It's good to see.

(That's immaterial, at leas... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

(That's immaterial, at least by the figures you gave. You are complaining about $40 million spent, not all of it was spent on Clinton, that was the whole amount spent investigating everyone. The investigation of Clinton did result in impeachment, disbarment, and fines. He was lucky, smart, and corrupt enough to have covered himself very well. He should have been convicted of perjury, it's clear to anyone with a junior high reading level that he was guilty of that and obstructing justice.)

But the investigation of Clintons sex life was what amounts to an illegal search. If you agree with what Starr did, then in effect you believe that the Police should be able to come into your home without a warrant and look for anything that might implicate you in any crime. Criminal investigations should not be open ended; as if they need to keep going until something is discovered. The fact that a single dollar and a single minute was spent delving into Clintons sex life through the wormhole of the Whitewater investigation should outrage anyone with a belief in the civil liberties our Constitution provides.

Imagine your outrage if an IRS employee came to your house to do a tax audit and finding that all was square, decided to start rummaging through your underwear drawer to see what he could find.

The clear distinction in the Jeff Gannon saga is that Jeffs "sideline" is a side issue. And regarding that side issue, the contention that images and writings that he's freely posted on the web for any man, woman or child to view, are private, is false on it's face.

-regards

Dade: Being a prostitute po... (Below threshold)
Jim:

Dade: Being a prostitute posing as a journalist sounds like the majority of those working in the MSM. As far as being partisan and an out and out Bush supporter, I guess only out and out Bush haters get a pass such as that old hag Helen Thomas.

I think this whole story has gotten blown way out of proportion. Did Gannon fabricate evidence in furtherance of a story? Did he hold up forged documents and claim they were authenticate? Did he go overseas and make outrageous claims such as US soldiers are targeting journalists?

I know Jeff Gannon (he interviewed me on the subject of terrorism) and it's hard to believe he's such an evil person. He was a gentleman and a good interviewer, as I recall.

It's funny how conservatives are never forgiven for their past, but Liberals are. How else do you explain Sen. Robert "KKK" Byrd? Or Senator Fritz "Segregationist" Hollings? Or Sen. Tom "I Lied About My Vietnam Service" Harkin? Or Sen. Joe "The Plagiarist" Biden? Or Rep. Barney "House of Prostitution" Frank? I could go on... believe I could go on.

what are gays doing support... (Below threshold)
Travis:

what are gays doing supporting president bush, disgusting anyway.

Oh, I forgot something: I n... (Below threshold)
Jim:

Oh, I forgot something: I noticed that not one of the articles and posts denigrating Jeff Gannon mentions anything about his Talon News articles being inaccurate or worse -- that he fabricated anything in his stories. I'm not defending Gannon, but I think the Libs are stretching to find someone on the Right as dishonest as Dan Rather.

AnonymousDrivel mistaken... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

AnonymousDrivel mistakenly thinks that the problem is the question, rather than the access. Remember that Gannon was attending briefings before Talon News even existed. Why was he allowed in?

chadwig,

You are mistakenly missing the original impetus into Mr. Gannon's status.

+ He was a relative unknown friendly to the President.

+ He was behaving (journalistically) in the same manner as untold thousands that preceded him.

+ He drew no noteworthy attention for his questions.

+ He tossed a softball at the first post-election press conference after an especially contentious and divisive campaign.

+ His question was contrary to the general and overwhelming sentiment of the press assembled.

+ His presence became noticeable and the antagonists began to pounce.

+ He became the source of intense historical and unchecked scrutiny.

+ Conspiracists, hoping to expand on the payola theme in view of recent A. Williams discovery, began to weave a yarn of Plame complicity, payola, and assorted unsubstantiated rumors.

+ The "bigger story" failed to gain traction because it was either difficult to prove or remained as false rumor.

+ Liberals, sensing the loss of their ace card, upped the ante and decided to dig longer and deeper.

+ Sex was used to bump the issue to the forefront to attract attention, indescriminantly.

+ Personal information was exploited to demonize an ideological opponent.

+ Links to Bush and "gay" with many tentacles were postulated to destroy one man and try to create an association with another for various political ends.

This is the timeline of events that predated, by and large, the question of access as I've seen the story unfold.


However, Gannon's access was legitimate in that he gained only limited access and had to be screened along with everyone else. He was a politically Conservative activist alongside many more politically Liberal activists. His credentials were not stellar but I defy you to post the credentials of all of the others assembled. Can you say, with any confidence whatsoever, that everyone there was fully up to the standards of the CSJ (assuming you delegate that institution as unequivocally fair and righteous) except Gannon? Personally, I'm glad everyone has access to the President. I'd like Mr. Bush to have more public conferences than he has had to address more questions, but that doesn't mean that of the questions offered, only the selected elite get to ask. Why should they have the monopoly? They've proven themselves to be as partisan and shallow as anyone else on a number of occasions.

I am mistaking neither the question, the access, nor the events driving the witch hunt. And without the positing of the original questions, nothing would have transpired. Had Gannon asked if indeed Bush was Hitler reincarnate, this query into Gannon's past, his credentials, his access, and the subsequent firestorm would never have occurred. In fact the firestorm might have been how big of a bust should he get at the CJR, honorary of course.

Bullwinkle stated:(I... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

Bullwinkle stated:
(I answered you, now you answer my question. Who authorized the special counsel? Surely you are aware that he didn't just set out to do it on his own. Who reauthorized it? Don't complain about expenses, tactics, areas of inquiry or results when your guy's Attorney General ordered the investigation. Ken Starr was following orders that came directly from the Clinton administration.)

Your mistake Bullwinkle is in thinking that I am a cheerleader for Clinton like you are for Bush. Not everyone views government policy matters as though it were a football game where you cheer for one side and despise the other. I have no partisan bone to pick. I have never voted for a major party presidential candidate. That the Attorney General ordered the investigation is only testimony to Clintons belief in his own innocence in the Whitewater matter. What has your boys Attorney General done to find the traitor who leaked the name of J. Wilsons wife eh? That seems a much more pertinent question for our Country than who sucked Clintons pecker.

This syndrome that you and others like you have is much more a threat to our great country than any boogie man that Cheney/Bush can dream up. Only when you realize that both sides are lapdogs for the real power- concentrated wealth, will you become divorced of your black and white perspective. You are ignorant not of the facts, but of the meaning of the facts.

Sexual preference,prostitut... (Below threshold)
dictreycee:

Sexual preference,prostitution and journalistic qualifications will be the least of the administrations worries if this all checks out.
You've got a bigger problem now.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4879

Cool! A real live socialis... (Below threshold)

Cool! A real live socialist rallying to the pretense that photos of a hard cock constitutes a story.

At least he's being consistent.

oh no but dumb librel chick... (Below threshold)
Travis:

oh no but dumb librel chicks like big hard cock ;)

cock a spanil i mean... (Below threshold)
Travis:

cock a spanil i mean

I would think that a federa... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

I would think that a federal grand jury investigation plus a couple of reporters looking at going to jail for refusing to name their sources would be plenty of action to satisfy anyone. Doesn't that point to the Bush administration feeling like they haven't broken any laws like you claimed the special prosecutor did for the Clintons? Who sucked who was never the question, whether or not he lied under oath about it was the question. Once again you're overlooking the facts in favor of a man you claim not to be a cheerleader for. I'd sure ahte to see how rabid your bias would be if it was someone you were cheerleading for. And what exactly is it that makes you think I'm not a part of that concentrated wealth? If it wasn't for people like me people like you would have to pick up your share of the tab, a situation that makes me think that concentrated wealth isn't the evil you lefties think it is. If we did away that tomorrow you'd have to pay your share, you wouldn't like that one damn bit. Probably less than I like paying your share for you.

AnonymousDrivel, after post... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

AnonymousDrivel, after posting a flawed "timeline" that did not adress the basic question that I posited stated:

(Personally, I'm glad everyone has access to the President. I'd like Mr. Bush to have more public conferences than he has had to address more questions, but that doesn't mean that of the questions offered, only the selected elite get to ask. Why should they have the monopoly?)

Should a doctor go to medical school? Should a Police officer have training? SHould a pilot know how to fly? Should a writer be a critical thinker who can actually write? As apposed to someone (as media matters thouroughly documented) who merely cut and pasted white house press releases? Should someone with such close proximity to the leader of the free world have at least the most cursory background check before being allowed such access?

Regarding your flawed "chronology" of the events leading up to the Gannon revelations, you do ok until you get here:

(+ The "bigger story" failed to gain traction because it was either difficult to prove or remained as false rumor.)

It's been proven that Gannon was allowed access as a member of the press before he had ever published a single article, and a month or so before "Talon News" even existed. With the passage of time, many "rumors" become "facts".

(+ Liberals, sensing the loss of their ace card, upped the ante and decided to dig longer and deeper.)

Here you speculate about people motives when you really have no idea. Once again I ask how is Googling Jeff/James online websites/profiles digging? If only journalism were so easy.

(+ Sex was used to bump the issue to the forefront to attract attention, indescriminantly.)

Not true, many legitimate news services wrote articles on both sides of this issue; many with nary a mention of the sexual aspect, and many more with only a cursory reference. Of course there are going to be fringe bloggers and such that accentuate the salacious details, but not the MSM.

(+ Personal information was exploited to demonize an ideological opponent.)

I ask again (and I've yet to get satisfactory answer from the Gannon flaks) how is a publicly available (even this week) web site or online profile in any way personal information????


in what way was Gannon a... (Below threshold)
dade:

in what way was Gannon a blackmail risk?
He got a day pass for everyday he was in WH for two years. How? He couldn't get a full pass in Capitol Hill. He tried. Who gave him the day pass? That's the blackmail risk. Who is that person?

But I agree with you Wendie. If he worked for the white house instead of just in the white house the blackmail charge would be much worse. But don't you think it's still valid? Isn't it worth looking into? He was there for two years. Isn't that ample to time to compromise one person. Don't you wan't to be sure?

Jim: anyone can make a list of bad democrats, bad repulicans, bad liberals, bad conservatives, bad libertarians, bad environmentalist etc. I'm possitive you can go on.

I don't believe he's evil nor bush nor kerry.

It's not what he did that bothers me. He reprinted WH press releases in his news service. There's nothing wrong with that. And you're right Jim. MSM is in shambles. What bothers me about the gannon story is this: why was someone who sells sexual services online allowed in the WH press? I don't think such a person should be allowed in the WH press. Do you? If it can be shown that this is an honest mistake. That's fine. Sensible people will get over this story if that's the case. But until that can be shown I'm going to keep asking questions and others will.

"the contention that images... (Below threshold)

"the contention that images and writings that he's freely posted on the web for any man, woman or child to view, are private, is false on it's face."

Just because Gannon posted pictures of himself on the Internet doesn't mean he didn't want the link back to him personally to remain private. Simple example, people using internet dating services post pictures of themselves with their listing, but their names are usually private until THEY choose to reveal it.

justin raimondo!? a serious... (Below threshold)
capt joe:

justin raimondo!? a serious concern. pardon me while I ...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA

And raimondo is not his original name. He changed it in the same manner as Gannon. Will we see something like that in raimondo's past also.

What a transparent straw ma... (Below threshold)

What a transparent straw man argument, chad. This isn't about whether these photos were "private." Nothing publicly accesible on the web is "private." It's about the dishonesty of pretending that a "story" that would have no life at all without GAY MAN COCK photos is somehow legitimate.

Learn how to argue, dude. Rule 1: Straw men= BAD.

That $40 million in investi... (Below threshold)
George:

That $40 million in investigations were not merely about
Clinton's sexual misconduct. Don't even try to use that
strawman argument.
The investigations, which by the way were mostly recommended
by Clinton Attorney General, Janet Reno, included Whitewater,
Travelgate, improperly obtained FBI files, Castle Grande and on
and on.
It resulted in literally dozens of convictions and guilty pleas.

Surely the investigation would not have cost nearly as much
taxpayer money if the Clinton adminstration had actually
cooperated.

bullwinkle wrote:(An... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

bullwinkle wrote:
(And what exactly is it that makes you think I'm not a part of that concentrated wealth? If it wasn't for people like me people like you would have to pick up your share of the tab, a situation that makes me think that concentrated wealth isn't the evil you lefties think it is. If we did away that tomorrow you'd have to pay your share, you wouldn't like that one damn bit. Probably less than I like paying your share for you.)

Your assumptions that I lack wealth are telling, just as are your assumptions of entitlement. Both are incorrect. My guess is that your wealth comes from your family, but I could be wrong and you could among that rare 2% of millionaires who didn't gain it by birth. I imagine you wondering: How could a wealthy man not want to hoard his wealth? Well, born into poverty, I have made myself into a successful business owner. I just happen to have a conscience as well, and a memory of my past that will not allow me to forget the destitute, especially children. Jesus said when asked by a wealthy man what he must do to gain entrance to heaven: "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven". Mark 10:21. Jesus the socialist? Wanting children to have health care, nutrition, and access to education makes me a socialist?

So do what Christ wanted Bullwinkle. Or is that too much of an Earthly Sacrifice?

Pavel said:... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Pavel said:

"If Gannon had been an ex-pothead, as Chadwig asks above, there is not a chance in hell anyone would have run with this pretend "story". What are they going to do? Show the guy sitting there with a doobie in his mouth? How exciting would that be?"

Trust me chadwig...
Not only did Pavel win, but it wasn't even a fair fight.

Now jump moonbat, jump. (I love that line)

Looks like any post with th... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Looks like any post with the words "Gannon" in it bring out the moonbats like a picnic brings ants.

I think this point made way back, is in fact the reality here:

"This failure to live down to liberal stereotypes of conservatives course seems like hypocracy to the ‘open minded’ and ‘tolerant’ liberals who never ever stereotype vast groups of people. "

Liberals just can't stand it, when conservatives don't prove true to their charactarization as defined by liberals.

The liberals are on this one like a dog after a bone, because when it comes to media hypocrisy, this is about the only thing they can put their hands on, given how corrupt the MSM has proven itself.

(What a transparent straw m... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

(What a transparent straw man argument, chad. This isn't about whether these photos were "private." Nothing publicly accesible on the web is "private." It's about the dishonesty of pretending that a "story" that would have no life at all without GAY MAN COCK photos is somehow legitimate.

Learn how to argue, dude. Rule 1: Straw men= BAD)

The real straw man is your insistance that this story only has legs with the sexual aspect, which is an ovious manuver that ideologues like you are using to obfuscate the underlying issues. I submit that this story has legs with or without the hard cock photo's.. I never claimed that it's a big story, merely that it's a story that deserves telling. It offers insight into the groupthink and talking points mentality of the Bush administration, and the amplification of their half-truths and incorrect intimations by non-critical thinkers such as you. Never stray from the story- damn the facts.

I thank all the legitimate ... (Below threshold)
chadwig:

I thank all the legitimate posters for discussing this issue. I can't spend anymore time here but I've enjoyed it.

To all the ignorant people posting their "liberal this, Moonbat that" crap, insisting that they've "won" an arguement to which they have not contributed an iota of relevant information, I wish you would visit a library or study something besides how you can be an ever more effective wonk(ette) for your flawed and narrow "ideology".

-peace

"I just happen to have a co... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"I just happen to have a conscience as well, and a memory of my past that will not allow me to forget the destitute, especially children."

LOL just like a liberal, when making their argument for wealth redistribution, they always appeal to the children (and before you go accusing me of having inherited wealth, I am one of those po folk who actually gets more back in taxes every year than I paid in-so what are you gonna send my poor children?

Off topic, but the problem with liberals, is they generally don't believe in charity by choice, but in forced charity byt he government.

Oh, and not sure where you got your only 2% of wealthy people earned it, most millinaires in the US are first generation millionaires and earned their money the hard way.

" Jesus said when asked by a wealthy man what he must do to gain entrance to heaven: "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven". Mark 10:21. Jesus the socialist?"

Crap I would love to get into my context speech, but I won't do it. Jesus wasn't telling all wealthy people to give everything they owned to the poor, but was pointing out that the Rich young ruler's problem was that he loved his wealth more than he loved God.

Go and read some other verses. Read Zachias, he only gave half of his possession to the poor, but Jesus told him he was saved. The difference is that Zachias understood that money wasn't what was important, fellowship with God was. Also, look at some of HIs admonishments to people who gave for glory, or out of selfish goals (think of the woman who annointed him with Oil and Judas appeal to the "give it to the poor" issue and Jesus stepped all over his toes).

Jesus nowhere advocated forced charity, he advocated voluntary charity from the heart.

"Well, born into poverty, I... (Below threshold)

"Well, born into poverty, I have made myself into a successful business owner. I just happen to have a conscience as well . . . . Jesus the socialist? Wanting children to have health care, nutrition, and access to education makes me a socialist?"

As poor chad descends into preachy self-parody, he staggers away, his tinfoil hat catching the last rays of the dying sun.

first they hate god now the... (Below threshold)
Travis:

first they hate god now they say jesus is a commie socialist. librels can say what they feel like to lie to the ignorant public. shameful

I thank all the le... (Below threshold)
I thank all the legitimate posters for discussing this issue. I can't spend anymore time here but I've enjoyed it. Translation: "I'm getting my ass handed to me so I'm bugging out."
chadwick's basic question: ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

chadwick's basic question: Why was he [Gannon] allowed in?

I think I understood and answered your question already. Perhaps you should reread my response. I've stated "Gannon's access was legitimate in that he gained only limited access and had to be screened along with everyone else." But I'll ask you again in brief: Can you vouch for the other reporters assembled and their journalistic pedigree? Were they all adequately trained?

You then proceed to introduce other professions equating the strict professional wringer required of doctors, police, and pilots to that required of "journalists". Sorry but the technical requirements and restraints of those professions are considerably more specific and controlled than the entry into journalism. No doubt that there are some superb and brilliant journalists in our midst, but I'll bet they didn't necessarily need to go get a piece of paper from the proper authority to exercise that skill. Doctors must. Police must. Pilots must. Journalists musn't though it certainly opens up the ivory towers when one has that paper in their pocket. I'd pigeonhole writers into the same overall camp as journalists. The school hones the skills but is not absolute in its necessecity to function professionally.

It's been proven that Gannon was allowed access as a member of the press before he had ever published a single article, and a month or so before "Talon News" even existed.
I'll trust your comment though a link would be nice. I don't know when Gannon transformed from minion to political activist to blogger to journalist or what he has had published and when. If he "reports" press briefings from the administration, he is serving a public function though it is professionally lazy. Like we all acknowledge, there are many levels of skill in every industry. I, however, continue to return to the definition of qualified journalist and the merit attained by Gannon's colleagues. Further, I wouldn't blame the President for calling on someone that would spread his administration's message - not everyone hates all of his positions or him personally. Gannon was filling an unfilled niche, nevermind his method.

Here you speculate about people motives when you really have no idea. Once again I ask how is Googling Jeff/James online websites/profiles digging? If only journalism were so easy.
No, I do have some motives from none other than the Left's most prominant blogger (according to many), namely Kos:

Online Reporter Quits After Liberals' Expose
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, February 10, 2005; Page C04

Markos Moulitsas, a San Francisco liberal who writes the popular Kos site, said of Gannon: "He has been extremely anti-gay in his writings. He's been a shill for the Christian right. So there's a certain level of hypocrisy there that I thought was fair game and needed to be called out."

Asked if digging into someone's personal and business activities was proper retaliation, Moulitsas said: "If that's what it took to really bring attention to him, it's one of those unfortunate facts of reality in the way we operate today. It's sex that really draws attention to these things."

Read this entire thread for all of the background positions.

Further, the "investigation" spread to the revelation of personal files not normally exposed for public scrutiny, namely contractual receipts between two parties, not the entire planet:

See http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/mandashcalleddashjeff.html (addy munged to minimize traffic and spidering; if you must, convert "dash" to "-")
In 1999, Paul Leddy, a Web designer and photographer, says he received an email from a man named Jeff from Wilmington, Delaware. Jeff wanted Paul to build him a new Web site for his business. Paul accepted the job, provided Jeff mailed him a check with half the money up front (Jeff had not provided a last name, and Paul wanted to make sure he was for real). Jeff sent the check, it cleared, and Paul built the site and launched it online for Jeff.

Paul didn't think about Jeff much until last week when he heard about a breaking scandal involving a man named Jeff who owned several military escort service Web addresses. "I saw the name Jeff Gannon, knew our Jeff, saw the militarystud.com Web address, and thought 'hmmm, everything was military, that sounds like Jeff who we did the site for.'"

Paul searched the Internet WhoIs director for militarystud.com and saw that the owner was Bedrock Corp of Wilmington, Delaware. "That’s definitely him," Paul said. (Paul and a second source both recall Jeff paying with a check in the name of Bedrock Corp. The name stuck in their heads at the time because they asked Jeff why "Bedrock"? He replied something about the Flintstones, they recall.) This is relevant because a Bedrock Corp in Wilmington, Delaware also owns former White House reporter Jeff Gannon's personal Web site and a series of Web addresses apparently dealing with military male escorts.

Paul then went and checked his files. He found five invoices to Jeff from August 31, 1999 to March 30, 2000. (The file properties say they were created on those dates by Paul Leddy.)

So Paul the webmaster found it expedient to dig up personal records of a previous and contracted client and disclose that information to everyone. Point one - this is too invasive and atypical. Point two - anyone looking for webhosting services should probably avoid Mr. Leddy's or his employer's services unless you don't mind having your business, address, payments, phone, or any other information pasted on the world's most blatant billboard.

Not true, many legitimate news services wrote articles on both sides of this issue; many with nary a mention of the sexual aspect, and many more with only a cursory reference. Of course there are going to be fringe bloggers and such that accentuate the salacious details, but not the MSM.
The story only got legs when the sex angle was introduced. And are you calling Kos fringe? I thought he was the standard bearer of the ideological Left? He was the most vocal source of Liberal thought. He was and is a strong proponent of Howard Dean, the DNC's top fundraiser? Hardly irrelevant as a political presence despite extreme polarities. And the MSM? Not particularly interested. This has been a blogstorm more than anything. The press probably realizes that the tawdriness of the investigation has become toxic and is wisely staying away from the fray. I give them points here though I'm usually a very strong critic.

I ask again (and I've yet to get satisfactory answer from the Gannon flaks) how is a publicly available (even this week) web site or online profile in any way personal information?
His publicly accessible website is fair game as far as addressing pornography, escorts, sex, and online dissemination goes. Discuss that all day for all I care. Gannon's previous web daliance, whatever it was, is not fair game in the current context because it is irrelevant to the topics of debate or at least the ones that so many Liberals proclaim to be important. Neither his journalistic credentials, his access to the press briefings, or the supposed tin-foil hat associations merit review of his sexuality or web space because they are irrelevant. I just don't know how many times this need be said.

Anyway, I think I've addressed your questions adequately. I hope you'll address mine regarding qualifications of the others assembled and the firestorm that would not have ensued had Gannon called Bush "Hitler reincarnate".

Let me ask a question. What... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Let me ask a question. What the HELL is any of this going to matter next week? My answer--not a damn thing.

Some leftwingers say the "r... (Below threshold)

Some leftwingers say the "real" story is how an "obscure" reporter from an "obscure" news service can get a press pass. This "proves" the WhiteHouse pulled some strings for Gannon. So how do you explain this then (from the New York Times) :

"Mr. Guckert’s nom de plume, Jeff Gannon, and the Talon News service he worked for did not set off any alarm bells in a room that also includes a representative from The Corporate Crime Reporter, The India Globe and Les Kinsolving, the host of a provocative radio talk show."

In other words, giving press passes to "obscure" journalists was hardly reserved for Gannon. Quite the opposite. Perhaps Gannon DID get a press pass because he's a conservative, but it's also likely that it was done for altruistic reasons, namely that the Whitehouse felt it had a responsibility to be fair to ALL political stripes, including (shock!) conservatives.

just ignore jimjeff, he is ... (Below threshold)
Travis:

just ignore jimjeff, he is a noboby/ gay whore, case closed, nada.

the more you talk about the... (Below threshold)
Travis:

the more you talk about the gay sex jimjeff the more the kinky basterds like it.

"So Paul the webmaster foun... (Below threshold)

"So Paul the webmaster found it expedient to dig up personal records of a previous and contracted client and disclose that information to everyone."

Excellent point, and something I thought about as well. This to me seems like a breach of contract. I can't imagine that such behaviour will be permissible here in Canada. If I was Gannon, I'd talk to a lawyer about this particular issue.

RE: jhow66's post (February... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: jhow66's post (February 19, 2005 04:09 PM)
Let me ask a question. What the HELL is any of this going to matter next week? My answer--not a damn thing.

This is true. This case has run its course and will die on the vine in a few days.

However, it does matter in the sense that it is a canary in the mineshaft. Bloggers are coming of age and the concept of responsibility is entering the mine. The limits of what a blogger or its viewership disseminate in the quest for "truth" are being tested. I'd say some bloggers failed with the Gannon case though there have been spectacular, and legitimate, discoveries in recent weeks. We'll see if blogging devolves into yellow journalism or evolves into legitimate news.

I'm Jewish Chad. Jesus just... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

I'm Jewish Chad. Jesus just doesn't figure into my decisions but I seriously doubt that he'd approve of people that won't take care of themselves expecting others to take care of them. I never mind helping those who can't but I have serious problem with those who won't. You remember that the next year that passes that you don't pay taxes because the people you hate so much are picking up your share. If there was one word of truth to your claim that the people who are in this supposed "concentrated wealth" group that are controlling everything we sure as hell wouldn't be the ones paying all the taxes. I think I'll bring that one at the next secret meeting. Our world domination plans seem to be failing.....

Anonymous Drivel-thanks for... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Anonymous Drivel-thanks for giving the information on how all this was connected, I didn't realize that they had cooperation from somebody he was doing business with. Sorry, but that is totally unethical on the part of the web designer, who provided information that was not readily available to the public.

Also, I would like to know if the left has investigated so vigorously all the journalists who get day press passes, I think this would make an interesting discussion of hypocrisy.

RE: MisterPundit's post (Fe... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: MisterPundit's post (February 19, 2005 04:14 PM)
If I was Gannon, I'd talk to a lawyer about this particular issue.

As would I though I figure Canada is a bit more protective of privacy than we are here.


RE: Just Me's post (February 19, 2005 04:32 PM)
Also, I would like to know if the left has investigated so vigorously all the journalists who get day press passes, I think this would make an interesting discussion of hypocrisy.

Exactly.

The left wing people that a... (Below threshold)
TJIT:

The left wing people that are making a big issue out of this thinks the white house staff should be doing extensive background checks on reporters to make sure they are "moral" enough to be in the white house. And they want to make sure the background check is extensive enough to find out if the reporters have done anything "immoral" in their past.

I suspect if the white house had actually proposed doing something like this before now the same leftists patting themselves on the back over outing this guy would have gone apes--t calling the white house fascist abusers of press freedom. They would also accuse the white house of performing personal destruction on those who would dare to "speak truth to power".

The real hypocrites here are the leftists.

" suspect if the white hous... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

" suspect if the white house had actually proposed doing something like this before now the same leftists patting themselves on the back over outing this guy would have gone apes--t calling the white house fascist abusers of press freedom. They would also accuse the white house of performing personal destruction on those who would dare to "speak truth to power"."

Exactly.

Let's get real here and I a... (Below threshold)
Rebecca West:

Let's get real here and I am writing as someone who was a Republican for over 20 years...attending a two-day $50 seminar does not a journalist make. Who would think you could spend a weekend learning "journalism" and next thing you know find yourself asking the President questions?

Cutting and pasting White House press releases to a website does not a journalist make.

"Jeff/Jim" was not working for a legitimate news agency, which is why he couldn't get a congressional press pass, but for a wealthy partisan Texan.

It wasn't his "gayness" that prompted bloggers to investigate his past because that is not obvious. It was his partisanship that was obvious, particularly attributing a FAKE QUOTE to Harry Reid when the quote was actually from a Rush Limbaugh satire!

In checking to find out Jeff/Jim's journalistic background they discovered his past as a gay whore THANKS TO JEFF/JIM himself who was peddling his ass (and 8" uncut tool) on the net! If you want to keep your sexuality private you don't sell your body on the Internet for God's sake complete with your price list. He turned what for most people is a private life into a very public and BUSINESS life.

And it IS the heighth of hypocrisy to be using a gay hooker when your party works tooth and nail to prevent two gay people who love each other from a legitimate their relationship! And when you claim to be directed by the Almighty and doing His work.
Howie Kurtz is just one more media whore which brings up the fact that no one is putting the fact that the WH put a plant into the press corps into the context of an administration that has already admitted they PAY JOURNALISTS (Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallaher, Mike McManus and God knows who else) to promote their agenda.

They stage "fake news stories" with actors portraying reporters to push their pet projects. Everything is scripted, staged, a photo opp to emotionally manipulate and obscure truth.

It's called Propaganda.

Whether Lib, Con or inbetween we should all be concerned about what is happening to our free press and our democracy.

Don't you understand they've got you so trained to "hate" the other side that you defend them regardless of how wrongheaded their actions?? It's become a kneejerk reaction to rush to the defense of your "team" without even considering the facts. Stop HATING and start THINKING!

the point is that no matter... (Below threshold)
madge:

the point is that no matter how often he or anyone else repeats it, he was never a reporter. he was not a journalist.

if he is a journalist. then my poodle is journalist.

"Don't you understand they'... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"Don't you understand they've got you so trained to "hate" the other side that you defend them regardless of how wrongheaded their actions??"

LOL

Let's get back to that "does the liberal left vet every journalist who gets a day pass again, and honestly, I am amused that you are accusing the conservative side of "hate" considering it was Dean who recently said he "hated republicans and everything they stood for" seems to me it is the left consumed with all the hate, and will defend their screw up to the very end (the Clinton thing being a wonderful example-Ted Kennedy, Byrd-honestly you would think a former KKK member would be just as awful to the left as a former male prostitute, and others).

RE: madge's post (February ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: madge's post (February 19, 2005 07:03 PM)
the point is that no matter how often he or anyone else repeats it, he was never a reporter. he was not a journalist.

if he is a journalist. then my poodle is journalist.

OK, so we may have established that your poodle is not a journalist; but could you please define "journalist" or "reporter", in your own words, before we jump to conclusions?

Just to be clear, the compl... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Just to be clear, the complaint from certain quarters is which of the following since the rationale for the witchhunt varies from day to day?

(1) Gannon was not a "qualified" reporter or "real" journalist so he should have been denied access.

(2) Gannon was a White House press plant to serve as convenient escape for Chimpy McShrubhitlerenronburton and his maladministration from tough questions.

(3) Gannon was not thoroughly vetted and, hence, was a security risk within a knifes throw of the CIC.

(4) Gannon was a conduit for disseminating select materials to the public to protect the President and expose CIA operatives.

(5) Gannon was the representative hypocrite of the right who chastized certain behaviors while engaging in same.

(6) Gannon presented false attribution to a major figure of the Democratic party so his "outing" was appropriate.

(7) Gannon deserved to have his personal information disclosed because he once ran a questionable website.

Did I miss any? Please append as necessary and, when through, select the major point of contention since the goalposts are growing legs and shuffling mightily. Then we can beat this horse's carcass further into oblivion.

Traditional doctrine holds ... (Below threshold)
madge's poodle:

Traditional doctrine holds that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods. Freedom of the press is a 'fundamental personal right' which is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.

MADGE'S POODLE, CITIZEN JOURNALIST

Hmmm.Curious.... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

Curious.

Most people who maintain a web design business actually have a website in the name of their business. But the Whois for "BELDesigns" only has one entry, for a www.beldesigns.com, that's defunct. Evidently it used to be an engineering/manufacturing firm but the domain isn't hosted anymore.

*shrug* perhaps 1999 was so far back that he allowed his domain registration to lapse and it got picked up by this engineering firm. But that's fairly strange. I've done a lot of web work, mostly backend server/db stuff, and I've kept all of my domains.

So ... is this Paul Leddy on the up and up?

madge's poodle is one sharp... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

madge's poodle is one sharp pooch. Her answer trumps the ones I found by a mile.

So it's official - Gannon, according to the furry friend, qualifies as legitimate journalist with all deserved accolades befitting the title.

So let's have no more of this Gannon wasn't a "real" or "legitimate" journalist arrogance, shall we? Else we'll release a pack of poodles to chase you into submission.

it is said a sign of fascis... (Below threshold)

it is said a sign of fascism is the sacrificing of principle to party.

of course the repubs don't care that the bush admin uses propaganda. they don't care that they disenfranchised floridians to the tune of stealing the 2000 election and nor that they use brownshirts to shut down the vote. they don't care that bush gave the chinese our spy place. and now, tho they abhor gay marriage, they are defending the white house use of a gay prostitute as a planted propagandist who got a pass in violation of all security procedures. republicans have no principles whatsoever. oh - one. win. they don't even know why they want to anymore.

What type of journalistic t... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

What type of journalistic training goes Al Franken have? Is Janeane Garofalo a journalist? Two minor has-been actors decided they are journalis, nobody on the left questions that. They readily accept anyone that reads the news they want to hear as a journalist. so it's certainly not a matter of speciailized education those on the left are demanding, just someone willing to report with the proper slant to give some validity to their agenda.

"they don't care that they ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"they don't care that they disenfranchised floridians to the tune of stealing the 2000 election and nor that they use brownshirts to shut down the vote."

This is sooooo four years ago.

YOu want to talk about stolen elections why don't we head out to Washington State where the Dem governor stole the election-and with more evidence than innuendo.

Now why don't you get back on topic.

What type of journalisti... (Below threshold)
Clive Tolson:

What type of journalistic training goes Al Franken have? Is Janeane Garofalo a journalist?

This really was a stupid question to ask Bullwinkle! And, it would be a stupid question if I typed it, but substituted Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage!

Stop trying to create disputes, in an effort to distract from the ones you rather not address!

Rebecca, Madge, Laurie, et ... (Below threshold)
TJIT:

Rebecca, Madge, Laurie, et al,

I am disappointed to see the "progressives" supporting widespread vetting of the moral values of reporters before they are allowed a white house press pass. You want to have the reporters take a white house morality oath and have their backgrounds deeply investigated by the white house and federal authorities to see if they have every done anything that might go against what you perceive to be moral values. This is the only way Jeff Gannon's background could have been discovered, and that is what you are demanding.

Scratch the surface of a warm, fuzzy liberal too much and the inner, authoritarian, homophobic prude is often revealed.

Neither Rush nor Michael cl... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Neither Rush nor Michael claim to be journalists, but I've seen pictures of Al and Janeane with press passes hanging around their necks. Hardly a stupid question, and not a distraction either. It may be one you choose to avoid answering, though.

You know, the lefties want ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

You know, the lefties want to proclaim themselves the party of tolerance and the protector of the minority, but they only do that as long as the minority marches lockstep in line with the DNC.

Let a gay, lesbian, african american or hispanic step out of line, and they are demonized and villified. One need only to look at this case, or the various Rice and Thomas cartoons to realize this fact.

Pretty flimsy evidence ther... (Below threshold)
Clive Tolson:

Pretty flimsy evidence there Bullwinkle, more so if I'm suppose to take your word for it, without any pics or supporting evidence.

But, I won't take your bait. The problem is that the Bush administration can dismiss badly needed Arab linguists for being gay, but a man leading a lifestyle known to be a harbinger of blackmail and extortion (and the lack of a journalist resume would've been a tip off), is allowed into a 'Moral Values' White House?

Somehow I knew you'd say th... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Somehow I knew you'd say that. Read it and weep.

http://www.negativespin.com/franken.htm

Unlike liberals the right has no need to for dishonesty. The left provides us with plenty on evidence of it's lack of ethics. That's far from the only instance Franken has worn a press pass. Would you like to see more?

<a href="http://www.thenati... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

http://www.thenationaldebate.com/blog/archives/2005/02/franken_explode_1.html

There's a more recent one for you. That is a press pass, just in case you don't recognize it.

One last picture for you, a... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

One last picture for you, at the GOP convention.

http://www.whenangrydemocratsattack.com/

Satisfied now?

Well clive care to tell us ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Well clive care to tell us what qualifies Franken to be a journalist now?

Sorry guys, I came... (Below threshold)
Clive Tolson:

Sorry guys,

I came here to debate the Gannon scandal, not waste my time with your diversions! When you guys are back on message, holla...

Oh oh, one other thing. Have any of you guys heard about some secretly recorded tapes of Bush?

LMAO Who is trying to distr... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

LMAO Who is trying to distract us from Al Franken's claims of being a journalist? If Al Franken gets a press pass I see no reason why Gannon shouldn't have one. Anyone care to speculate on what a background check might turn in the case of Franken?

You say: It is only accepta... (Below threshold)
Rob Springman:

You say: It is only acceptable to use ones sexuality against someone if you are a liberal.

Ridiculous nonsense.

The fact is, Jeff Gannon in addition to being a republican plant in the White House press corp is a working male whore... if you look at what bloggers have uncovered (go to http://americablog.blogspot.com/ ) you can actually see that Gannon still has live listings on many gay escort sites.

The fact he is a GAY prostitute does not matter, the fact that some highly placed person in the administration got this kind of person extraordinary access is the point. If this same scenario had happened when Clinton was president, you KNOW the GOP would have been all over it instantly.

Tables are turned. Time for some payback.

yegads! Too think I used t... (Below threshold)
vero:

yegads! Too think I used to be stupid, naive and oh so very much a Liberal.

Growing up past puberty took care of all 3 of those problems for me. So there is hope for all Leftist out there.

Winston Churchill said it b... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Winston Churchill said it best-

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.

Some people learn and face reality as they age, some don't.

Is Janeane Garofalo a jo... (Below threshold)
julie:

Is Janeane Garofalo a journalist?

Some of the funniest things I read on DU in their post-election bloodbath were the comments about the wisdom of having a woman who looks like a skank heroin whore as their spokesperson.

We all know about the effec... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

We all know about the effect Teresa had, but what about Janeane?

CliveI posted abou... (Below threshold)

Clive

I posted about the GW tapes yesterday. And if you're looking for some sort of "scandal" in these 7 y/o tapes, you'll be sorely disappointed. Seems (shock!) that the private GW is remarkablely like the public GW.

To the lefty "let's tie Gannon to the fence and beat him to a pulp for being a apostate gay" crowd? Keep diggin' that hole. It's clear that you revel in indecency.

RobAnd your <a hre... (Below threshold)

Rob

And your evidence that Gannon was (a)"a Republican plant" AND (b) was given "extraordinary access" BY A (c) "highly placed person" within the WH is ...?

Allegations are not proof, man. I can just as easily assert YOU as an ephebophile that hangs in teen chat rooms and cruises malls with Scott Ritter.

RE: ed's post (February 20,... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: ed's post (February 20, 2005 01:12 AM)

ed,

If you look at the source HTML from the Americablog link, the contact is beldesigns at paulsbroadway.com so the operative domain is not beldesigns.com. There are pages for Paul Leddy and his webmastering work in the wayback machine for the paulsbroadway.com stuff - there may be more for those inclined to do more snooping.

So Mr. Leddy seemed to be a real entity though his current status in the industry seems dated. I guess others might try the whois if they are really interested though its a path that seems questionable. I don't really feel like following the Left's blogswarm in the classic Gannon-hunt tradition though poetic justice seems tempting. Nah, just skip it, ed, and take the higher road.

AnonymousDrivel: Woof! Woof... (Below threshold)
madge's poodle:

AnonymousDrivel: Woof! Woof!

MADGE'S POODLE, J '02

RE: laurie's post (February... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: laurie's post (February 20, 2005 06:56 AM)

it is said a sign of fascism is the sacrificing of principle to party.
Which priciple is being sacrificed? I'd say the a priciple of individual privacy was being defended - certainly nothing Fascist about that. Further, many Conservatives are concerned that Mr. Gannon be treated the same as the "preferred" class (i.e. that he is as protected as his "elite" colleagues at the pressers). Would this not be wholly antithetical to Fascist thought?

of course the repubs don't care that the bush admin uses propaganda.
No, Armstrong Williams received heavy critique from the "repubs". His stature was diminished severely.

they don't care that they disenfranchised floridians to the tune of stealing the 2000 election and nor that they use brownshirts to shut down the vote.
Oh, please! The Nazis are coming! The Nazis are coming! Pure tripe. C'mon laurie, you can do better than this.

they don't care that bush gave the chinese our spy place.
No, they care greatly. But what option did you propose at the time? Should the crew have ditched into the ocean and hoped they didn't drown or get shot while the rescue teams scanned the horizon? Should they have set an explosive charge on the plane once they disembarked on foreign soil? Should we have demanded from China the plane's release immediately or we'd start a war? None of these are rational options. I don't know what the crew did to sabotage the "good stuff" and hopefully it was adequate to minimize its impact on military treasure. Ultimately, I'll trust that our airmen did the best they could and the "brownshirts" ordered the top military commanders to do what was necessary. Having entertained you for a moment, don't you think you've strayed a bit from point?

and now, tho they abhor gay marriage,
No, I think most want to differentiate civil union from marriage and never shall these two meet. But this relates to Mr. Gannon's current dilemma how?

they are defending the white house use of a gay prostitute as a planted propagandist who got a pass in violation of all security procedures.
Yes, clearly the Republicans meant to use a heterosexual prostitute instead as their preferred propagandist insert. Good grief. I hope this post ends soon.

republicans have no principles whatsoever. oh - one. win. they don't even know why they want to anymore.
Republicans as a party are by no means perfect, but lack of principles is not one of their weaknesses. Of course to further your meme, I'd have to accept that the Republicans are Fascists - you know, the nonsense that no principles because party trumps all - but I think your analogy is hyperbolic to say the least, BS to say the most.


RE: madge's poodle (February 20, 2005 12:17 PM)

lol
Good doggy.

"I came here to debate the ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"I came here to debate the Gannon scandal, not waste my time with your diversions! When you guys are back on message, holla..."

Clive-0 Bullwinkle-(I ain't counting, but more than Clive)

When you see a response like this, you know they have lost the debate.

I also think it is funny that he and his minions come on here, saying that the Gannon story isn't abaout him being gay, it is about him not being a real journalist. Okay, fine it is about his credentials. So what makes somebody a "real" journalist? Since that is germaine to their argument, questions about what makes Franken a journalist are "on topic."

Also, I still would like to know if the leftie blogs are subjecting all the leftie journalists to the same withc hunt they did Gannon?

Re the dissembling Leftist ... (Below threshold)

Re the dissembling Leftist argument that the l'affaire de Gannon is about "real" journalism

It's about the Left attempting to circumvent the First Amendment right of a FREE press by demanding that THEY get to determine who is an "authentic" journalist (just like they get to determine who is an "authentic" gay/black/woman/latino). And the so-called MSM is picking up the salacious gay-bashing of Gannon because they, too, sense an opportunity to reinforce their exclusive club rights to access and information whereby to decide just what is right and proper to share with us unwashed plebes.

Lefties, in the MSM and on the net, again prove their fear of free individuals group-think.

You ask what constitutes so... (Below threshold)
Anne:

You ask what constitutes someone being a real journalist? First of all, education and a degree in journalism. There's not a newspaper around - not even a weekly in some podunk small town - that hires a reporter without a degree, or without being actively working towards same. That's foremost.

To get on a daily of even minimal significance - smaller urban area - you not only need the degree but a few years' experience. And a portfolio of clips from same.

How many years experience do you suppose it takes a credentialed reporter to earn enough bonafides to make it to the White House - ten years, twenty?

Those are the questions. This isn't a Capra movie and Guckert is not Jimmy Stewart. Real journalists who've paid decades of dues often don't ever see the inside of the White House press room.

So who made it so easy for him? Who opened doors for a non-reporter to become a reporter overnight?
And more importantly - WHY?

The left wants to do what t... (Below threshold)
Gannon Who?:

The left wants to do what the US Supreme Court refused to do: Define who is, and who is not, a journalist. The First Amendment Freedom of the Press not only protects the right to publish but the right to newsgathering. Way to go, moonbats.

AnneI call bullsh*... (Below threshold)

Anne

I call bullsh*t. Please tell me where the "journalism degrees" of the old school reporters of the 30's 40's and 50's came from?

They didn't HAVE ANY. Mostly they came up the ranks from copy boy.

And has the media gotten better or worse with the flooding post-60's of MSM with "journalism" degrees from "Journalism" schools that teach "advocacy journalism" rather than the old school 5WH (who, what, where, when, why and how)?

Guess what, YOU can have an opinion on how YOU define a "journalist" but when you advocate a LEGAL definition that would exclude people, you are violating the 1st amendment.

I don't want the government telling me who is or is not a "real journalist" anymore than telling me what is or is not a "real" religion (no matter how silly I may find some religions).

This is move towards "authentication" is frighteningly Stalinistic.

You ask what constitutes... (Below threshold)
julie:

You ask what constitutes someone being a real journalist? First of all, education and a degree in journalism.

The USSC recognized the folly in defining who is, or is not, a journalist. [They warned us about people like you!] Peter Jennings is a high school drop out. Where'e your outrage over him, huh?

How many years experience do you suppose it takes a credentialed reporter to earn enough bonafides to make it to the White House - ten years, twenty?

From what I read, if you work for a news service, apply for a pass, make the back ground check, you can at least get a day pass.

Those are the questions.

No, those are only your lies.

Jesus, Darleen, you are alw... (Below threshold)
julie:

Jesus, Darleen, you are always too fast for me!

JulieLOL. Sorry. I... (Below threshold)

Julie

LOL. Sorry. I'm the daughter of a man who started out in the early 50's as a newspaper man of the "old school" and who has nothing but contempt for "advocacy" journalism (been ranting about it since at least the 70's)

RE: Rob Springman's post (F... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Rob Springman's post (February 20, 2005 10:55 AM)
...if you look at what bloggers have uncovered (go to http://americablog[dot]blogspot[dot]com/) you can actually see that Gannon still has live listings on many gay escort sites.

Did you call or contact those listings to see if they are live?

Without addressing the other comments since they have been hashed several times, I think this point needs to be clarified. The links to which Americablog refers are archived on a server over which Gannon never did or could have any control. Portions of his original sites created by Paul Leddy were collected by a spider that retrieved some of the files for posterity and stored them in a web accessible cache (an automated depository of sorts). They are not "live" sites through which Gannon sells his wares but historical and publicly spiderable archives of what he had produced for him some period of time prior to now.

Unless you post links indicating currently active and not archived webpages, a correction is in order. You may be implying (with insinuating tone) that he still has active sites under his control that are publicly available to solicit him, but I would prefer that you provide current data that supports your position before I jump to the conclusion that you are still trying to demonize him.

To be fair to Rob Springman... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

To be fair to Rob Springman, he did say "...Gannon still has live listings on many gay escort sites"; so, while this may or may not be true, I wanted to emphasize that Gannon is not, as far as has been proven, currently running a web site under his control to solicit business.

I'm sure that should that condition change, the blogswarm will expose it.

Well, I must say that Darle... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Well, I must say that Darlene, julie, madge's poodle, among many others have put this "legitimate" reporter nonsense to bed. The Peter Jennings reference (heretofore referred to as the "Peter Jennings retort") is classic - a headline response deserving of 2-inch bold. Of course, is he a journalist or a teleprompt reader? What does his IRS return state? Bloggers, on your marks... get set...

(Hmmm, Peter Jennings == PJ == PJs == Pajamahadeen == bloggers == equally legitimate journalism) Is this logical? Just askin'...

OK, Libs, fire your next shot to justify the witch hunt.

You can call bs all you wan... (Below threshold)
Anne:

You can call bs all you want, but I find it amusing as hell that you ask where the 30's and 40's reporters came from, given that journalism school has been around for much longer than that. Copy boys did indeed *work their way up* but that means time in and work. Gannon had neither time in, nor work, nor credentials.

While it may not interest you because you exhibit disdain for higher education, particularly in journalism, it's how the system generally works. Call a weekly. Ask them if they hire high-level reporters with resumes that contain no formal journalism education. They don't. I know. I've worked for dailies and weeklies at all levels -- you have to have some credentials in order to be hired.

Now, Talon News is not really a news source (which is why Gannon couldn't get a hard pass, because the "online paper" did not pass WH qualifications for being legitimate press). So that's how he got hired in. The question is, how did he get vetted and passed into the WH press corps, taking the place of real, credentialed reporters?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that you don't go from a two-day $50 journalism seminar and six days later end up a member of the White House press corps without somebody in power putting you there. So, blackmail perhaps or a very close personal relationship with someone in power turned a nobody into Charles Foster Kane in six days.

To quote Leonard Pitts' column on Gannongate: But, when media watchdogs are intimidated into becoming lap dogs, as some wise wit once said, that's not reporting: That's just taking dictation.

"And has the media gotten b... (Below threshold)
Anne:

"And has the media gotten better or worse with the flooding post-60's of MSM with "journalism" degrees from "Journalism" schools that teach "advocacy journalism" rather than the old school 5WH (who, what, where, when, why and how)?"


If this is a concern of yours, you are truly on the wrong side of the issue. It's obvious from reading Gannon's stories and hearing his questions, he's the biggest "advocate" hack writer ever to come along. As a professional reporter, I agree with your above statement. Which is precisely why I find Gannongate so disturbing. Since you are sticking up for him despite the fact he's an uncredentialed, uneducated, unseasoned partisan plant, then I have to wonder if "advocacy journalism" only concerns you when it comes with a left-wing slant. That's what your statements indicate.


"As a professional reporter... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"As a professional reporter, I agree with your above statement."

Ahha, now we know where Anne's bias comes from.

Sorry, Anne, but while many journalists may have degrees, a degree is not required to be a journalist. And frankly I would prefer that the government not get into the business of defining who is or isn't a journalist.

You may argue that Gannon was not a good journalist, or that his news agency isn't all that legitimate a source, but I would much rather give the benefit of the doubt, when it comes to who gets to be a journalist on the side of being broad, than restricting it to only those people who got a four year degree from some university.

From Anne: I have to won... (Below threshold)
TnTexas:

From Anne: I have to wonder if "advocacy journalism" only concerns you when it comes with a left-wing slant.

Just out of curiosity, does this reporter's presence in the White House briefing room also bother you?

From Anne: The question is, how did he get vetted and passed into the WH press corps, taking the place of real, credentialed reporters? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that you don't go from a two-day $50 journalism seminar and six days later end up a member of the White House press corps without somebody in power putting you there.

The answer to this question is that he passed the security requirements that are in place for recieving a simple day pass. Apparently that doesn't include much (if any more) than a simple criminal background check. I found the following purposes of daypasses interesting: Day passes, which are picked up every day at the press office, are intended to provide flexibility for out-of-town journalists who might need to cover the White House for a day or two, or to allow White House reporters to bring in visitors who want to see the press briefings. Apparently, you don't have to be a reporter to receive a day pass. (The quote came from this Salon.con article.)

>So, let's say a b... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

>

So, let's say a business "journalist" only has a degree in, oh, BUSINESS.

Does that mean he or she is suddenly not a journalist? So, historians can't be journalists? Political Science majors can't be journalists?

Wow, pretty bad.

>

And if they do --- who is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to say "Yeah, the editor of your paper hired you --- but we don't think you're a 'real' journalist"?

Do you really want the government to control that?

>

Experience is of infinite more importance than education.

>

Well, if you sit in line for a daily pass --- not that much.

>

They can sit in line and wait for a daily pass.

And more importantly - WHY?>>

So, you're outraged over a story that you don't know much about?

Got it.

>

Never heard of Helent Thomas, eh? How about Walter Cronkite? They had few qualms about skewing the story to match their agendas.

>

Man, the left is now treating the 1st Amendment the way they treat the 2nd one.

But Bush is the one who wants to trample on the Constitution.

Odd.
-=Mike

Next, she will have the gal... (Below threshold)
madge's poodle, J '02:

Next, she will have the gall to argue that a poodle can't be a journalist!

you exhibit disdain for ... (Below threshold)
julie:

you exhibit disdain for higher education, particularly in journalism, it's how the system generally works. Call a weekly. Ask them if they hire high-level reporters with resumes that contain no formal journalism education.

Somebody hired Peter Jennings. Do you have disdain for him.

Now, Talon News is not really a news source . . .

According to the USSC it is. Now, which opinion do you think demands more respect and carries legal authority? Theirs? Or, yours?

So, blackmail perhaps or a very close personal relationship with someone in power turned a nobody into Charles Foster Kane in six days.

Time to put on your tin-foil hat, Annie.

AnneWho died and m... (Below threshold)

Anne

Who died and made you High Priestess and Keeper of the Orb of Real Journalism?

As I have stated before..you want to criticize Gannons writing style or his reporting, go right ahead (though it looks like he asked tough questions from a rightwing perspective, it's only when he stepped over the line and did a Larry King question that suddenly He.Had.To.Be.Utterly.Destroyed). However, that's not what has gone on has it?

And every Fred Phelps like action by the Left in this regard BELIES everything you claim. And whats even scarier is that you ACTUALLY are trying to get people to believe your crap about "We had to destroy Gannon in order to save Journalism"

Take your Stalinist Certificate of Government Approved Journalism and License to Practice It and SHOVE IT.

YOU DON'T GET TO LEGALLY DEFINE WHO IS A JOURNALIST.

meshugga schmuck

RE: madge's poodle, J '02's... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: madge's poodle, J '02's post (February 20, 2005 10:32 PM)

Anne,

NEVER challenge the Canine Journalist.

Speaking of Larry King, the... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Speaking of Larry King, the king of softball questions, does he get to have a WH press pass? After all, he doesn't have a college degree, much less a journalism one, and he has an arrest in his past.

RE: Anne's post (February 2... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Anne's post (February 20, 2005 07:40 PM)

Anne,

Some of the lengthy following is for you and some of it is for the general knowledgebase of ideas. I don't mean to pile on because you are getting thrashed pretty good, but I hope you'll consider the following when you try to evaluate legitimacy of question and questioner.

If you want to skip to some analysis, scroll a bit past the questions. It would be better, however, if you read the questions first before critiquing my comments.

Merely a snapshot in time but here goes:
-------------------------------
President Holds Press Conference
January 26, 2005
The James S. Brady Briefing Room

The excerpted questions posed to the President.

Q [Terry] Mr. President, the insurgents in Iraq are threatening to kill anyone who comes out to vote on Sunday. Do you think they'll succeed in killing or scaring away enough people so that the elections will be rendered seriously flawed or not credible?

Q [Steve] Can I ask a follow-up, sir? What would be a credible turnout number?

Q [?] Sir, your inaugural address has been interpreted as a new, aggressive posture against certain countries, in particular Iran. Should we view it that way?

Q [?] Do you see it as a policy shift?

Q [Terry] Mr. President, let me take you up on that, if I may. Last month in Jordan, a gentleman named Ali Hatar was arrested after delivering a lecture called, "Why We Boycott America." He was charged under section 191 of their penal code for slander of government officials. He stood up for democracy, you might say. And I wonder if here and now, you will specifically condemn this abuse of human rights by a key American ally. And if you won't, sir, then what, in a practical sense, do your fine words mean?

Q [Terry] Fair enough. If I could just follow up. Will you then -- does your inaugural address mean that when it comes to people like Mr. Hatar, you won't compromise because of a U.S. ally and you will stand --

Q [?] Mr. President, in the debate over Dr. Rice's confirmation, Democrats came right out and accused you and the administration of lying in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Republicans, in some cases, conceded that mistakes have been made. Now that the election is over, are you willing to concede that any mistakes were made? And how do you feel about --

Q [?] No reaction to the lying? No reaction? (Laughter.)

Q [?] I'd like to ask you -- sir, I'd like to ask you about the deficit. But before I do that, there is a developing story this morning -- the helicopter crash in Iraq. Can you tell us what you know about that, what may have caused it, and your reaction to it?

Q [?] Don't know whether it was weather-related, or not --

Q [?] You're preparing to ask Congress for an additional $80 billion in war spending in Afghanistan and Iraq. The White House is also prepared to predict a budget deficit of $427 billion for this year. You talk about sacrifice in this country. Do you think that you're really asking Americans to sacrifice financially -- when you're asking them to fund the war, yet, at the same time, perhaps pay an exorbitant amount to set up private accounts in Social Security, pay for a prescription drug benefit, as well as other spending plans?

Q [?] And tax cuts, to make those permanent? It's a lot of money.

Q [John] Mr. President, I want to try another way to ask you about Iraq. When you made the decision to go to war in Iraq, you clearly had majority support in the country. A string of recent polls have shown a clear majority of the American people now believe it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq. You've asked for $80 billion in more money on top of the billions already spent. The army says that we'll probably have 100,000 or more troops in Iraq for at least another year. What would you say to the American people, including a significant number who supported you at the beginning of the war, who now say this is not what we were led to believe would happen?

THE PRESIDENT: Carl, welcome to the beat. Is everybody thrilled Carl is here?

Q [Carl] Yes. (Laughter.)
Q [Carl] Thanks, very much.

THE PRESIDENT: Please express a little more enthusiasm for him. (Laughter.)

Q [Carl] A question on Social Security, if we may, sir. There has been, as you move forward to making your plan -- your ultimate proposal, growing concern among Republicans on Capitol Hill. We had Chairman Thomas last week with some concern about the process, and Senator Olympia Snowe on the other side suggesting that she's concerned about an absentee guaranteed benefit -- excuse me. Are you prepared today to say that those who opt into a potential private account -- personal account could, in fact, have a guaranteed benefit, as well? And what do you say to Republicans who are beginning to worry?

THE PRESIDENT: ...And so, therefore, if you have a child -- how old is your child, Carl?

Q [Carl] Fourteen years old.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, 14. Well, if she were --

Q [Carl] He, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: He, excuse me. (Laughter.) I should have done the background check. (Laughter.)...

Q [David] Mr. President, if I could return for a moment to your inaugural address. Dr. Rice referred in her testimony to six outposts of tyranny, countries where we clearly, I think, have a pretty good idea of your policies. What we're confused by right now, I think -- or, at least, I'm confused by, is how you deal with those countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, with whom we have enormous broad interests. Should the leaders of those countries now be on notice that the primary measure of their relationship with the United States should be their progress toward liberty? Or can they rest assured that, in fact, you've got this broad agenda with them and you're willing to measure liberty up against what China does for you on North Korea, what Russia does for you in other areas?

Q [Peter] Mr. President, Dr. Rice again -- quoting your future Secretary of State, wrote in "Foreign Affairs Magazine" in 2000, outlining what a potential Bush administration foreign policy would be, talked about things like security interests, free trade pacts, confronting rogue nations, dealing with great powers like China and Russia -- but promotion of democracy and liberty around the world was not a signature element of that prescription. I'm wondering what's changed since 2000 that has made this such an important element of your foreign policy.

Q [?] Mr. President, Chairman Thomas and some others on the Hill have suggested taking up tax reform at the same time that you deal with Social Security reform, and to consider alternatives such as a value-added tax to the current payroll tax for financing Social Security. Are you willing to consider combining those two big projects, or do you prefer to keep them on separate tracks?

Q [?] Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about the Gonzales nomination, and specifically, about an issue that came up during it, your views on torture. You've said repeatedly that you do not sanction it, you would never approve it. But there are some written responses that Judge Gonzales gave to his Senate testimony that have troubled some people, and specifically, his allusion to the fact that cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of some prisoners is not specifically forbidden so long as it's conducted by the CIA and conducted overseas. Is that a loophole that you approve?

Q [?] Mr. President, at the beginning of your remarks today you referred to two criteria that you're looking for on the Social Security fix, namely, permanent solvency and personal accounts. Does that mean that you would be willing to consider some changes that might broaden the base of revenues for the system as a way of addressing solvency?

Q [Judy] Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, can you update us, please, on your search for a director of national intelligence? Are you having trouble finding the right person? And do you worry at all that the delay might suggest to some people that it's not a high priority for you?

Q [?] Thank you, sir. Any -- back on Social Security -- any transition to personal accounts is estimated to cost between $1 trillion to $2 trillion over 10 years. Without talking about specific proposals, do you plan to borrow that money, or will you, when your plan comes out --

Q [?] -- will you be able to pay for it, though?

THE PRESIDENT: Ken. Welcome. Is this -- let me ask you, are you here temporarily, permanently, and who do you represent?

Q [Ken] Well, that will be up to my wife, sir, as you well know.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.

Q [Ken] Mr. President, on Social Security, you say the math clearly shows -- as you know, most of us became reporters because of our deep affection for math -- if the math clearly shows it, why are you having so much trouble on the Hill getting some to share your urgency? Do you think they're looking at the numbers differently, honestly, or are they running from the third rail?

THE PRESIDENT: Glad to have you here. (Laughter.) ... Yes, Ken, follow-up. This is a home boy follow-up.

Q [Ken] I seem to remember a time in Texas on another problem, taxes, where you tried to get out in front and tell people it's not a crisis now, it's going to be a crisis down the line -- you went down in flames on that one. Why --

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I -- if I might. (Laughter.) I don't think a billion-dollar tax relief that permanently reduced property taxes on senior citizens was "flames," but since you weren't a senior citizen, perhaps that's your definition of "flames."

Q [Ken] I never got my billion --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Because you're not a senior citizen yet. Acting like one, however. Go ahead. (Laughter.)

Q [Ken] What is there about government that makes it hard --

THE PRESIDENT: Faulty memory. (Laughter.)

Q [Ken] -- to address things in advance, before it's a crisis?

THE PRESIDENT: Do we have a crisis in Texas now on school property taxes?

Q [Ken] Yes, we do.

Q [?] Are you going to put forward your own plan on Social Security, or not?

Q [?] Mr. President --

Q [?] Mr. President --

Q [Abril] Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I have two questions, one on Iraq. You say about the troop withdrawal --

Q [Abril] No, I'm going to the question -- to the answer --

Q [Abril] I'm -- yes, I'm talking about troop withdrawal. Don't mess me up, now. (Laughter.) You said in a response just now that it depends on the initiative of the Iraqis. Are you giving the Iraqis a timetable for what you're going to do with troop withdrawal and when?

Q [Abril] Second question, on race. You brought it up in the inaugural address, and yesterday and today you have black leaders here at the White House discussing issues of race. Yesterday you didn't discuss civil rights. But where are you in the second term as it relates to race in America?

Q [Mark?] Mr. President, do you think it's a proper use of government funds to pay commentators to promote your policies?

Q [Mark?] Are you going to order that --

Q [Mark?] Fair enough. Are you ordering that there be an end to that practice?

Q [?] Well, Mr. Williams made a mistake --

Q [?] Mr. Williams made a mistake. Did the Department of Education make a mistake?

Q [?] What will happen to the people that made this decision?

Q [?] Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock-solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you said you're going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?
^Gannon's "Softball"^

Q [?] Mr. President, Senator Ted Kennedy recently repeated his characterization of Iraq as a "quagmire" and has called it your Vietnam. And the questioning of Alberto Gonzales and Condi Rice in the Senate has been largely used by Democrats to criticize your entire Iraq program, especially what you're trying to do postwar. I wonder if you have any response to those criticisms. And what kind of an effect do you think these statements have on the morale of our troops and on the confidence of the Iraqi people that what you're trying to do over there is going to succeed?

Q [Bennett] Mr. President, the Senate Republicans recently listed their priorities, and immigration reform wasn't on it. Do you think this means it's dead for this year? And why are you having so much trouble with your own party on that?

Q [Bennett] Why the resistance in your party so much?

Q [David] Mr. President, we saw the Democrats yesterday devote nine hours to Ms. Rice. We may see something similar with regard to Judge Gonzales. There's just simply a lot of anger on the Hill by Democrats at you, personally, and at your administration. And isn't this going to dog your efforts at whatever you do down the line, from the Supreme Court to immigration to whatever?

Q [David] Well, you had a Democratic Senator basically call your Secretary of State nominee a liar. That's pretty harsh language coming from --
-------------------------------

There's a video of the conference too if anyone wants to fill in the names better than I have. It's not really that important for the point I want to make.

Did you see any Mensa or Summa Cum Laude questions in there? I sure didn't. In fact, I'll bet that 90% of the posters on this blog could have presented the same questions and I'll bet less than half of them are "legitimate journalists". I think even I could have burped out a question or two as good as at least one or two of those presented and I sure ain't no stinkin' journalist (no offense to stinkin' journalists).

What I observed were typical, contemporaneous questions of all sorts - some broadly scoped, some quite narrow, some inane, some thoughtful, most biased, and a few even condescending or loaded. I even included a little playful banter to show which reporters were in the President's good graces. If you weren't paying attention, those would be Carl Cameron (FOX) and Ken (?). You'll note that Gannon was neither called by name nor received any special banter that other "friendlies" enjoyed. Ooh, how Rovian - Mr. Bush treated him like a nobody to throw of the conspiracy hounds. Sneakiness to a level that boggles the mind.

You may also have observed that following Gannon's question (the second to the last one), someone else (David) asked a question very similar to the one posed by Gannon regarding the President's ability to deal with overt hostility from the Democrats. Isn't this a giant blinking light that it was neither the credentials nor the question of the journalist that has irked the Liberals?

We all know it was Gannon's publicly Conservative position that drew the ire of moonbats. Yes moonbats, I'm talking to you. This is but a single press conference and typical of any other press conference. But by reviewing the transcript line by line, the obviously misplaced hatred derived by the far Left from the response to Gannon's presence is a blinking neon sign.

Bravo, AD! Alas, your comm... (Below threshold)
julie:

Bravo, AD! Alas, your comment will most likely fall on deaf ears, still, bravo!

Ouch, Darleen! This is a ke... (Below threshold)
julie:

Ouch, Darleen! This is a keeper. And my favorite line (out of many) is:

Take your Stalinist Certificate of Government Approved Journalism and License to Practice It and SHOVE IT.

Speaking of Larry King, ... (Below threshold)
julie:

Speaking of Larry King, the king of softball questions, does he get to have a WH press pass? After all, he doesn't have a college degree, much less a journalism one, and he has an arrest in his past.

Yeah, but, hasn't he had something like 7 or 8 young wives? That's gotta count for something.

RE: julie's post (February ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: julie's post (February 20, 2005 11:53 PM)
Bravo, AD! Alas, your comment will most likely fall on deaf ears, still, bravo!

Hey, I'm just trying to keep up with the regulars.

Sadly, true. However, these retorts are important as markers to expose the flawed defenses submitted by the fringe. The aggregate of challenge further marginalizes them and weakens their position. After a while, most will quit listening to their nonsense though you can count on at least 10% to be utterly braindead.

"Now, Talon News is not rea... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

"Now, Talon News is not really a news source . . .

According to the USSC it is. Now, which opinion do you think demands more respect and carries legal authority? Theirs? Or, yours? "

Hmm, if she isn't a lawyer, does she even have the right to question if Talon News is a news source?

Technically, all a "journalist" CAN gripe about is the methodology in reporting and not the legal status of a news group.

"Speaking of Larry King, the king of softball questions, does he get to have a WH press pass? After all, he doesn't have a college degree, much less a journalism one, and he has an arrest in his past.

Yeah, but, hasn't he had something like 7 or 8 young wives? That's gotta count for something. "

Were they all hot? :)
-=Mik

Great post Anonymous Drivel... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Great post Anonymous Drivel.

It is a shame that Anne probably won't bother to respond to it.

But I think you called the moonbats for what they are-a pack of wolves going after somebody, because the gay angle made him an easy target.

I bet if he was in the WH throwing balls from the loony left, they would be celebrating him.

Just Me,Thanks.</p... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Just Me,

Thanks.

As far as Anne's delayed response, that's OK. I wasn't really trying to bludgeon her over the head so much as present some factual evidence that seems to get ignored while irresponsible people perpetuate some contrivance to further a cause. This was an opportunity to present something more tangible than philosophizing or name-calling. The internet is a great repository of such documentation and some of it is actually relevant and fairly acquired. (Hint to moonbats - undisclosed contractual records between two private parties is NOT "fairly acquired".)

But I will quote Anne's recent comments (in italics) that did raise my dander:

So, blackmail perhaps or a very close personal relationship with someone in power turned a nobody into Charles Foster Kane in six days.
So now we've leaped from friendly plant to blackmailing extortionist who, to further his career or to promote his newly launched online presence in a relatively inconsequential news service, surreptitiously engaged in a tryst with some administration official with high authority? Where's my list [shuffling virtual papers]... I need to append. I guess the associate wasn't particularly powerful since Gannon still had to compete on a daily basis with other non-extortionists. Am I following this right? Um, this is deep in the moonbat cave I must say. Besides, I thought it was active participation on the part of the White House to engage Gannon as advocate plant, so extortion would not have been warranted or fruitful. Ah, moving goalposts once again.

To quote Leonard Pitts' column on Gannongate: But, when media watchdogs are intimidated into becoming lap dogs, as some wise wit once said, that's not reporting: That's just taking dictation.
This may be out of context (proceed with caution). So Pitts thinks that Gannon (media watchdog) was intimidated into becoming a lap dog? So was this a case of reverse extortion? If Gannon didn't ask "softwall" questions, the WH would proceed to "out" him and tell everyone about his previous life? Are you kidding me?! This is insanity of a five alarm nature. Please, Anne, tell me that I've misinterpreted your underlying point.

Nonetheless, I'll bet more than half the country thought Gannon's question (or questions - I'd never heard of the guy until this brouhaha erupted) was legitimate and expressed their view. I certainly thought his question was fair though punctuated a bit clumsily.

the biggest "advocate" hack writer ever to come along.
Utter hyperbole without the intent to be such; consequently, moonbat terminology. The biggest I've seen would be Helen Thomas though Terry Moran seems to be growing into the role nicely. To Moran's credit, however, he has not attacked Gannon so maybe there is some hope for him.

Since you are sticking up for him despite the fact he's an uncredentialed, uneducated, unseasoned partisan plant, then I have to wonder if "advocacy journalism" only concerns you when it comes with a left-wing slant.
Uncredentialed? Maybe, but that standard needs to be defined (and subsequently justified). Uneducated? BS. He was educated but to a degree apparently insufficient for your comfort.

I'm speculating he grew up in the public school system (at a minimum) so he was indeed "educated". What other sanctioned level of expertise he had is unknown by me. However, if you deem that uneducated, maybe that is an indictment of our public education system. As such it should be reconstructed and funding removed since it has failed (by your standard that he is uneducated). But that is a debate for another day.

"Unseasoned"? He was less ripe than others, no doubt, but that should not exclude him from the fruitbasket particularly when others around him had turned rotten. "Partisan"? On the whole, yes, but from a generally pro-Conservative position and not from a pro-Administration one. Further, the vast majority of WH press are partisan and has leaned heavily Left for quite some time. "Plant"? Wild, irresponsible, speculation, thus moonbat terminology.

Anne brings up some good points and I think the challengers assembled reasonably refuted them. That is good for debate as fair-minded people grasp for justifiable, and honorable, conclusions.

However, and you all knew a "however" was coming, a good bit of what I've been reading over the past few days was clearly fringe and wholly ridiculous. Now, an exaggeration or two can be quite fun, but there's a not so fine line between fun and stupid. Extreme partisanship yields stupid - or intentionally blind allegiance. Either one marginalizes one's position and gets one herded into the moonbat cave. Consider this post a scarecrow. ;)

Now, I've made the same point about Gannon and the lack of repercussions had he thrown from the Left. I used the "So now that we've established, Mr. President, that you are Hitler reincarnate, would you please address..." preface to challenge those that selectively excoriate our resident "plant" (Rep. - Earth, District 10). Naturally, I agree with you 100%. I've yet to see a response of ANY sort anywhere to address this inconsistency. Curious isn't it? Could it be that this is the stake that slays Dracula? Any moonbats want to enter the daylight and suck the logic from this vein?




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