PDA

View Full Version : Ann Coulter's latest gem...


memyselfI
02-23-2005, 09:44 PM
defending a conservative fake name gay hooker and trying make the issue about being gay... ROFL If I had any doubt this is making he RWNJs uncomfy...they are so gone now.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=108&ncid=742&e=10&u=/ucac/20050223/cm_ucac/republicansbloggersandgaysohmy

REPUBLICANS, BLOGGERS AND GAYS, OH MY!

Wed Feb 23, 6:41 PM ET Op/Ed - Ann Coulter


By Ann Coulter

In response to the public disgrace and ruin of New York Times editor Howell Raines, CBS anchor Dan Rather and CNN news director Eason Jordan, liberals are directing their fury at the blogs. Once derided as people sitting around their living rooms in pajamas, now obscure writers for unknown Web sites are coming under more intensive background checks than CIA (news - web sites) agents.


Ann Coulter



The heretofore-unknown Jeff Gannon of the heretofore-unknown "Talon News" service was caught red-handed asking friendly questions at a White House press briefing. Now the media is hot on the trail of a gay escort service that Gannon may have run some years ago. Are we supposed to like gay people now, or hate them? Is there a Web site where I can go to and find out how the Democrats want me to feel about gay people on a moment-to-moment basis?


Liberals keep rolling out a scrolling series of attacks on Gannon for their Two Minutes Hate, but all their other charges against him fall apart after three seconds of scrutiny. Gannon's only offense is that he may be gay.


First, liberals claimed Gannon was a White House plant who received a press pass so that he could ask softball questions -- a perk reserved for New York Times reporters during the Clinton years. Their proof was that while "real" journalists (like Jayson Blair) were being denied press passes, Gannon had one, even though he writes for a Web site that no one has ever heard of -- but still big enough to be a target of liberal hatred! (By the way, if writing for a news organization with no viewers is grounds for being denied a press pass, why do MSNBC reporters have them?)


On the op-ed page of The New York Times, Maureen Dowd openly lied about the press pass, saying: "I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the 'Barberini Faun' is credentialed?"


Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that dyspeptic, old Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president. Still, it would be suspicious if Dowd were denied a press pass while someone from "Talon News" got one, even if he is a better reporter.


But Dowd was talking about two different passes without telling her readers (a process now known in journalism schools as "Dowdification"). Gannon didn't have a permanent pass; he had only a daily pass. Almost anyone can get a daily pass -- even famed Times fantasist Maureen Dowd could have gotten one of those. A daily pass and a permanent pass are altogether different animals. The entire linchpin of Dowd's column was a lie. (And I'm sure the Times' public editor will get right on Dowd's deception.)


Finally, liberals expressed shock and dismay that Gannon's real name is "James Guckert." On MSNBC's "Hardball," Chris Matthews introduced the Gannon scandal this way: "Coming up, how did a fake news reporter from a right-wing Web site get inside the White House press briefings and presidential news conferences?"


Reporter David Shuster then gave a report on "the phony alias Guckert used to play journalist" -- as opposed to the real name Shuster uses to play journalist. (You can tell Schuster is a crackerjack journalist because he uses phrases like "phony alias.") With all the subtlety of a gay-bashing skinhead, Matthews spent the rest of the segment seeing how many times he could smear Gannon by mentioning "HotMilitaryStuds.com" and laughing.


Any day now, Matthews will devote entire shows to exposing Larry Zeigler, Gerald Riviera and Michael Weiner -- aka Larry King, Geraldo Rivera and Matthews' former MSNBC colleague Michael Savage. As a newspaper reporter, Wolf Blitzer has written under the names Ze'ev Blitzer and Ze'ev Barak. The greatest essayist of modern times was Eric Blair, aka George Orwell. The worst essayist of modern times is "TRB" of The New Republic.


Air America radio host and "Nanny" impersonator "Randi Rhodes" goes by a fake name, and she won't even tell people what her real last name is. (She says for "privacy reasons." That name must be a real doozy.) As Insideradio.com describes Rhodes, she refuses "to withhold anything from her listeners" and says conservatives "are less likely to share such things." How about sharing your name, Randi? We promise not to laugh.


Democrats in Congress actually demanded that an independent prosecutor investigate how Gannon got into White House press conferences while writing under an invented name. How did Gary Hartpence, Billy Blythe and John Kohn (Gary Hart, Bill Clinton (news - web sites) and John Kerry (news - web sites)) run for president under invented names? Admittedly, these men were not reporters for the prestigious "Talon News" service; they were merely Democrats running for president.


Liberals keep telling us the media isn't liberal, but in order to retaliate for the decimation of major news organizations like The New York Times, CBS News and CNN, all they can do is produce the scalp of an obscure writer for an unknown conservative Web page. And unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, they can't even get Gannon for incompetence on the job. (Also unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, Gannon has appeared on TV and given a series of creditable interviews in his own defense, proving our gays are more macho than their straights.)


Gannon didn't write about gays. No "hypocrisy" is being exposed. Liberals' hateful, frothing-at-the-mouth campaign against Gannon consists solely of their claim that he is gay.

SBK
02-23-2005, 09:53 PM
Finally, liberals expressed shock and dismay that Gannon's real name is "James Guckert." On MSNBC's "Hardball," Chris Matthews introduced the Gannon scandal this way: "Coming up, how did a fake news reporter from a right-wing Web site get inside the White House press briefings and presidential news conferences?"


Reporter David Shuster then gave a report on "the phony alias Guckert used to play journalist" -- as opposed to the real name Shuster uses to play journalist. (You can tell Schuster is a crackerjack journalist because he uses phrases like "phony alias.") With all the subtlety of a gay-bashing skinhead, Matthews spent the rest of the segment seeing how many times he could smear Gannon by mentioning "HotMilitaryStuds.com" and laughing.


Any day now, Matthews will devote entire shows to exposing Larry Zeigler, Gerald Riviera and Michael Weiner -- aka Larry King, Geraldo Rivera and Matthews' former MSNBC colleague Michael Savage. As a newspaper reporter, Wolf Blitzer has written under the names Ze'ev Blitzer and Ze'ev Barak. The greatest essayist of modern times was Eric Blair, aka George Orwell. The worst essayist of modern times is "TRB" of The New Republic.


Air America radio host and "Nanny" impersonator "Randi Rhodes" goes by a fake name, and she won't even tell people what her real last name is. (She says for "privacy reasons." That name must be a real doozy.) As Insideradio.com describes Rhodes, she refuses "to withhold anything from her listeners" and says conservatives "are less likely to share such things." How about sharing your name, Randi? We promise not to laugh.


Democrats in Congress actually demanded that an independent prosecutor investigate how Gannon got into White House press conferences while writing under an invented name. How did Gary Hartpence, Billy Blythe and John Kohn (Gary Hart, Bill Clinton (news - web sites) and John Kerry (news - web sites)) run for president under invented names? Admittedly, these men were not reporters for the prestigious "Talon News" service; they were merely Democrats running for president.


Gannon didn't write about gays. No "hypocrisy" is being exposed. Liberals' hateful, frothing-at-the-mouth campaign against Gannon consists solely of their claim that he is gay.

Any comment on the phony named presidential canidates? And that last bold statement is dead on, especially with you.

I would say this article does a great job of showing what an retarded story libs are trying to turn into some "hopefully it'll get him impeached" moment. It really is pathetic, but then again so is the democratic party.

memyselfI
02-23-2005, 10:10 PM
Any comment on the phony named presidential canidates? And that last bold statement is dead on, especially with you.

I would say this article does a great job of showing what an retarded story libs are trying to turn into some "hopefully it'll get him impeached" moment. It really is pathetic, but then again so is the democratic party.

They got their security clearance even with their phony names, didn't they?

And, last I heard none of them were gay hookers...which is the issue, the hooker part and NOT the gay part which the RWNJs are cleverly trying to throw back at the Dems as being hypocrites. They are projecting, AGAIN.

I doubt this will get DUHbya impeached. There are still too many people who believe this adminstration is being straight with the American people.

http://www.bartcop.com/sheeple-tv.jpg

KCWolfman
02-23-2005, 10:13 PM
I agree with D-enise. This is not about homosexuality.


outing other GAYS in the White House
the GAY hooker
GAYprostitute sticks it
Their folk hero is a GAY prostitute


Thank goodness she doesn't make it an issue :rolleyes:

KCWolfman
02-23-2005, 10:15 PM
And, last I heard none of them were gay hookers...which is the issue, the hooker part and NOT the gay part...



Then why do you feel the need to mention GAY in every thread on the topic?

memyselfI
02-23-2005, 10:21 PM
I agree with D-enise. This is not about homosexuality.






Thank goodness she doesn't make it an issue :rolleyes:


Hum, look at the topics you quoted. ALL THREE of them noted he was a gay hooker and the one that didn't mentioned the RWNJs media OUTING gays in the adminstration...the thread pointing out their outing of folks based on gossip from gay blogs. :hmmm: Oh, I see you changed it, nice.

The hooker part being the tawdry part of the story and not the gay part.

whoman69
02-23-2005, 10:25 PM
The right is trying to turn this around and say this is gay bashing from the left. What the left is trying to point out is that the Republicans complained about repealing anti-sodomy laws that while technically could have been used against straight people, were unfairly targeting gays only. The Republican party is hypocritical on the issue.
The fact that this guy used a fake name should have denied him a press pass. The fact that he was an escort should have denied him a press pass. The fact that he ran the escort agency should have denied him a press pass. The fact that he is only a blogger should have denied him a press pass. Is the White House going to admit all the bloggers to the press corps now? The only reason the guy was there was for the press secretary to change the debate when needed to questions more favorable to him. Its just another attempt by this administration to control the media with propoganda.

KCWolfman
02-23-2005, 10:29 PM
The hooker part being the tawdry part of the story and not the gay part.

Again, if gay is not important, why do you keep mentioning it? Obviously, you believe not only that is it important, but that it is important to lie about it not being important as well.

KCWolfman
02-23-2005, 10:30 PM
The right is trying to turn this around and say this is gay bashing from the left. What the left is trying to point out is that the Republicans complained about repealing anti-sodomy laws that while technically could have been used against straight people, were unfairly targeting gays only. The Republican party is hypocritical on the issue.
The fact that this guy used a fake name should have denied him a press pass. The fact that he was an escort should have denied him a press pass. The fact that he ran the escort agency should have denied him a press pass. The fact that he is only a blogger should have denied him a press pass. Is the White House going to admit all the bloggers to the press corps now? The only reason the guy was there was for the press secretary to change the debate when needed to questions more favorable to him. Its just another attempt by this administration to control the media with propoganda.
No, SOME of the right will say that. And only SOME of the left is erroneously stating it is a hypocritical point of order - and they are wrong.

The rest of your statement I agree with 100%.

memyselfI
02-23-2005, 10:35 PM
Again, if gay is not important, why do you keep mentioning it? Obviously, you believe not only that is it important, but that it is important to lie about it not being important as well.

Who said it wasn't important? It is important because of the hypocrisy of the adminstration regarding the gay issue in the election campaign. And because of what it says about someone's judgement within the WH. It is not important who JJGG himself, as a person, sleeps with.

What I said is it's not the tawdry or scandalous or even curious part of the story. The fact the guy was a hooker IS. I could careless if he's Karl's Sargent Rock (Hard) or not...what I care about is if his past was overlooked and his 'credentials' were granted as a means to further the WH propaganda campaign and that someone, with BAD JUDGEMENT, opened themselves up to blackmail and all sorts of potential problems if they had a personal relationship with this guy...THAT is the ONLY reason I'd care if JJGG (and his 'past' life) were sleeping with a man OR woman in the WH circle.

KCWolfman
02-23-2005, 10:38 PM
Who said it wasn't important? It is imporant because of the hypocrisy of the adminstration regarding the issue in the election campaign. And because of what it says about someone's judgement within the WH.
.

Ahh, and how is it hypocritical. Has the Administration distributed mandatory upside-down triangles for all homos? Did I miss something?

If someone were not allowed to work with the admin because they were gay, you would be screaming about unfair standards. Since they are gay, you are screaming they are hypocritical. Like my ex-wife, you are going to bitch no matter what happens - it is just a fact of life.

siberian khatru
02-23-2005, 10:39 PM
The fact that he is only a blogger should have denied him a press pass.

Why? What's wrong with being a blogger?

memyselfI
02-23-2005, 10:40 PM
Ahh, and how is it hypocritical. Has the Administration distributed mandatory upside-down triangles for all homos? Did I miss something?

If someone were not allowed to work with the admin because they were gay, you would be screaming about unfair standards. Since they are gay, you are screaming they are hypocritical. Like my ex-wife, you are going to bitch no matter what happens - it is just a fact of life.

No, it's not that they are employing people who are gay that is the hypocrisy. It's that they are closeted and out selling DUHbya's anti-gay 'mandate'.

KCWolfman
02-23-2005, 10:43 PM
No, it's not that they are employing people who are gay that is the hypocrisy. It's that they are closeted and out selling DUHbya's anti-gay 'mandate'.
What is his anti-gay mandate? Do you have a link, or is this another conspiracy theory?

Taco John
02-23-2005, 10:58 PM
I love all the Baby Lee style outrage for the gays coming from the right now... Just classic.

SBK
02-23-2005, 11:29 PM
I love all the Baby Lee style outrage for the gays coming from the right now... Just classic.

Merely pointing out that the right isn't the one who pretends to have nothing wrong with being gay.

SBK
02-23-2005, 11:31 PM
Merely pointing out that the right isn't the one who pretends to have nothing wrong with being gay.

Maybe I should say the right isn't the one embracing the gay agenda.

Cochise
02-23-2005, 11:44 PM
..

Pitt Gorilla
02-23-2005, 11:48 PM
Who are the "liberals" to which Ann refers? She seems to be insinuating that all liberals think the same, yet we know that isn't true. This is either really bad writing or just a basic lack of understanding of human cognition.

Logical
02-23-2005, 11:48 PM
(By the way, if writing for a news organization with no viewers is grounds for being denied a press pass, why do MSNBC reporters have them?)
ROFLROFLROFL

Cochise
02-24-2005, 12:01 AM
Who are the "liberals" to which Ann refers? She seems to be insinuating that all liberals think the same, yet we know that isn't true. This is either really bad writing or just a basic lack of understanding of human cognition.

I tend not to think that she is to be taken seriously. I see her as portraying a mirror image to the usual squawking coming from the looney left.

Pitt Gorilla
02-24-2005, 12:12 AM
I tend not to think that she is to be taken seriously. I see her as portraying a mirror image to the usual squawking coming from the looney left.Ahh, I see. I don't see how this kind of stuff gets published...

patteeu
02-24-2005, 12:46 AM
I wonder if the people pimping this story as a scandal realize how ridiculous they sound? Get back to me when you find an impropriety. Until then, I hope they don't fill Gannon/Guckert's spot in the press pool with another cookie-cutter journalist who's idea of a good question is whatever the rest of his/her colleagues think is a good question.

Hey, I've got a good idea for a question:


"Mr. President. ... do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th? "


"Mr. President, .... One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9-11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism, ...? "


"Thank you, Mr. President.

Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9-11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you prepared to give them one? "

"Thank you, Mr. President.

In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it? "


"Following on both Judy and John's questions, and it comes out of what you just said in some ways, with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have, quite significantly over the past couple of months, I guess I'd like to know if you feel, in any way, that you have failed as a communicator on this topic."


"But I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way. You don't have many of these press conferences where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?"

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Rausch
02-24-2005, 02:00 AM
I love all the Baby Lee style outrage for the gays coming from the right now... Just classic.

Yeah, I just hated queers until one brought up a $#itstorm against a REP President. Now I understand that they're the greatest thing since.....wait....that doesn't make sense...

Taco John
02-24-2005, 02:35 AM
I wonder if the people pimping this story as a scandal realize how ridiculous they sound? Get back to me when you find an impropriety.



I guess impropriety is in the eye of the beholder. Right-wing partisains like yourself will ignore certain facts and turn a blind eye that this guy was receiving privledges that qualified journalists coudln't get as readily. THe fact that he's a gay prostitute only adds to the allure of this story, because you have to wonder if that is somehow tied into his special access...

But then, I suppose that all depends on whether or not you agree that he did in fact receive special access...

So... do you?

This should be amusing.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 02:39 AM
I think we all know that if this had happened during the Clinton era, this whole thing would be a huge deal... There'd be a daily Drudge expose, and we'd hear every hour on the hour that Clinton is the sleaziest president ever in the White House, and further impugne the integrity of his administration.

I'm loving this, because it's hilarious to see people soil their own integrity by trampling over their own professed standards in order to protect their king.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 02:46 AM
Seriously... What happens in 1996 when the cover is blown off the story that a reporter who had been impugning the right with his line of softball questioning during Clinton press conferences turns out to be a gay prostitute who has the editorial credibility of Paulie Shore.

Are you kidding me? I'm sure it would blow over in one news cycle! ROFL

BigMeatballDave
02-24-2005, 03:57 AM
http://www.bartcop.com/sheeple-tv.jpgThat damn pic pissed me off... How is it a sheep can afford a plasma, and I can't?

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 06:34 AM
Who are the "liberals" to which Ann refers? She seems to be insinuating that all liberals think the same, yet we know that isn't true. This is either really bad writing or just a basic lack of understanding of human cognition.
I would say the latter.

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 06:36 AM
Seriously... What happens in 1996 when the cover is blown off the story that a reporter who had been impugning the right with his line of softball questioning during Clinton press conferences turns out to be a gay prostitute who has the editorial credibility of Paulie Shore.

Are you kidding me? I'm sure it would blow over in one news cycle! ROFL
So now he is a reporter?

I thought he was a blogger?

Duck Dog
02-24-2005, 08:21 AM
I agree with D-enise. This is not about homosexuality.


Thank goodness she doesn't make it an issue :rolleyes:

LMAO. That's gonna leave a mark.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 08:32 AM
Who are the "liberals" to which Ann refers? She seems to be insinuating that all liberals think the same, yet we know that isn't true. This is either really bad writing or just a basic lack of understanding of human cognition.

Consider the lambs in her audience...then you get your answer.

whoman69
02-24-2005, 09:22 AM
Why? What's wrong with being a blogger?
There's no qualifications to be a blogger. If we are to let one blogger in, and one that has no readership at that, they have to let them all in. There have to be qualifications to be on the White House press corps, otherwise, they will need an arena for the press conferences. I can foresee bloggers qualifying, but simply being a sympathetic ear to the administration view with no readership is not a qualification.

whoman69
02-24-2005, 09:40 AM
No, SOME of the right will say that. And only SOME of the left is erroneously stating it is a hypocritical point of order - and they are wrong.

The rest of your statement I agree with 100%.
We've been agreeing alot more since the campaign ended. :thumb:

BTW, did you see the history channel conspiracy theory on FDR and the Pearl Harbor attack. IMO, they give more creedence to the conspiracies on that show than to show lack of conspiracy. Its the new entertainment media. The supposed smoking gun was based on a document from the war dept. and the President that America would not fire first. The conspiracy theorists tried to claim that Roosevelt wanted America to be defenseless against a first strike. The memo tells commanders that they need to still defend their country. There is no proof of any commander taking it to be that we had to lay down our weapons. The Pearl Harbor disaster was caused by our lack of response. With Short piling up all our planes to guard against sabotage, they were sitting ducks for an airstrike. America did actually fire the first shots with an attack by a destroy on a mini-sub that was trying to get in the harbor. This proves that commanders felt they could defend their bases. If the officer of the day had paid more attention to the radar reports instead of blowing them off as being a group of B17s due from California, we may have gotten some intercept planes in the air and lessened the damage. It was command decisions and not Presidential action that was responsible for the debacle.

siberian khatru
02-24-2005, 09:45 AM
There's no qualifications to be a blogger. If we are to let one blogger in, and one that has no readership at that, they have to let them all in. There have to be qualifications to be on the White House press corps, otherwise, they will need an arena for the press conferences. I can foresee bloggers qualifying, but simply being a sympathetic ear to the administration view with no readership is not a qualification.

What are the qualifications to be a "journalist?" The ones set for the WH press corps are largely set by ... the WH press corps. Now that's a clever barrier to entry. Nice way to protect your own.

**********

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050216-123422-8040r.htm

Members of the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) met yesterday with President Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, to discuss the White House credentialing system for reporters, but neither side pressed for stricter guidelines and each is wary of setting new limits on access.

The 20-minute meeting came a week after James D. Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon, a former reporter for the conservative Talon News, resigned amid charges that he was not a legitimate reporter for a bona fide news organization.

The WHCA, which deals with the administration on coverage-related issues, did not use the meeting to press for new guidelines to decide which reporters can get into the White House for daily briefings, reports Joseph Curl of The Washington Times.

"Nobody asked anybody else to do anything, and nobody said they intend to do anything," said WHCA President Ron Hutcheson, who added that no official action was likely at a Feb. 28 WHCA board meeting. "Our general position is to let people in, not to keep people out."

Under nonmandatory guidelines from the Clinton administration, which are sometimes bent by the White House and by news organizations, reporters seeking a permanent White House "hard pass" must:

•Work for a news organization with a Washington bureau.
•Be certified by the organization's executives as a regular correspondent.
•Demonstrate a need to be at the White House on a daily basis.
•Live in the Washington area.
•Be a member of the congressional press gallery.

Mr. McClellan said he reiterated the administration stance in yesterday's meeting that the White House should not be deciding which reporters get in.

"I certainly don't think it's the press secretary's role to get into picking and choosing," he said in a telephone interview.

**********

I think they'd better re-think the qualifications to allow bloggers in. Not every blogger, just like they don't let in everyone who works for a newspaper or TV or radio station. But they can't be excluded on the grounds that because they don't work for a newspaper, TV or radio station, they're not "journalists." The nature of media is changing significantly and rapidly these days, and leaving bloggers out of the mix is akin to closing roads to automobiles in 1900 so they don't scare the horse and buggies.

KCTitus
02-24-2005, 09:46 AM
I think we all know that if this had happened during the Clinton era, this whole thing would be a huge deal... There'd be a daily Drudge expose, and we'd hear every hour on the hour that Clinton is the sleaziest president ever in the White House, and further impugne the integrity of his administration.

I'm loving this, because it's hilarious to see people soil their own integrity by trampling over their own professed standards in order to protect their king.

I'd like to take the time to point out the fact that it's Teej that first brought up Clinton in this thread. I dont know what the rule is now, is it ok to talk more about him or will that meet with more lib rancor.

I also wanted to laugh at the irony in Teej's second paragraph...Im reminded of the soil Teej himself made of the swifties. I found that quite hilarious as well.

Chief Henry
02-24-2005, 10:00 AM
[QUOTE=siberian khatru]What are the qualifications to be a "journalist?"
**********

Its real easy. I have a press for the intire Iowa High School Wrestling tournyment. But i've been broadcasting sports since 1984 too :)

Taco John
02-24-2005, 10:45 AM
I'd like to take the time to point out the fact that it's Teej that first brought up Clinton in this thread. I dont know what the rule is now, is it ok to talk more about him or will that meet with more lib rancor.

I also wanted to laugh at the irony in Teej's second paragraph...Im reminded of the soil Teej himself made of the swifties. I found that quite hilarious as well.



Those old diaper wearering liars were soiling themselves...

I don't know what this new Clinton rule is, but I don't much f*cking care. I can understand why you'd want to minimize exposure to that in the face of this new controversy. But alas, y'all did what you did, and have to suffer the consequences when it comes back around.

Baby Lee
02-24-2005, 11:07 AM
I noticed that Jonathan Leibovitz, errrr Jon Stewart was mum on the pseudonym issue. ROFL

Radar Chief
02-24-2005, 11:10 AM
I think we all know that if this had happened during the Clinton era, this whole thing would be a huge deal... There'd be a daily Drudge expose, and we'd hear every hour on the hour that Clinton is the sleaziest president ever in the White House, and further impugne the integrity of his administration.

I'm loving this, because it's hilarious to see people soil their own integrity by trampling over their own professed standards in order to protect their king.

Hey Einstein, it did happened under Clinton, you even admitted such in this thread. (http://67.18.68.69/BB/showthread.php?t=110724)

It did. How many people, American and foreign, got access to the White House and the President by writing big checks?

Taco Jane responded.

Probably just as many as the current administration... And the one before it. And the one before it. et al.

What does that have anything to do with anything?

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaach

Don't act naive.

Said the idiot who thinks that payola only happens in Democrat administrations...

Don't be such a fool.

Yea, fool. :rolleyes:

vailpass
02-24-2005, 11:16 AM
The right is trying to turn this around and say this is gay bashing from the left. What the left is trying to point out is that the Republicans complained about repealing anti-sodomy laws that while technically could have been used against straight people, were unfairly targeting gays only. The Republican party is hypocritical on the issue.
The fact that this guy used a fake name should have denied him a press pass. The fact that he was an escort should have denied him a press pass. The fact that he ran the escort agency should have denied him a press pass. The fact that he is only a blogger should have denied him a press pass. Is the White House going to admit all the bloggers to the press corps now? The only reason the guy was there was for the press secretary to change the debate when needed to questions more favorable to him. Its just another attempt by this administration to control the media with propoganda.

Whoman, your limp-wristed swipe at the President's party has offended me. I challenge you to a duel. Free throws at twentypaces, first one to ten wins. I'll even let you pick the arena:
Emerson, St. Joes, C.B. Vernon, Starry, Longfellow, you name it. But no Jane Boyd or Polk; we Republicans can't be seen associating with "those" people on a non-election year. ROFL

patteeu
02-24-2005, 12:32 PM
I guess impropriety is in the eye of the beholder. Right-wing partisains like yourself will ignore certain facts and turn a blind eye that this guy was receiving privledges that qualified journalists coudln't get as readily. THe fact that he's a gay prostitute only adds to the allure of this story, because you have to wonder if that is somehow tied into his special access...

But then, I suppose that all depends on whether or not you agree that he did in fact receive special access...

So... do you?

This should be amusing.

I have no way of knowing what it takes to get access in the first place so I don't have any way of knowing whether he got special access. I might be concerned if the entire WH press pool had been ideologically cleansed, but it hasn't been. Even if Gannon/Guckert got access where a partisan leftie working for a similarly fringe website news organization could not, there were plenty of NYT, WP, and Boston Globe reporters available to keep the WH honest with antagonistic questions. Just scroll back to my last post to see examples of what I'm talking about.

Did Gannon/Guckert ever make up his stories the way Jayson Blair did? Did Gannon/Guckert ever base his reports on obviously forged documents like Dan Rather? Did he ever spike embarrassing stories in order to maintain access like Eason Jordan's CNN?

If this guy charmed his way into a press pass, then it is an indication that he IS a good reporter. Half of the job of being a good reporter is getting good access. If he got the access through bribery or something similarly unethical/illegal then I'll be interested. If he got access through legitimate means (e.g. schmoozing the right people or flashing an irresistable smile), then more power to him. Let me know when you have something solid that indicates his access was nefarious.

Cochise
02-24-2005, 12:36 PM
If this guy charmed his way into a press pass, then it is an indication that he IS a good reporter. Half of the job of being a good reporter is getting good access. If he got the access through bribery or something similarly unethical/illegal then I'll be interested.

Exactly

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 12:37 PM
IIf this guy charmed his way into a press pass, then it is an indication that he IS a good reporter. Half of the job of being a good reporter is getting good access. If he got the access through bribery or something similarly unethical/illegal then I'll be interested. If he got access through legitimate means (e.g. schmoozing the right people or flashing an irresistable smile), then more power to him. Let me know when you have something solid that indicates his access was nefarious.

OHMYGAWD. ROFL ROFL ROFL

The guy might not have used his $50.00 journalism 'certificate' at all...

he may have used other 'access' to get his credentials. The guy had NO FORMAL JOURNALISM TRAINING other than a RW seminar/certificate.

I guess that little fact means nothing when defending how good of a 'reporter' he might be.

Donger
02-24-2005, 12:39 PM
The funny thing is that I don't have a clue as to what this Gannon story is all about. I've not read a thing about it (been traveling the last week and a half).

I can only assume that Denise has a hard-on for it because of the last name involved.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 12:40 PM
There's no qualifications to be a blogger. If we are to let one blogger in, and one that has no readership at that, they have to let them all in. There have to be qualifications to be on the White House press corps, otherwise, they will need an arena for the press conferences. I can foresee bloggers qualifying, but simply being a sympathetic ear to the administration view with no readership is not a qualification.

Your suggestion that if you let one in you have to let them all in is preposterous. The news media don't have a right to White House access. The White House can limit access in any way they wish, as far as I'm aware, within the limits that politics will allow. If the President were to limit access only to right wing columnists, there would likely be a politcal cost to be paid. That's why a wide variety of main stream news organizations are allowed in. To ban them would be to invite the firestorm that they would create and the political backlash that would follow. That's what this is all about. This, so far at least, is not an issue of right or wrong, it is a political battle. The President's political opponents are trying, with very little evidence, to fool the general public into believing something nefarious has occurred and those of us who support the President are trying to keep them from succeeding. It's as simple as that.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 12:41 PM
The funny thing is that I don't have a clue as to what this Gannon story is all about. I've not read a thing about it (been traveling the last week and a half).

I can only assume that Denise has a hard-on for it because of the last name involved.

No, I've said from the beginning that the worst part of this story is the shame he's bringing to the name...

For instance, imagine googling 'Gannon nude' and actually getting his results. :p ROFL

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 12:43 PM
Your suggestion that if you let one in you have to let them all in is preposterous. The news media don't have a right to White House access. The White House can limit access in any way they wish, as far as I'm aware, within the limits that politics will allow. If the President were to limit access only to right wing columnists, there would likely be a politcal cost to be paid. That's why a wide variety of main stream news organizations are allowed in. To ban them would be to invite the firestorm that they would create and the political backlash that would follow. That's what this is all about. This, so far at least, is not an issue of right or wrong, it is a political battle. The President's political opponents are trying, with very little evidence, to fool the general public into believing something nefarious has occurred and those of us who support the President are trying to keep them from succeeding. It's as simple as that.


Actually, there are stated qualifications that the news media are supposed to meet to get access first to Capitol Hill and then the WH.

JJGG met NEITHER. :hmmm:

Donger
02-24-2005, 12:44 PM
Actually, there are stated qualifications that the news media are supposed to meet to get access first to Capitol Hill and then the WH.

JJGG met NEITHER. :hmmm:

What are they?

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 12:46 PM
What are they?

they are posted on one of these threads...It's in a letter (to JJGG) that states why his application was denied.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 12:47 PM
OHMYGAWD. ROFL ROFL ROFL

The guy might not have used his $50.00 journalism 'certificate' at all...

he may have used other 'access' to get his credentials. The guy had NO FORMAL JOURNALISM TRAINING other than a RW seminar/certificate.

I guess that little fact means nothing when defending how good of a 'reporter' he might be.


To the top for the JJGG apologist.

Donger
02-24-2005, 12:49 PM
they are posted on one of these threads...It's in a letter (to JJGG) that states why his application was denied.

So, after a quick perusal, it appears that the facts are these:

1. This Gannon guy is not and was not a "legitimate" reporter.
2. He was given access to the WH press conferences.
3. He asked "administration-friendly" questions.
4. He admits to being a conservative.

Are those four correct?

siberian khatru
02-24-2005, 12:51 PM
The guy had NO FORMAL JOURNALISM TRAINING



Allow me to be the first to say: BFD about that.

Despite the attempts of its solons to make it a profession, like being an attorney or a doctor, journalism is a trade that requires no formal knowledge. You have to be able to ask good questions and write or talk well enough to convey the answers. That's all good journalism is.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 12:56 PM
So, after a quick perusal, it appears that the facts are these:

1. This Gannon guy is not and was not a "legitimate" reporter.
2. He was given access to the WH press conferences.
3. He asked "administration-friendly" questions.
4. He admits to being a conservative.

Are those four correct?

Well yes, but those 'facts' do not differentiate him from say, Fox News Reporters. :p

The things that do are:

1. He worked for a political organization called GOPUSA. (Which is against the rules for issuing press credentials)
2. The Talon News was created AFTER he was issued credentials based on his employment with Talon News
3. He somehow passed a security background check and was cleared inspite of a past as a gay hooker and websites with his naked pictures and offers of service STILL ACTIVE.

Those are the issues that make this story unusual at best and possibly something more sinister.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 01:00 PM
Allow me to be the first to say: BFD about that.

Despite the attempts of its solons to make it a profession, like being an attorney or a doctor, journalism is a trade that requires no formal knowledge. You have to be able to ask good questions and write or talk well enough to convey the answers. That's all good journalism is.


No, you've described being a good blogger....not a journalist. Seems JJGG was credentialed by being a good blogger not a journalist.

Donger
02-24-2005, 01:02 PM
Well yes, but those 'facts' do not differentiate him from say, Fox News Reporters. :p

The things that do are:

1. He worked for a political organization called GOPUSA. (Which is against the rules for issuing press credentials)
2. The Talon News was created AFTER he was issued credentials based on his employment with Talon News
3. He somehow passed a security background check and was cleared inspite of a past as a gay hooker and websites with his naked pictures and offers of service STILL ACTIVE.

Those are the issues that make this story unusual at best and possibly something more sinister.

So, at worst, the WH gave this guy a press pass because he was "administration-friendly?"

Big whoop.

Were any laws broken? Did they WH pay this guy to throw softballs?

Hopefully, they weren't stupid enough to not do a background check. If either of those are true, then I'd agree this is a story. Sans that, it's just good salesmanship.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 01:02 PM
Donger, here is a nice encapsulation with both sides of the argument...but it's alittle outdated since alot of new info has surfaced since the article was written.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14148-2005Feb10.html


Scandal in the Press Corps

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, February 10, 2005; 12:44 PM

The rise and fall of "Jeff Gannon," the pseudononymous conservative partisan who bragged of working "behind enemy lines" in the White House press corps, is turning into the media scandal of the week.


The saga of James D. Guckert, AKA Jeff Gannon, is either:

- Yet another example of the White House's attempts to avoid scrutiny, undermine the free and independent media, and use fake news and propaganda to manipulate public opinion.

- Yet another example of the liberal domination of the mainstream media.

- Yet another example of the blogosphere's ability to out-investigate the mainstream media and force it to pay attention to stories that otherwise would be ignored.

- Yet another example of the blogosphere's bloodlust and mob-rule mentality crossing normal boundaries of propriety.

- Yet another distraction from more important things -- such as President Bush saying yesterday that the $1.5 trillion Social Security trust fund doesn't really exist. (More on that tomorrow.)

The Facts of the Case

It's worth calling attention to the things we think we know for sure.

Gannon -- I'm going to call him that for now, since I'm used to it -- worked for a Web site called Talon News, and his writings appeared on that site as well one called GOPUSA.com, both of which were operated by Texas Republican activist Bobby Eberle. On his personal Web page, Gannon had a section called "Behind Enemy Lines: Stories from Inside the White House Briefing Room."

Pretty much every day, Gannon got cleared into the White House briefing room by a press office that knew his real name. Press Secretary Scott McClellan frequently called on him during the mid-day briefings, using his fake name. McClellan was consistently rewarded with questions that -- in stark contrast from most of what passes for questions in that room -- were more expressions of conservative dogma than actual attempts to elicit information. Members of the press corps individually confronted Gannon and told him that he didn't belong there. But nothing more serious than that happened -- until Bush called on him at his televised Jan. 26 news conference and he asked a loaded, inaccurate question partly derived from a Rush Limbaugh joke.

In the ensuing days, liberal Web sites and an army of bloggers determined his real name, called attention to his lack of journalistic credentials, found a link to gay porn Web sites, pointed out how that ran afoul of his "family values" positions, and apparently hounded him into resigning.

The News Coverage

Howard Kurtz writes in The Washington Post: "The conservative reporter who asked President Bush a loaded question at a news conference last month resigned yesterday after liberal bloggers uncovered his real name and raised questions about his background.

"Jeff Gannon, who had been writing for the Web sites Talon News and GOPUSA, is actually James Dale Guckert, 47, and has been linked to online domain addresses with sexually provocative names. . . .

"Gannon's resignation highlights the no-holds-barred atmosphere of the Web, which both enabled him to function as a reporter -- his stories appeared on a site founded by Texas Republican activist Bobby Eberle -- and produced a swarm of critics determined to expose him. . . .

"Glenn Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor who writes on InstaPundit.com, said the tactics used against Gannon "seem to me to be despicable.' "

Alan Wirzbicki and Charlie Savage write in the Boston Globe: "Gannon came under scrutiny after Bush called on him during a rare and nationally televised news conference two weeks ago. Gannon's question attacked Democrats as having 'divorced themselves from reality' and repeated an allegation against Senate minority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, that turned out to be a joke by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

"The unusual question prompted a wave of attention initially led by David Brock, the former right-wing investigative journalist who now operates a left-wing media watchdog group, Media Matters for America."

Gannon Responds

Jennifer Brooks, a reporter for the Delaware News Journal, spoke to the man she calls Guckert, a former Wilmington resident.

" 'I asked a question at a White House press briefing and this is what happened to me,' Guckert told The News Journal on Wednesday after announcing his resignation. 'If this is what happens to me, what reporter is safe?'"

Brooks writes: "Bloggers also discovered that several gay pornographic domain names had been registered through his domain.

"Guckert said he registered those domain names for a client while he was working to set up a Web hosting business in Wilmington.

" 'There are people out there who will turn people's lives inside out,' Guckert said. 'They tried to intimidate me, punish me. Then they tried to embarrass me, and they've done a pretty good job of that.' "

Congressional Letter

Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY) sent a letter to the White House yesterday. Here's the full text.

Some excerpts: "In light of the mounting evidence that your Administration has, on several occasions, paid members of the media to advocate in favor of Administration policies, I feel compelled to ask you to address a matter brought to my attention by the Niagara Falls Reporter (article attached), a local newspaper in my district, regarding James 'JD' Guckert (AKA Jeff Gannon) of Talon News. . . .

"[I]t appears that 'Mr. Gannon's' presence in the White House press corps was merely as a tool of propaganda for your Administration. . . .

"That is why I am asking you to please explain to the Congress and to the American people how and why the individual known as 'Mr. Gannon' was repeatedly cleared by your staff to join the legitimate White House press corps?"

McClellan Responds

Scott Shepard writes for Cox News Service: "White House press secretary Scott McClellan said he had not seen the letter from Slaughter, but dismissed her suggestion that Gannon was allowed into White House press briefings to help promote Bush's political agenda.

" 'She must not be following the briefings too closely because she'd see that here are a number of people in that room that are advocates,' McClellan said. 'There are a number of people who express their views in that briefing room.' . . .

"McClellan said, 'I don't think it's the role of the press secretary to get into being a media critic or to get into the role of picking or choosing who gets press credentials.' . . .

" 'The daily press pass, my understanding from the staff is, they check to make sure that they are a news organization that publishes regularly and they have to go through a clearance process like anyone else who comes to the White House,' he said. . . .

" 'You have a changing media environment right now,' said McClellan. 'We have a number of different media outlets that used to not be around . . . and if the question becomes where do you draw the line -- that's not an easy issue to address in this day and age.' "

Blog Reaction

"How the hell could this Gannon/Guckert scandal happen right in front of the White House Press Corps?" asks Americablog, which went all-Gannon all-the-time yesterday.

Daily Kos blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, whose readers fueled the story with their research, writes: "Why should we care about Jeff Gannon?

He "gets White House credentials using a fake name, provides McClellan a welcome ideological lifeline during press conferences, and somehow gets access to classified CIA documents that outs an undercover CIA operative."

Many of the Daily Kos postings are now focused on how Gannon apparently got hold of a secret internal CIA memo that he mentioned in an interview he had with Valerie Plame's husband, former ambassador and administration critic Joseph Wilson.

About a year ago, the federal grand jury investigating the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative subpoenaed White House records on contacts with 25 journalists. Gannon was one of them -- apparently on account of that memo.

You can read more about that, by the way, in a column I wrote on March 10, almost a year ago.

Tim Graham, who served as White House correspondent for a national weekly Christian news magazine, had this to say on National Review's The Corner blog: "[A]s a one-time White House correspondent that asked clearly conservative (but tough) questions in the briefing room, I can only say I'm glad I got out before the left-wing bloggers exposed my unnatural attraction to sugared kiddie cereals. Can we start at square one and agree that these very personal attacks on Jeff Gannon are creepy coming from the libertine left?"

He added: "The White House press corps is not supposed to be a gang beating. It's supposed to present White House comment on the news of the day. Are the people really served by seventeen phrasings of the same attack question? Are they harmed by one question on a topic conservatives are interested in?"

An Ethicist's View

Kelly McBride, an ethicist at the Poynter Institute, a journalism school, sees problems everywhere.

Shepard quotes him as saying that "the White House shouldn't be putting in 'ringers' to prevent the White House press corps from performing its watchdog duties."

Wirzbicki and Savage quote him saying that the investigation of Gannon's personal life crossed traditional boundaries and was characterized by "mean-spiritedness and snarkiness. . . . Those are not tactics you would see practiced in most traditional newsrooms."

Kurtz on CNN

Here's Howard Kurtz talking to Wolf Blitzer on CNN:

"BLITZER: Is there any evidence that there's a connection, that the White House put him up to this to throw these kind of questions whether to Scott McClellan or to the president? Any evidence of wrongdoing, first of all, on the part of the White House?

"KURTZ: No evidence whatsoever. I talked to Scott McClellan about this today, the White House spokesman. He said, first of all, President Bush didn't know who Jeff Gannon was when he called on him at that news conference.

"But McClellan knows who he is. He calls on him at White House briefings from time to time. He says that there are a lot of people in the White House press room who have strong opinions and sometimes put them into their questions and it's not his job as the press secretary to be deciding who can get into the White House and who can't based on their political views.

"Gannon, by the way, says, sure, he's very conservative. He makes no bones about that. But he thinks that a lot of the reporters in the White House press room are liberal, and he provides some balance. . . .

"The issue I think is, should some of his liberal critics, these liberal bloggers, have started investigating his personal life in an effort to discredit him?

"It's fine to disagree with his politics, but did they go too far, I think a lot of people are asking, in dragging in some of this personal stuff?

"BLITZER: I used to be a White House correspondent for many years, sat through numerous briefings. There are plenty of journalists that wear their politics on their sleeve, liberals, conservatives. What's wrong with journalists having these kind of views, being advocacy journalists, if you will?

"KURTZ: I personally don't think there's anything wrong with it, as long as they make clear what their views are, as Jeff Gannon clearly did.

"A lot of people are questioning, well, why does this guy have White House press credentials? Because he doesn't write for a newspaper or magazine. Everything he writes is simply online. But in the age of blogging, that's hardly unusual. And he doesn't have a permanent -- what's called a hard pass. He just gets cleared into the White House on a day-to-day basis, which is a privilege that is pretty much open to any journalist."

Milbank on MSNBC

Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, who covered the White House until recently, was on MSNBC with Keith Olberman last night.

"It was Jeff's decision, or whatever his name's decision, to step down. He wasn't kicked out of the White House at all, so that's really where the scandal lies in this whole thing," Milbank said.

"[I]t is clear that Scott McClellan knew it wasn't his real name. He had to provide his real name to get into the White House. So here you have the press secretary of the United States playing along, addressing this guy by his pseudonym. So there was some degree of complicity, even if he wasn't granted, against White House rules, an actual hard pass. . . .

"The fact is he was representing a phony media company. . . . There are many people, Fox News, Washington Times -- they're conservative, but they're legitimate media organizations.

"This guy is not a real journalist and he was hanging out there just wasting everyone's time in the press room. . . .

"It follows a pattern in this administration that we've seen, not only the Armstrong Williams case, but cases in which people, there have actually been actors used, posing as journalists in advertisements. This seems an awful lot like that."

Boehlert in Salon

Eric Boehlert writes in Salon: "The Gannon revelations come on the heels of the discovery that Bush administration officials signed lucrative contracts for several conservative pundits who hyped White House initiatives and did not disclose the government's payments. The Talon News fiasco raises serious questions about who the White House is allowing into its daily press briefings: How can a reporter using a fake name and working for a fake news organization get press credentials from the White House, let alone curry enough favor with the notoriously disciplined Bush administration to get picked by the president in order to ask fake questions? The White House did not return Salon's calls seeking answers to those questions."

As for McClellan's assertion that it's not his role to be a media critic and pick and choose who gets credentials, Boehlert quotes Ron Suskind, who has written extensively about the Bush White House: "That's like [McClellan] saying, 'I'm chief of staff at a hospital and when a patient dies in surgery and it turns out the guy operating wasn't a doctor . . . [it's] not my business to be a medical critic,' . . . Nobody is asking him to be a media critic. They're asking him to make sure people in the press room -- the ones using up precious time during extremely rare press conferences -- are acting journalists, honest brokers dealing with genuine inquiry to get at the truth."

Another Gannon in the Wings?

Blogger Atrios asks: "Gannon leaves, and is magically replaced with GannonBot Mark II (or is it KinsolvingBot Mark III?)."

He was citing this question from yesterday's briefing:

"Q Does this administration believe the Democratic leaders are now engaged in a deliberate disinformation campaign as the best way to undermine the President's goals and objectives on a number of issues?"

I'm told the question came from about the sixth row, but no one I talked to seemed to know who he was.

Incidentally, nobody at the briefing had any questions about Gannon.

Kumar Speaks

Martha Joynt Kumar, a professor at Towson State University, has made a study of the White House press corps -- literally. She watches almost every briefing with an eagle eye. I spoke with her yesterday.

"I thought Jeff was an embarrassment. He clearly did not ask questions that were designed to elicit information," she said.

Should reporters have taken some action before the bloggers did?

"People have talked to him about his questions, and let him know -- at least I know a couple who have -- that his questions are not objective questions that are characteristic of the kind of questions that you find in the briefing room."

But, Kumar said, "Reporters are kind of a live and let live group. They're interested in their own reporting, and they're not interested in ferreting out if someone's a charlatan."

Should McClellan have called on him? Absolutely, said Kumar.

The way the press room is set up, major media organizations have assigned seats. But quite often, reporters from those organizations don't show up, so others -- like Gannon -- sit in their place.

"McClellan should call on whoever's in that seat," Kumar said. "You don't want a press secretary to say, 'I'm going to call on you,' 'I'm not going to call on you', because next thing you know there are going to be people who aren't called on because they're rude or because they don't like their questions."

Should the White House further restrict entry to the briefing room?

"I think as many organizations that are valid news organizations that can be represented, the better," she said.

But who gets to decide who's valid and who's not?

"Who do you want deciding that?" Kumar asks. "Do you want the White House deciding that? Or do you want the White House Correspondents Association deciding that? No one really wants to make that decision."

Gannon's Greatest Hits

Some of Gannon's greatest hits, as featured in a video montage on Olberman's show last night:

May 10, 2004: "Q In your denunciations of the Abu Ghraib photos, you've used words like 'sickening,' 'disgusting' and 'reprehensible.' Will you have any adjectives left to adequately describe the pictures from Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers? And will Americans ever see those images?

"MR. McCLELLAN: I'm glad you brought that up, Jeff, because the President talks about that often."

July 15, 2004: "Q Last Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that shows that Ambassador Joe Wilson lied when he said his wife didn't put him up for the mission to Niger. The British inquiry into their own prewar intelligence yesterday concluded that the President's 16 words were 'well-founded.' Doesn't Joe Wilson owe the President and America an apology for his deception and his own intelligence failure?"

April 1, 2004: "Q I'd like to comment on the angry mob that surrounded Karl Rove's house on Sunday. They chanted and pounded on the windows until the D.C. police and Secret Service were called in. The protest was organized by the National People's Action Coalition, whose members receive taxpayer funds, as well as financial support from groups including Theresa Heinz Kerry's Tides Foundation.

"MR. McCLELLAN: I would just say that, one, we appreciate and understand concerns that people may have. I would certainly hope that people would respect the families of White House staff."

Feb. 10, 2004: "Q Since there have been so many questions about what the President was doing over 30 years ago, what is it that he did after his honorable discharge from the National Guard? Did he make speeches alongside Jane Fonda, denouncing America's racist war in Vietnam? Did he testify before Congress that American troops committed war crimes in Vietnam? And did he throw somebody else's medals at the White House to protest a war America was still fighting?"

siberian khatru
02-24-2005, 01:05 PM
No, you've described being a good blogger....not a journalist. Seems JJGG was credentialed by being a good blogger not a journalist.

What's a "journalist"? What is journalism?

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 01:07 PM
So, at worst, the WH gave this guy a press pass because he was "administration-friendly?"

Big whoop.

Were any laws broken? Did they WH pay this guy to throw softballs?

Hopefully, they weren't stupid enough to not do a background check. If either of those are true, then I'd agree this is a story. Sans that, it's just good salesmanship.


They gave a guy who is a gay prostitute (with active websites still on line) a pass because he's 'friendly'??? :spock:

This 'homeland security happy, post 9/11 paranoia, anti-gay agenda, conservative RW Christian codling, cowboy crew gave a guy like that a press pass (around the normal procedures) because he's 'friendly'.

Well, ok. If he's got a personal relationship with someone in the WH then great. But that is really POOR judgement and the security risks of having someone so 'outed' involved in such delicate matters is HUGE.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 01:08 PM
What's a "journalist"? What is journalism?


Good question. Obviously, lots of people write. Some regularly and quite well. Not everyone is a journalist though...

Donger
02-24-2005, 01:11 PM
They gave a guy who is a gay prostitute (with active websites still on line) a pass because he's 'friendly'??? :spock:

This 'homeland security happy, post 9/11 paranoia, anti-gay agenda, conservative RW Christian codling, cowboy crew gave a guy like that a press pass (around the normal procedures) because he's 'friendly'.

Well, ok. If he's got a personal relationship with someone in the WH then great. But that is really POOR judgement and the security risks of having someone so 'outed' involved in such delicate matters is HUGE.

And I guess that what it boils down to...

As I said, if the WH didn't perform a security check on him, then they're a bunch of idiots. However, are you suggesting his sexual orientation has some bearing on his being a "security risk?"

patteeu
02-24-2005, 01:11 PM
OHMYGAWD. ROFL ROFL ROFL

The guy might not have used his $50.00 journalism 'certificate' at all...

he may have used other 'access' to get his credentials. The guy had NO FORMAL JOURNALISM TRAINING other than a RW seminar/certificate.

I guess that little fact means nothing when defending how good of a 'reporter' he might be.

Formal journalism training? You mean like a degree from an Ivy League school like the University of Pennsylvania, or relevant work history like experience as an editor of the Daily Pennsylvanian? Training like that which <a href="http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Stephen+Glass&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1">Stephen Glass</a> received before he was hired and subsequently fired from his job as a reporter for The New Republic for making up stories?

You are right. Formal journalism training doesn't mean that much to me. That's not to say I'm suggesting it's worthless or that it's easy to be a journalist without it, but I am saying that my measure of a journalist is based on his journalism not on his training or resume. If Gannon/Guckert committed some kind of journalistic fraud (like Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass) then let's see some evidence.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 01:15 PM
And I guess that what it boils down to...

As I said, if the WH didn't perform a security check on him, then they're a bunch of idiots. However, are you suggesting his sexual orientation has some bearing on his being a "security risk?"

Sigh, nice try. Tried again and again like with Ann Coulter in the thread post...

IT'S NOT ABOUT HIS SEXUAL ORIENTATION. IT IS ABOUT HIM BEING A PAID HOOKER WITH NAKED PICTURES OF HIMSELF (using the military as his 'marketing' tool, er so to speak) AND OFFERING HIS SERVICES WHILE BEING CLEARED BY SECURITY TO APPEAR IN THE WH PRESS CORPS.

And, it's also about the fact that this administration has been cited as already breaking the law (by the GAO) in it's propaganda efforts and how a fake news outlet (subsidized by a Texas Republican) which was a front for a political group could qualify to get press pass credentials.

Chiefnj
02-24-2005, 01:15 PM
I don't see what the big deal is other than the slight humor that the guy was purportedly a former gay escort but was one of Bush's favorite reporters.

I'm sure every president has favorite reporters because they lob easy questions. No big deal.

Arguing over who is a "journalist" is really splitting hairs. IMO, this guy is as much of a journalist as Coulter.

siberian khatru
02-24-2005, 01:16 PM
Good question. Obviously, lots of people write. Some regularly and quite well. Not everyone is a journalist though...

You haven't answered it. "Not everyone is a journalist." What is one?

There is no licensing of journalists, like there is with doctors and lawyers. Should there be?

Are only those who are employed by large media the true journalists?

Aren't the left-wing bloggers like Kos who are doggedly pursuing this story practicing journalism?

I have read many, many bloggers who are not and have never been employed by newspapers or TV networks, nor are graduates of J-schools, who have far more knowledge of the world, and ask much, much better questions, than many of the "journalists" I know, and have known, personally and professionally.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 01:17 PM
Actually, there are stated qualifications that the news media are supposed to meet to get access first to Capitol Hill and then the WH.

JJGG met NEITHER. :hmmm:

Read siberian khatru's post earlier in this thread. :hmmm:

Donger
02-24-2005, 01:18 PM
Sigh, nice try. Tried again and again like with Ann Coulter in the thread post...

IT'S NOT ABOUT HIS SEXUAL ORIENTATION. IT IS ABOUT HIM BEING A PAID HOOKER WITH NAKED PICTURES OF HIMSELF (using the military as his 'marketing' tool, er so to speak) AND OFFERING HIS SERVICES WHILE BEING CLEARED BY SECURITY TO APPEAR IN THE WH PRESS CORPS.

Again, I'll assume that what you say above about him is true. If so, I ask you: why does that make him a greater security risk?

And, it's also about the fact that this administration has been cited as already breaking the law (by the GAO)

News to me. Link?

siberian khatru
02-24-2005, 01:20 PM
Arguing over who is a "journalist" is really splitting hairs.

No, it's not. It's the bigger issue. Forget Gannon for a second. The world of media is changing rapidly. We as a society need to figure out how these changes fit in an old paradigm. The WH press corps is currently set up to accommodate an outdated paradigm. It needs to reflect the new media. How do we allow the Glenn Reynoldses and Josh Marshalls of the world access without also letting in the Jeff Gannons? It's ridiculous to continue to limit access only to the NY Times and WaPo's of the world.

SBK
02-24-2005, 01:21 PM
What about Troy Aikman, Dan Marino, Sean Salisbury, Shannon Sharpe? These guys all represent news organizations, but I wouldn't call any of them journalists. They go out and interview, write stories and almost put sentences together, but they aren't journalists because they don't have a degree?

Deciding who is and who isn't a journalist truly is splitting hairs.

One other comment. Also out this week were those recorded Bush tapes. Bush was heard saying he wouldn't fire gays, and he wouldn't discriminate? I keep seeing all this anti gay stuff associated with the President, but he doesn't seem, in private conversation, like he's out to "get em."

SBK
02-24-2005, 01:23 PM
And, it's also about the fact that this administration has been cited as already breaking the law (by the GAO) in it's propaganda efforts and how a fake news outlet (subsidized by a Texas Republican) which was a front for a political group could qualify to get press pass credentials.

And just how many card carrying libs are there in the mainstream press?

Dan Rather spoke to a group of Texas Dems for a fund raiser, does that make him ineligible to report the news?

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 01:23 PM
No, it's not. It's the bigger issue. Forget Gannon for a second. The world of media is changing rapidly. We as a society need to figure out how these changes fit in an old paradigm. The WH press corps is currently set up to accommodate an outdated paradigm. It needs to reflect the new media. How do we allow the Glenn Reynoldses and Josh Marshalls of the world access without also letting in the Jeff Gannons? It's ridiculous to continue to limit access only to the NY Times and WaPo's of the world.


Give me a break. The guy's only certification for being a journalist was that he attended a $50.00 seminar given by some RW think tank or 'school'. He could have probably bought the same thing from Sally Struthers for $20.00.

There is no way you can say that someone who has a degree in journalism or communications is not more qualified than this guy. Previous WH/CH standards dictated they needed such.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 01:24 PM
And just how many card carrying libs are there in the mainstream press?

Dan Rather spoke to a group of Texas Dems for a fund raiser, does that make him ineligible to report the news?

I think it's a conflict of interest and unethical if he was paid. If he did it unpaid then I think it's bad judgement.

siberian khatru
02-24-2005, 01:28 PM
Give me a break. The guy's only certification for being a journalist was that he attended a $50.00 seminar given by some RW think tank or 'school'. He could have probably bought the same thing from Sally Struthers for $20.00.

There is no way you can say that someone who has a degree in journalism or communications is not more qualified than this guy. Previous WH/CH standards dictated they needed such.

Stop fixating on Gannon. He is the symptom of a bigger issue here. What is a journalist? Only someone with a J-school degree? That's ridiculous. I know lots of knuckleheads with J-school degrees who'd have rings written around them by the likes of Glenn Reynolds and John Hinderaker.

We can dispose of Gannon because he's a nut and a bum, but it doesn't answer the bigger question of who's going to get access. The current rules are set up by the WH and the WH press corps themselves, which right there is a bias against entry by those not in the club. There is a new media out there that is important, competent and growing in influence. How shall we deal with it post-Gannon?

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 01:31 PM
Again, I'll assume that what you say above about him is true. If so, I ask you: why does that make him a greater security risk?



News to me. Link?



Point one: if someone broke the rules to get him a pass without a background check and knowing he was shill from a 'news organization' that was actually a front for a political group.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&u=/ap/20050219/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fake_news_1

Point two: Agencies Warned About Fake News Videos

Fri Feb 18,10:46 PM ET White House - AP Cabinet & State

WASHINGTON - Congressional investigators warned federal agencies this week that the promotion of government policies through video news releases meant to look like TV news stories may violate federal rules against propaganda.


In a letter sent Thursday to heads of government departments and agencies, the Government Accountability Office noted that "prepackaged news stories have become common tools of the public relations industry."


The presentations "are intended to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public by independent television news organizations," the letter said.


Comptroller General David M. Walker warned that such productions may violate a government prohibition, enacted in 1951, against the use of appropriated funds for propaganda.


The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy was criticized last year for a series of video news releases in which a narrator, sometimes identified as "Karen Ryan" or "Mike Morris," said she or he was "reporting" on the office's activities. The tapes were sent to local television stations for use in news programs.


In a second case criticized by the GAO last year, the Health and Human Services (news - web sites) Department's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services produced video news releases touting changes to Medicare. Those productions were also narrated by "Karen Ryan" and were offered to local TV news operations.


In both cases, Walker wrote Thursday, "television-viewing audiences did not know that stories they watched on television news programs about the government were, in fact, prepared by the government. We concluded that those prepackaged news stories violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition."


The GAO letter did say video news releases could be used without violating the law if it was clearly disclosed to the viewing audience that the material was prepared by the government.
___

On the Net:

Government Accountability Office: http://www.gao.gov/

patteeu
02-24-2005, 01:34 PM
Stop fixating on Gannon. He is the symptom of a bigger issue here. What is a journalist? Only someone with a J-school degree? That's ridiculous. I know lots of knuckleheads with J-school degrees who'd have rings written around them by the likes of Glenn Reynolds and John Hinderaker.

We can dispose of Gannon because he's a nut and a bum, but it doesn't answer the bigger question of who's going to get access. The current rules are set up by the WH and the WH press corps themselves, which right there is a bias against entry by those not in the club. There is a new media out there that is important, competent and growing in influence. How shall we deal with it post-Gannon?

This is a far more interesting issue than whether Gannon/Guckert was given "special access" or whether there was some kind of fake security risk exposed by this story. I wonder if Memyselfi and Taco will be able to tear themselves away from their partisan witchhunt long enough to give it some thought.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 01:35 PM
Stop fixating on Gannon. He is the symptom of a bigger issue here. What is a journalist? Only someone with a J-school degree? That's ridiculous. I know lots of knuckleheads with J-school degrees who'd have rings written around them by the likes of Glenn Reynolds and John Hinderaker.

We can dispose of Gannon because he's a nut and a bum, but it doesn't answer the bigger question of who's going to get access. The current rules are set up by the WH and the WH press corps themselves, which right there is a bias against entry by those not in the club. There is a new media out there that is important, competent and growing in influence. How shall we deal with it post-Gannon?


Yes, he is a symptom of a bigger problem. The fact that this administration has paid journalists/columnists to speak for them in the past. And it appears this one could have been as well...though indirectly via the fake news 'Talon' organization and their front for the political group, GOPUSA.


And FYI, the established WH rules DID dictate who could be considered a jouralist based on such things as paid advertising, number of readers, and content of publication. So while you are trying to confuse the issues by claiming he's a blogger and thus a journalist thus no story, the WH rules did not allow for such.

Donger
02-24-2005, 01:37 PM
Point one: if someone broke the rules to get him a pass without a background check and knowing he was shill from a 'news organization' that was actually a front for a political group.

Non answer. Please try again: Why, if Gannon really is what you claim he is, does this make him more of a security risk? You made the claim, back it up.

WASHINGTON - Congressional investigators warned federal agencies this week that the promotion of government policies through video news releases meant to look like TV news stories may violate federal rules against propaganda.

Umm, "rules" are not laws. And, you MAY notice the word MAY in that article.

You stated: "it's also about the fact that this administration has been cited as already breaking the law."

That's clearly wrong based on the very information that you presented as proof of your assertions.

So, anything else?

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 01:37 PM
Read siberian khatru's post earlier in this thread. :hmmm:

SK is channeling for you?

Nice.

You still don't have a personal opinion of your own on the fact that JJGG had the equivalent of a mail order certificate to base his credentials on? And that this, along with his present/past, was fine as long as he was 'friendly'???? :hmmm:

siberian khatru
02-24-2005, 01:40 PM
Yes, he is a symptom of a bigger problem. The fact that this administration has paid journalists/columnists to speak for them in the past. And it appears this one could have been as well...though indirectly via the fake news 'Talon' organization and their front for the political group, GOPUSA.


And FYI, the established WH rules DID dictate who could be considered a jouralist based on such things as paid advertising, number of readers, and content of publication. So while you are trying to confuse the issues by claiming he's a blogger and thus a journalist thus no story, the WH rules did not allow for such.

First paragraph: Deflection. I already said I'm not interested in debating that. The "what is a journalist" question supersedes even the partisan example you provided. Just stop going there. It's not germaine to THIS discussion.

Second paragraph: As I said, those standards were set up by people whose interests they served. It's like wealth property owners deciding that only wealthy property owners have the right to vote: Members of large print and broadcast organizations decide that only members of large print and broadcast organizations can get WH passes.

Besides, those standards were set up before the rise of blogs. It's time they changed. Am I averse to setting some kind of blog readership threshhold? No. But the blogs must be included in the paradigm, somehow. It's just not enough to say only newspaper and TV people need apply (especially since the influence of newspapers is and has been waning for quite some time).

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 01:40 PM
Non answer. Please try again: Why, if Gannon really is what you claim he is, does this make him more of a security risk? You made the claim, back it up.



Umm, "rules" are not laws. And, you MAY notice the word MAY in that article.

You stated: "it's also about the fact that this administration has been cited as already breaking the law."

That's clearly wrong based on the very information that you presented as proof of your assertions.

So, anything else?


They have been warned their practices are illegal. No one has been prosecuted. You think Ashcroft or Gonzales would do that? :rolleyes:


As far as the security risk, surely you can be that stubborn and an apologist. My God, the hoopla and outrage of Clinton being blown by a 21 year old and how that violated security to have her so close to the President and possible blackmail and how it was covered up was here for all to see..

Now there is someone who has given this rather scandalous guy a pass (LITERALLY) and his presence follows that of the other journalist/propaganda issues this adminstration has had...but there is no issue because he's a conservative???

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 01:43 PM
First paragraph: Deflection. I already said I'm not interested in debating that. The "what is a journalist" question supersedes even the partisan example you provided. Just stop going there. It's not germaine to THIS discussion.

Second paragraph: As I said, those standards were set up by people whose interests they served. It's like wealth property owners deciding that only wealthy property owners have the right to vote: Members of large print and broadcast organizations decide that only members of large print and broadcast organizations can get WH passes.

Besides, those standards were set up before the rise of blogs. It's time they changed. Am I averse to setting some kind of blog readership threshhold? No. But the blogs must be included in the paradigm, somehow. It's just not enough to say only newspaper and TV people need apply (especially since the influence of newspapers is and has been waning for quite some time).

Oh, you are not interested in that which you are not versed upon...

clearly, this JJGG issue illustrates the necessity for the administration to have a shill at their disposal and his personal life did not matter because their need was so great...

as has been demonstrated by their need to pay other journalists/columists to say nice things about them.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 01:43 PM
SK is channeling for you?

Nice.

I'm deferring to someone who I believe knows more about this subject than I do and, on top of that, who is doing a fine job of articulating his point. You should try it some time.

You still don't have a personal opinion of your own on the fact that JJGG had the equivalent of a mail order certificate to base his credentials on? And that this, along with his present/past, was fine as long as he was 'friendly'???? :hmmm:

Check post #62.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 01:46 PM
Oh, you are not interested in that which you are not versed upon...

clearly, this JJGG issue illustrates the necessity for the administration to have a shill at their disposal and his personal life did not matter because their need was so great...

as has been demonstrated by their need to pay other journalists/columists to say nice things about them.

They haven't done that. Not even in the Armstrong Williams case, but even less so in the Maggie Galhager and McManus cases.

siberian khatru
02-24-2005, 01:46 PM
Oh, you are not interested in that which you are not versed upon...

clearly, this JJGG issue illustrates the necessity for the administration to have a shill at their disposal and his personal life did not matter because their need was so great...

as has been demonstrated by their need to pay other journalists/columists to say nice things about them.

(Sigh)

You want to fight that battle with the other posters, fine, go ahead. You're really obviously ducking me now.

And you know what? You don't have to. A simple "I don't know" would be sufficient, because I don't have all the answers either. But the fact you keep turning this back to a partisan point indicates what your true agenda is.

Everything you say about Gannon could be true, and you and I could tomorrow hold hands and go skipping off to burn him at the stake and celebrate his demise. Hell, we could even impeach Bush. But -- it STILL would not solve the paradigm issue about what is journalism and who gets access.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 01:47 PM
As far as blogs being the paradigm now, give me a break. There is no accountability with blogs and to equate them with the media is ridiculous because there are standards (both that the media sets themslves and those that govern them) that outline what the media can and do say. The blogs are not aparty to those standards and that is why they can (and do) and say pretty much anything they please.

So while they are interesting and a great source of news and information, they are NOT going to replace the 'regular' media as a whole unless they can somehow be made to adhere to practices and standards that monitor and hold accountable their activity.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 01:49 PM
... and you and I could tomorrow hold hands and go skipping off ....

OK, I was with you until I got to this part. :shake: :p

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 01:50 PM
They haven't done that. Not even in the Armstrong Williams case, but even less so in the Maggie Galhager and McManus cases.


Yes, they have. They have paid people to say, report, or opine nice things about them without telling the public about their arrangement.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 01:52 PM
I'm deferring to someone who I believe knows more about this subject than I do and, on top of that, who is doing a fine job of articulating his point. You should try it some time.



Check post #62.


Really, seems to me he's trying to make this a blog issue and not a violation of normal procedure issue...

which, like they're trying to make this all about JJGG being gay, is CONVENIENT but disingenous.

siberian khatru
02-24-2005, 01:54 PM
As far as blogs being the paradigm now, give me a break. There is no accountability with blogs and to equate them with the media is ridiculous because there are standards (both that the media sets themslves and those that govern them) that outline what the media can and do say. The blogs are not aparty to those standards and that is why they can do and say pretty much anything they please.

So while they are interesting and a great source of news and information, they are NOT going to replace the 'regular' media as a whole unless they can somehow be made to adhere to practices and standards that monitor and hold accountable their activity.

(Now, that's more like it. :thumb: )

What standards and practices do the media adhere to? There's no boards of review that can revoke my license to practice like there is with doctors and lawyers.

What accountability does the media have?

The only thing I can think of is libel laws. And they need to reflect the new paradigm as well. The courts have been working thru Internet intelluctual property and the like, so it will get sorted out.

IMO, the blogs are now part of the media accountability. I can't imagine the CBS memos story ever coming to fruition before blogs.

You're right, though, the old media won't go away. It still has the muscle to report stories en masse and set the agenda. But blogs have become a very good source for reporting underreported stories and for fact-checking the old media. And blogs are much more self-correcting than the old media -- if a bloggers says something wrong, within hours readers will point it out and link to evidence that supports their argument. The interactivity and immediacy of blogs is a far superior check to that of the old media.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 01:54 PM
Yes, they have. They have paid people to say, report, or opine nice things about without telling the public about their arrangement.

No they haven't. You are spinning.

Williams was paid to advertise, so you have your strongest case there. Galhager and McManus were paid for legitimate consulting work that included writing for government sponsored publications (which is entirely acceptable). The criticism of the latter two is that they should have disclosed this fact when they were writing on their own behalf, without pay from the government, in their regular columns. Whether that is a valid criticism or not is arguable in my mind, but it certainly doesn't fit your description.

siberian khatru
02-24-2005, 01:57 PM
Really, seems to me he's trying to make this a blog issue and not a violation of normal procedure issue...



No, I have separated the two. As I said, after you dispose of Gannon and the violation of normal procedure issue, you still have the question of whether the normal procedures need to be updated to reflect the changing media.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 02:00 PM
Really, seems to me he's trying to make this a blog issue and not a violation of normal procedure issue...

which, like they're trying to make this all about JJGG being gay, is CONVENIENT but disingenous.

SK made the point in the post to which I referred, that the rules for access are created by the White House (in partnership with the traditional news media). Furthermore, there are less strict guidelines for the kind of pass Gannon/Guckert had than for the "permanent" press credential that you've been describing. It's not like there is some kind of higher authority that mandates access guidelines on the White House. They can do what they want, they just have to deal with the political fallout that might occur (as I've pointed out in a previous post).

*edit*For example, the White House could decide to unilaterally scrap their access policy and kick all the network news representatives out in favor of people like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage (that might be a mistake), and Matt Drudge. But they would have to deal with the hostility of the network news organizations and their allies in other traditional media organizations and that's a lot of blowback (which is why it won't happen).

It's all just a political battle, not an ethical or legal issue IMO. */edit*

siberian khatru
02-24-2005, 02:02 PM
I've spent a long time on this subject, I think it's gone about as far as it can. It's now 3 p.m. my time, I've got to finish my real work -- as a journalist. :)

Later.

Donger
02-24-2005, 02:02 PM
They have been warned their practices are illegal. No one has been prosecuted. You think Ashcroft or Gonzales would do that? :rolleyes:


As far as the security risk, surely you can be that stubborn and an apologist. My God, the hoopla and outrage of Clinton being blown by a 21 year old and how that violated security to have her so close to the President and possible blackmail and how it was covered up was here for all to see..

Now there is someone who has given this rather scandalous guy a pass (LITERALLY) and his presence follows that of the other journalist/propaganda issues this adminstration has had...but there is no issue because he's a conservative???

Wow. Two non-answers.

Forget it; I should've known better.

KC Dan
02-24-2005, 02:05 PM
This ia a non-story. Every administration in modern history has allowed "ringers" White House passes to ask softball questions. Many Americans use different names when they write articles or books. Many reporters or "fake" reporters are gay and disclose the information. Many Journalists have no "formal" journalistic degree or training. The bottom line is the libs have nothing of substance to offer the national discourse and resort to this crap - pure and simple.

btw, memememymymyiiii -> You're an Idiot!

KCTitus
02-24-2005, 03:01 PM
Those old diaper wearering liars were soiling themselves...

I don't know what this new Clinton rule is, but I don't much f*cking care. I can understand why you'd want to minimize exposure to that in the face of this new controversy. But alas, y'all did what you did, and have to suffer the consequences when it comes back around.

That was but one example, the next would have been the Ohio recount. Im curious, how is that going? Are the Republicans going to have to rue that day too?

I dont care about minimizing exposure, I think this is a non issue that's got you libs all in a tizzy over nothing. Frankly, Im enjoying watching you and Jaz and denise soil yourselves over this.

SBK
02-24-2005, 03:08 PM
This ia a non-story. Every administration in modern history has allowed "ringers" White House passes to ask softball questions. Many Americans use different names when they write articles or books. Many reporters or "fake" reporters are gay and disclose the information. Many Journalists have no "formal" journalistic degree or training. The bottom line is the libs have nothing of substance to offer the national discourse and resort to this crap - pure and simple.

btw, memememymymyiiii -> You're an Idiot!

Exactly. This is a very condensed version of Ann Coulters article. And Mr. Dan, you are dead on. :clap:

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 04:14 PM
No, I have separated the two. As I said, after you dispose of Gannon and the violation of normal procedure issue, you still have the question of whether the normal procedures need to be updated to reflect the changing media.

No, 'normal' procedures should not be updated to reflect the 'changing media'. The existing rules, when followed, worked fine. When and if Blogs ever get to the point that they are starting to eliminate traditional media THEN you have reason to change but right now I do not believe that individual bloggers (or those representing ideologies) should have media access to the POTUS or CH for anything more than observation.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 04:17 PM
This ia a non-story. Every administration in modern history has allowed "ringers" White House passes to ask softball questions. Many Americans use different names when they write articles or books. Many reporters or "fake" reporters are gay and disclose the information. Many Journalists have no "formal" journalistic degree or training. The bottom line is the libs have nothing of substance to offer the national discourse and resort to this crap - pure and simple.

btw, memememymymyiiii -> You're an Idiot!

Again, it's not about being gay, nice diversion. That is not the issue. The prostitution is. Please name one active journalist (other than JJGG) in the WH press corp who has disclosed they are a prostitute.

Please name one active journalist (other than JJGG) in the WH press corp who has no 'formal training'. In addition, please

Please name one active journalist (other than JJGG) who is in the press corps who is known by two different names in part to avoid a past as a hooker.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 04:20 PM
That was but one example, the next would have been the Ohio recount. Im curious, how is that going? Are the Republicans going to have to rue that day too?

I dont care about minimizing exposure, I think this is a non issue that's got you libs all in a tizzy over nothing. Frankly, Im enjoying watching you and Jaz and denise soil yourselves over this.



That's interesting, because i"m having fun watching you soil yourself over watching other people soil themselves... Just a bunch of people soiling themselves over here over apparently nothing.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 04:35 PM
That's interesting, because i"m having fun watching you soil yourself over watching other people soil themselves... Just a bunch of people soiling themselves over here over apparently nothing.


Fox News is reporting nothing now too. :hmmm:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148604,00.html

Lawmakers: Writer May Have CIA Leak Info
Thursday, February 24, 2005


WASHINGTON — Two lawmakers have sent a letter to the U.S. attorney saying a White House reporter who recently resigned following questions about his identity and background may have information vital to the investigation into who leaked a CIA operative's name to the press.

Reps. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., and John Conyers, D-Mich., the ranking Democrats on the House Rules Committee and House Judiciary Committee, respectively, wrote a letter to Patrick Fitzgerald (search), the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, saying the Chicago attorney's office may need to subpoena the journal of reporter James Guckert (search ).

The journal recounts Guckert's days covering the White House. According to Conyers and Slaughter's letter, Guckert had access to a memo revealing the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame (search).

In addition, Editor and Publisher has confirmed an online report that Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., is circulating a letter among his colleagues that asks President Bush to launch an investigation into how Guckert gained access to White House press briefings over two years despite having no journalism background and using a false name.

Both letters are just the latest in a string of inquiries by congressional leaders, including a request by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., for documents related to Guckert's continued White House access.


Guckert, who wrote under the name "Jeff Gannon" and was the Washington bureau chief for Talon News, recently resigned amid questions about his identity and background. He said on his Web site that he was leaving "because of the attention being paid to me." Talon News is a conservative online news outlet associated with the Web site, GOPUSA.

Guckert, saying his family was being harassed, quit earlier this month after online critics began digging into his background.

Guckert became a target of liberal bloggers after he asked Bush during a news conference how he could deal with Senate Democrats "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality."

Guckert also was linked with online domain addresses suggestive of gay pornography. A former resident of Wilmington, Del., Guckert told The (Wilmington) News Journal that he had registered the domain names for a client while he was working to set up a Web-hosting business. Liberal bloggers also pointed to articles Gannon wrote that they called "anti-gay"; Guckert denied writing such material.

Fitzgerald is investigating whether a crime was committed when someone leaked Plame's identity. Her name was published in a 2003 column by Robert Novak (search), who cited two senior Bush administration officials as his sources.

The column appeared after Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson (search), wrote a newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. The CIA had asked Wilson to check out the uranium claim. Wilson has said he believes his wife's name was leaked as retaliation for his critical comments.

Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime if prosecutors can show the leak was intentional and the person who released that information knew of the officer's secret status.

Conyers and Slaughter note in their letter that in an October 2003 interview with Wilson, Guckert referenced a memo written by U.S. intelligence officials indicating the operative suggested Wilson could investigate reports that Iraq had sought uranium.

"In and of itself, this indicates that Mr. Guckert had access to classified information," the two lawmakers wrote. And "it appears now that Mr. Guckert memorialized his experiences at the White House."

The Conyers/Slaughter note says that in the Feb. 22, 2005, edition of Editor & Publisher, Guckert states that he "probably has one page for each day at the White House, about 200 pages of stuff ... Is it all interesting? Probably not. But it could be [a book]."

"It would be unfortunate if Mr. Guckert published information that would be useful to your investigation, such as the identity of the person who gave him the memo, without your office having the benefit of its contents," the two members of Congress wrote.

Guckert has been interviewed by FBI agents on the Plame case.

Durbin, meanwhile, is hoping to send Bush his letter demanding that the president investigate how Guckert was able to attend regular press briefings despite working for a Web site with obvious partisan support for the Republican Party, the senator's office confirmed to Editor and Publisher, after the existence of the letter was reported on the Raw Story Web site.

"We have ... learned that the questions he posed at White House press briefings and the stories he filed for Talon News frequently mirrored Republican Party talking points, that Talon News is a news organization in name only and that it has apparently close connections to the Republican party," Durbin's letter states. "Given the unprecedented level of security in Washington since 9/11, it is troubling that that a non-journalist using a false name and working for a sham news organization could have gained regular access to the White House for such an extended period of time.

"We respectfully request that you order an immediate and thorough investigation into the Gannon/Guckert matter," Durbin wrote.

"How is it possible that a man using a fake name, with dubious journalism credentials, was able to clear the White Houses extensive security screening process and gain such close access to you and your staff for such an extended period of time? Have there been other, similar breaches of security and journalism standards? We appreciate your prompt attention to this important matter. We urge you to order a full inquiry so that the American people know the facts."

A federal appeals court has upheld a ruling against Time magazine's Matthew Cooper (search) and The New York Times' Judith Miller (search), who could go to jail for refusing to divulge their sources about the leak of Plame's name

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with prosecutors in their attempt to compel the two reporters to testify before a federal grand jury about their confidential sources. Floyd Abrams, the reporters' attorney, said he would ask the full appeals court to reverse the ruling.

FOX News' Jim Mills and Anna Persky and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 04:53 PM
We've been agreeing alot more since the campaign ended. :thumb:

BTW, did you see the history channel conspiracy theory on FDR and the Pearl Harbor attack. IMO, they give more creedence to the conspiracies on that show than to show lack of conspiracy. Its the new entertainment media. The supposed smoking gun was based on a document from the war dept. and the President that America would not fire first. The conspiracy theorists tried to claim that Roosevelt wanted America to be defenseless against a first strike. The memo tells commanders that they need to still defend their country. There is no proof of any commander taking it to be that we had to lay down our weapons. The Pearl Harbor disaster was caused by our lack of response. With Short piling up all our planes to guard against sabotage, they were sitting ducks for an airstrike. America did actually fire the first shots with an attack by a destroy on a mini-sub that was trying to get in the harbor. This proves that commanders felt they could defend their bases. If the officer of the day had paid more attention to the radar reports instead of blowing them off as being a group of B17s due from California, we may have gotten some intercept planes in the air and lessened the damage. It was command decisions and not Presidential action that was responsible for the debacle.

I find that most conspiracy theories are like evolutionary ones. They make sense on the surface, but when brought to a serious point of order that disputes the theory, a convenient excuse is made to ignore that particular point.

I wish I had seen the program. Hopefully, it will be shown again soon.

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 04:57 PM
They gave a guy who is a gay prostitute (with active websites still on line) a pass because he's 'friendly'??? :spock:

This 'homeland security happy, post 9/11 paranoia, anti-gay agenda, conservative RW Christian codling, cowboy crew gave a guy like that a press pass (around the normal procedures) because he's 'friendly'.

Well, ok. If he's got a personal relationship with someone in the WH then great. But that is really POOR judgement and the security risks of having someone so 'outed' involved in such delicate matters is HUGE.
Again with the "anti-gay" agenda. Unless you have proof that the current admin has an anti-gay agenda, I would state that you are full of sh*t and shouldn't be taken seriously.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 06:00 PM
Again with the "anti-gay" agenda. Unless you have proof that the current admin has an anti-gay agenda, I would state that you are full of sh*t and shouldn't be taken seriously.


ah, backing away from the Gannon shilling and starting to attack the messenger...

:thumb:

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 06:15 PM
ah, backing away from the Gannon shilling and starting to attack the messenger...

:thumb:
Never went after the shilling. I just believe that it bothers you that the man is gay or that you are dodging the fact that there is no "gay agenda".

Take your pick.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 06:20 PM
Never went after the shilling. I just believe that it bothers you that the man is gay or that you are dodging the fact that there is no "gay agenda".

Take your pick.

Nope, neither. Stop projecting.

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 06:25 PM
Problems with Gannongate?


David Corn of the Nation beats up on the moonbats.

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=2219


The emails keep pouring in with this plea: Investigate Gannongate! These messages are obviously part of a campaign among liberal Internet activists who believe the controversy concerning Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) has not received sufficient media attention. Gannon/Guckert was a conservative reporter for a marginal news outfit who obtained a daily pass to the White House press office and who also apparently was seeking customers as a gay, military-oriented prostitute. Serious questions do remain as to why and how the Bush White House's press operation granted access to Gannon/Guckert, a correspondent for the Talon News. Should a fellow with a fake identity--and a questionable background--be allowed into presidential press conferences? Talon News was connected to GOPUSA, an organization run by Texas-based Republican activist Bobby Eberle, and Gannon/Guckert routinely asked softball questions of Bush's press secretaries during their daily White House briefings. But throughout this scandal, I have wondered if the Gannon affair may be smaller than it seems. I expressed several concerns in an earlier column. Still, in response to the emails, I decided to heed the call and look further. What I found leads me to ask--gasp!--if Gannon/Guckert, on a few but not all fronts, has received a quasi-bum rap.

Let me stipulate that how Gannon/Guckert came to be permitted into the White House press room is a worthy topic of inquiry. But his pursuers ought to be careful on this point. Talon News was a fly-by-night (or phony) news operation with a political agenda. But White House daily briefings should be open to as diverse a group as possible. There is a need for professional accreditation; space is limited. Yet there is nothing inherently wrong with allowing journalists with identifiable biases to pose questions to the White House press secretary and even the president. And if such a reporter asks a dumb question--as did Gannon/Guckert (which triggered this scandal)--the best response is scorn and further debate. Bloggers should think hard when they complain about standards for passes for White House press briefings. Last year, political bloggers--many of whom have their own biases and sometimes function as activists--sought credentials to the Democratic and Republican conventions. That was a good thing. Why shouldn't Josh Marshall, Glenn Reynolds, John Aravosis, or Markos Moulitsas (DailyKos) be allowed to question Scott McClellan or George W. Bush? Do we want only the MSMers to have this privilege?

If Gannon/Guckert did receive preferential treatment--because of his ideological bent or any other reason--that would be wrong and a matter for the White House to explain. But let's move on to his personal (or other professional) life. Bloggers have made much of his apparent effort to earn a buck as a prostitute for men. This is not gay-baiting, they say, it's hypocrisy. The question is, hypocrisy on whose part? On Gannon/Guckert's? He's been accused of being a gay-baiter. But how true is that? As part of my investigation, I had my assistant, Alexa Steinberg, search through a collection of Gannon/Guckert's articles for pieces on gay-related themes. She found eight pieces. Most were straightforward accounts of political tussles over gay marriage. Here's a representative sample, from a July 7, 2004, article:

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) faces a difficult vote in the Senate when Republicans bring the Federal Marriage Amendment to the floor in the next two weeks. Sponsors of the bill say the constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage as the union of one man and one woman is necessary to counter activist judges who have allowed homosexual unions in Massachusetts.

Passage of the FMA is uncertain in the Senate, since it will require 67 votes. Daschle will have to decide whether to allow a floor vote or prevent it with a filibuster. The choice is fraught with peril since the South Dakota senator realizes whatever he does will impact either his chances of reelection or his position as Minority Leader.

Daschle received a 100% rating from the nation's leading gay rights group, the Human Rights Campaign, in recognition of his efforts during the 2001-2002 Senate session. Despite his 1996 vote in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, Daschle has championed causes supported by the homosexual lobby in his role as Democratic leader.

Cheryl Jacques, HRC president said, "The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community and our allies will hold senators who vote for the FMA accountable with our votes in November."

Here's another (from February 5, 2004):

Four justices on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a majority advisory opinion Wednesday, saying a bill that would allow for civil unions but not marriage, makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the justices said in the opinion.

With that, the battle lines sharpened in the culture war over homosexual rights and instantly made "gay marriage" an issue in the 2004 elections. The subject has been difficult for Democrats seeking the presidential nomination, recognizing that a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. But at the same time, they realize that Democrats receive nearly all of the political support of gay rights activists.

None of Democrat candidates for president have unequivocally come out in favor of gay marriage, but all support civil unions. Even Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO) did not endorse gay marriage, despite the fact that his lesbian daughter Crissy was actively involved in his campaign for the nomination.

This is pretty tame stuff. Gannon/Guckert's critics have pointed to an article in which he observed that John Kerry might become "the first gay president." This was not a slam on Kerry or an insinuation about Kerry's private life. The piece began:

Inasmuch as Bill Clinton is considered by some members of the African-American community to be "the first black president" because of their perception of his positions with regard to minority issues, Democratic Sen. John Kerry might someday be known as "the first gay president" were he to win the White House in November.

The Massachusetts liberal has enjoyed a 100% rating from the homosexual advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), since 1995 in recognition of his support for the pro-gay agenda.

Despite his stated opposition to gay marriage, Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), who also boasts a 100% rating from the HRC, can expect to receive a high percentage of the gay vote, estimated to be around 4 million. Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 and both candidates oppose the constitutional amendment to protect marriage sought by President Bush.

Gannon/Guckert clearly was writing for a conservative audience. But he was hardly a flame-thrower on gay issues. His observation about Kerry was clumsy but not homophobic. Sure, he worked for an organization that supported an administration and party opposed to gay rights, and he was a Bush-backer. But does that automatically qualify him for outing? Should a lesbian reporter who works at the Wall Street Journal or at any metropolitan daily that editorializes against gay marriage be outed? Reporters are not elected officials. They do not legislate the behavior of others. Once Gannon/Guckert became an issue, his past--or present--as a male hooker was newsworthy, at least in a descriptive sense. But as a line of attack against him, it may be too much. I recognize this distinction might be hard to draw. But he has been hounded for being a gay male hooker. Should we even care if a reporter is moonlighting on the side in this fashion? I don't--let Helen Thomas be a professional dominatrix in her free time--unless that reporter explicitly claims to be a person of family values or publicly decries homosexuality or prostitution. I have not seen evidence that Gannon/Guckert struck such a stance.

******



*******

Should the White House have handed a daily press pass to a reporter who turned tricks on the side? Was it hypocritical of the Bush White House to have done so? Was it a security lapse to let a pseudonymous fellow and possible felon close to the president? Gannon/Guckert and Talon ought to have been vetted more closely regarding their journalistic credentials.

But I will not gripe if the White House press office decides it is not its job to investigate the personal lives and websites of those who apply for access to the press room.


Some of Gannon/Guckert's critics have suggested that he was allowed into the White House due to some sort of gay connection. One site has used the Gannon/Guckert affair to float unsubstantiated rumors about the sex life of Scott McClellan. This is fair game--but only for journalistic investigation, not for throw-it-and-see-if-it-sticks postings. If there is evidence that McClellan is a gay GOP hypocrite or that Gannon/Guckert had an advantage because he was literally in bed with a White House official, that's a news story. Otherwise, it's smear-by-blogging. Last year, I spent months talking to a professional dominatrix who claimed she had been hired several times by a prominent Republican who does the family-values shtick. I examined her allegations the best I could. But I could not substantiate her claim, which I found credible. I had nothing to publish, nothing specific to blog.

It's certainly embarrassing to the Bush White House that its press operation accepted a reporter who was an actual or wannabe prostitute. But this is not the same as paying columnists to shill for the administration, producing pro-administration propaganda packaged as news reports, mounting fake town meetings, or restricting the number of press conferences. And to date there is no compelling evidence that the White House recruited or deployed Gannon/Guckert as a plant. It really had little cause to do so. Both Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan have demonstrated they can duck questions ably on their own.

On to another matter in this scandal of many folds. The Gannon/Guckert controversy has merged into the Wilson leak affair. Gannon/Guckert's critics note that in an interview he conducted with former Ambassador Joe Wilson, which was published on October 28, 2003, Gannon/Guckert referred to a classified intelligence memo that claimed Wilson had been sent to Niger (to investigate the allegation that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium for a nuclear weapons program) at the suggestion of his wife. Gannon/Guckert was echoing a point made by Wilson's antagonists, who opposed the investigation into the leak that appeared in a Robert Novak column identifying Wilson's wife as an undercover CIA operative. Gannon/Guckert's pursuers ask who gave him this classified memo? Was the White House using a gay male hooker as an operative in its fierce campaign against Wilson? (CIA officials told reporters the information in the memo was wrong.)

Had Gannon/Guckert been used by the White House in such a fashion, it would give Gannongate a much more sinister cast. Gannon/Guckert has not said who provided him this memo--or even if he had it in hand. According to Gannon/Guckert, FBI agents working on the Wilson leak inquiry did question him about the memo, but he has not been subpoenaed by Patrick Fitzgerald, the Justice Department attorney in charge of the quasi-independent investigation. Gannon, though, has pointed to a Wall Street Journal article that appeared eleven days before the interview with Wilson was published. What is striking is that the language Gannon/Guckert used to describe the memo during his interview with Wilson is nearly identical to the Journal's description. Here's the question Gannon asked Wilson:

An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?

Here's what the Journal had earlier reported:

An internal government memo addresses some of the mysteries at the center of the White House leak investigation and could help investigators in the search for who disclosed the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, according to two people familiar with the memo.

The memo, prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel, details a meeting in early 2002 where CIA officer Valerie Plame and other intelligence officials gathered to brainstorm about how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium yellowcake from Niger.

Note the similarities. To ask the question Gannon/Guckert posed to Wilson, he did not need to possess that memo. He only needed to have read the Journal. It's possible he was leaked the same document. But the simpler explanation appears to be he saw it in the Journal. After all, if the White House--or Republicans on Capitol Hill--wanted to leak anti-Wilson material, they had plenty of better options than a fellow who worked for a piddling news service.

Nevertheless, Gannon/Guckert's critics have called for Fitzgerald to chase after him. Most recently, Representatives Louise Slaughter and John Conyers, two liberal Democrats, have written Fitzgerald and asked him to subpoena the journal Gannon/Guckert kept while he worked at the White House for Talon. (Gannon/Guckert resigned from Talon after the scandal broke.) In their letter, the House members characterize Gannon/Guckert as "a person in the White House briefing room who had access to a memo revealing the [CIA's] operative's name." They note that "Mr. Guckert had access to classified information." This description is misleading. Valerie Wilson's name had been disclosed months earlier--not by this memo. And, as noted above, it is uncertain--perhaps unlikely--that Gannon/Guckert had access to this memo. Still, they have egged on Fitzgerald to subpoena Gannon/Guckert's notes.

This would be a terrible move. Fitzgerald is already trying to destroy the ability of reporters to obtain information from confidential sources. He has subpoenaed Matt Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times and requested they identify sources. An appeals court recently ordered the pair, who have so far resisted, to cooperate. The case is heading toward the Supreme Court--which is not expected to be kind to the journalists--and Cooper and Miller could end up in jail. Now Slaughter and Conyers want to compound the damage FItzgerald is doing to journalism by pushing him to subpoena a reporter's notes. Fitzgerald should not be encouraged--especially when the case is weak that Gannon/Guckert had any access to classified information.

The Slaughter/Conyers letter shows how far off the rails well-intentioned people can go when scandal is in the air. I would not discourage anyone from responsibly investigating the questions that linger in the Gannon/Guckert affair. Perhaps the story will lead to further--and more serious--revelations of White House wrongdoing. But with the blogosphere ready-made for piling on and for the fast and widespread transmission of inaccurate information, the Gannon/Guckert tale has been susceptible to distortion. I have no brief for Gannon/Guckert. I am a fan of blogging and celebrate the rise of web-based independent researchers who can pursue matters ignored or neglected by the old media. But the limited inquiry I conducted convinces me that in this brave new world of blogging it is easy for information to outpace accuracy. Those emails I have received are, in a way, right: we need investigation, but investigation that can keep up with dissemination.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 06:27 PM
Problems with Gannongate?


David Corn of the Nation beats up on the moonbats.

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=2219





I read this earlier. And I saw David Corn defending Gannon earlier in the week which I found interesting. He's entitled to his opinion.

He is right though, we do need an investigation that can keep up with the dissemination.

Rausch
02-24-2005, 06:29 PM
I don't even care to argue the point any longer.

My question is: what're you going to do about it?

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 06:33 PM
He's entitled to his opinion.

That's big of you.

There is only one way for you to win on this one--find a big name.

Without it, all of us will just keep poking the mouth breathers with a stick each day for sport.

Do you have a big name?

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 06:35 PM
Nope, neither. Stop projecting.
What is this projecting stuff you have resorted to constantly?

I have asked a legitimate question and each time I do, you dodge it entirely or bring up another subject.

Again, what is this "gay agenda"? Where is the legitimate link proving your point? If this is just your opinion, don't you feel any shame in acting as though it is fact?

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 06:36 PM
That's big of you.

There is only one way for you to win on this one--find a big name.

Without it, all of us will just keep poking the mouth breathers with a stick each day for sport.

Do you have a big name?

I suppose if whoever approved of him was sloppy enough their name will come up and if not, it won't. Only time will tell.

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 06:38 PM
I suppose if whoever approved of him was sloppy enough their name will come up and if not, it won't. Only time will tell.

Without that, nothing.

Good luck.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 06:38 PM
What is this projecting stuff you have resorted to constantly?

I have asked a legitimate question and each time I do, you dodge it entirely or bring up another subject.

Again, what is this "gay agenda"? Where is the legitimate link proving your point? If this is just your opinion, don't you feel any shame in acting as though it is fact?

Oh, it's my opinion that it is fact that the WH is lobbying and got re-elected on changing the constitution to 'protect' people from gay marriage and have used fear to motivate their base. Remember Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove was given great credit for helping W win by doing so.

http://prodtn.cafepress.com/7/16952207_F_tn.jpg

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 06:38 PM
I suppose if whoever approved of him was sloppy enough their name will come up and if not, it won't. Only time will tell.
She said about the NFL Drug Ring.................

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 06:40 PM
Oh, it's my opinion that it is fact that the WH is lobbying and got re-elected on changing the constitution to 'protect' people from gay marriage and have used fear to motivate their base. Remember Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove was given great credit for helping W win by doing so.
Okay - So by defining the term marriage to a legal standpoint, that is an anti-gay agenda?

All I see is your opinion that you are attempting to pass as fact.

One solitary issue that does not take away any rights from anyone is hardly an "agenda", Ms. Tokyo Rose.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 06:41 PM
Okay - So by defining the term marriage to a legal standpoint, that is an anti-gay agenda?

All I see is your opinion that you are attempting to pass as fact.

One solitary issue that does not take away any rights from anyone is hardly an "agenda", Ms. Tokyo Rose.

Why does my opinion bother you so? If it is so out in left field and divorced from fact then it should not bother you one iota.

Like yours does not bother me.

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 06:44 PM
Why does my opinion bother you so? If it is so out in left field and divorced from fact then it should not bother you one iota.

Like yours does not bother me.
Your opinion doesn't bother me in the least. Where did I say that? Is this one of those projecting moments you were talking about?

I just want it to be clear that there is no true "anti-gay" agenda as you keep professing, just your uneducated opinion that you keep attempting to guise as a fact.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 06:54 PM
Okay - So by defining the term marriage to a legal standpoint, that is an anti-gay agenda?

All I see is your opinion that you are attempting to pass as fact.

One solitary issue that does not take away any rights from anyone is hardly an "agenda", Ms. Tokyo Rose.



So then the whole thing is just so that you can get government to define marraige for you? This is what you're looking for? Emotional Welfare from the government to make you feel alright? You need the government to define marraige for you? Honestly? This is it? Please Big Brother... Tell me what marraige is. This is what you want?

It's just dumbfounding that this is what you're going for. Desperately needing the government to tell you the nature of your union with your loved one. This is seriously what you are going for here? Just a handy definition handed down by Uncle Sam?

WHY?

Rausch
02-24-2005, 06:59 PM
So then the whole thing is just so that you can get government to define marraige for you? This is what you're looking for? Emotional Welfare from the government to make you feel alright? You need the government to define marraige for you? Honestly? This is it? Please Big Brother... Tell me what marraige is. This is what you want?

It's just dumbfounding that this is what you're going for. Desperately needing the government to tell you the nature of your union with your loved one. This is seriously what you are going for here? Just a handy definition handed down by Uncle Sam?

WHY?

Cause manlove is icky...

Baby Lee
02-24-2005, 07:09 PM
So then the whole thing is just so that you can get government to define marraige for you? This is what you're looking for? Emotional Welfare from the government to make you feel alright? You need the government to define marraige for you? Honestly? This is it? Please Big Brother... Tell me what marraige is. This is what you want?

It's just dumbfounding that this is what you're going for. Desperately needing the government to tell you the nature of your union with your loved one. This is seriously what you are going for here? Just a handy definition handed down by Uncle Sam?

WHY?
By the same logic, the gov't shouldn't interfere with me referring to myself as, and demanding people recognize me as, '4 star General Baby Lee,' or demanding universities and govt contractors recognize me as 'Baby Lee, entreprenuerial African American.'

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 07:11 PM
So then the whole thing is just so that you can get government to define marraige for you? This is what you're looking for? Emotional Welfare from the government to make you feel alright? You need the government to define marraige for you? Honestly? This is it? Please Big Brother... Tell me what marraige is. This is what you want?

It's just dumbfounding that this is what you're going for. Desperately needing the government to tell you the nature of your union with your loved one. This is seriously what you are going for here? Just a handy definition handed down by Uncle Sam?

WHY?
LMAO - That is all law does is define. Your argument is ridiculous.

Please Big Brother, tell us what murder truly is.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 07:18 PM
By the same logic, the gov't shouldn't interfere with me referring to myself as, and demanding people recognize me as, '4 star General Baby Lee,' or demanding universities and govt contractors recognize me as 'Baby Lee, entreprenuerial African American.'



Not even close... Either of you... Very very weak attempts even... Murder, Russ? Really?

I don't even know the angle you are going for... By taking those titles you are potentially harming someone who might put faith in those titles and do business with you accordingly. I'm pretty sure if you meet a couple of hitched homos, you'll know that they're gay.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 07:19 PM
LMAO - That is all law does is define. Your argument is ridiculous.

Please Big Brother, tell us what murder truly is.


And by the way Russ... It wasn't an argument... It was a question.

I was hoping that you would answer it...

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 07:20 PM
Not even close... Either of you... Very very weak attempts even... Murder, Russ? Really?

I don't even know the angle you are going for... By taking those titles you are potentially harming someone who might put faith in those titles and do business with you accordingly. I'm pretty sure if you meet a couple of hitched homos, you'll know that they're gay.
Darnit, there goes that man that wanted to marry his dog and the other that wanted to marry 5 women, and that other one that wanted to marry his sister.


IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT FOR US TO INFRINGE OUR BELEIVES ON THIS POOR MISUNDERSTOOD PEOPLE.

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 07:21 PM
And by the way Russ... It wasn't an argument... It was a question.

I was hoping that you would answer it...
You must have missed the answer.

I will try for you again

That is all law does is define

Taco John
02-24-2005, 07:24 PM
Darnit, there goes that man that wanted to marry his dog and the other that wanted to marry 5 women, and that other one that wanted to marry his sister.


IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT FOR US TO INFRINGE OUR BELEIVES ON THIS POOR MISUNDERSTOOD PEOPLE.


So you're worried about men marrying dogs now? Sounds like you've got all the intellectual high ground all to yourselves...

What's to keep any of these people living together already?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 07:25 PM
That is all law does is define



Ah, ok... So then "yes."

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 07:27 PM
So you're worried about men marrying dogs now? Sounds like you've got all the intellectual high ground all to yourselves...

What's to keep any of these people living together already?
Who said I was worried about any of the above? Where did you derive that atrocious logic?

I stated a simple fact, that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

What is wrong with the term civil union, and why do liberals fight it so vehemently? It accurately describes any two people (hetero or homo) that wish to live together and enjoy the benefits of a long term relationship. I see nothing wrong with the term whatsoever.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 07:37 PM
Who said I was worried about any of the above? Where did you derive that atrocious logic?

I stated a simple fact, that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

What is wrong with the term civil union, and why do liberals fight it so vehemently? It accurately describes any two people (hetero or homo) that wish to live together and enjoy the benefits of a long term relationship. I see nothing wrong with the term whatsoever.



I don't have any problem with Civil Union... So long as that's what you're calling every marraige in the eyes of Uncle Sam... Uncle Sam shouldn't be concered with the sex involved with these unions. He just needs to be concerned about being fair in how they are taxed.

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 07:46 PM
I don't have any problem with Civil Union... So long as that's what you're calling every marraige in the eyes of Uncle Sam... Uncle Sam shouldn't be concered with the sex involved with these unions. He just needs to be concerned about being fair in how they are taxed.

Is this the same person that said

So then the whole thing is just so that you can get government to define marraige for you? This is what you're looking for? Emotional Welfare from the government to make you feel alright? You need the government to define marraige for you? Honestly? This is it? Please Big Brother... Tell me what marraige is. This is what you want?


Wow, and you didn't even let an hour pass before you became hypocritical.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 07:48 PM
How so?

I'm not the one needing a definition. But if you need one, the least you can do is make it a fair one.


Nice try though.

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 07:49 PM
How so?

I'm not the one needing a definition. But if you need one, the least you can do is make it a fair one.
translation - I don't want a definition, but if I want my definition over yours.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 07:53 PM
You mean, the more emcompassing definition vs. the more restrictive one? Why do you need the govenment to seperately define a civil union? What does it matter to you if Uncle Sam sees all civil unions without the interference of gender?

Your translation is off... I don't want a definition, but if you need one, then let's make it the most fair definition possible.

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 07:55 PM
You mean, the more emcompassing definition vs. the more restrictive one? Why do you need the govenment to seperately define a civil union? What does it matter to you if Uncle Sam sees all civil unions without the interference of gender?

Your translation is off... I don't want a definition, but if you need one, then let's make it the most fair definition possible.
My original translation was 100% accurate - I don't want a definition, but I want my definition over yours.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 07:58 PM
Fair enough... I'm not going to budge you on that, so I'll ask...

It's my contention that Uncle Sam shouldn't be concered with the sex involved with marital (or whatever, civil) unions. He just needs to be concerned about being fair in how they are taxed.

What problem do you have with that?

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 08:16 PM
Fair enough... I'm not going to budge you on that, so I'll ask...

It's my contention that Uncle Sam shouldn't be concered with the sex involved with marital (or whatever, civil) unions. He just needs to be concerned about being fair in how they are taxed.

What problem do you have with that?
I have no problem at all with Utopia. But what you stated above is about as far from today's reality as you will ever get.

Perhaps you should have just posted Elvis Costello's Peace, Love, and Understanding and asked why we all can't group hug?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 08:27 PM
Wow... Weak response. I'll try this then:

What's wrong with my definition that you would call it "Utopia" and then fight against it?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 08:28 PM
I think I've found the loose thread in this sweater. Looking forward to your response.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 08:31 PM
Beings in that you didn't answer the question, I'll take it that it's because you don't have a intellectually honest answer to the question. All the answers trap you in one way or another. I think I have found check mate over you on this one...

But let's put you in check first... I'll ask again:

It's my contention that Uncle Sam shouldn't be concered with the sex involved with marital (or whatever, civil) unions. He just needs to be concerned about being fair in how they are taxed.

What problem do you have with that?

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 08:33 PM
Beings in that you didn't answer the question, I'll take it that it's because you don't have a intellectually honest answer to the question. All the answers trap you in one way or another. I think I have found check mate over you on this one...

But let's put you in check first... I'll ask again:

It's my contention that Uncle Sam shouldn't be concered with the sex involved with marital (or whatever, civil) unions. He just needs to be concerned about being fair in how they are taxed.

What problem do you have with that?
Sillyy predisposition, isn't it? And while you may believe you are correct, Mr. Huxley, your Soma has affected your reasoning.

So, according to you, there should be no definition of marriage that inhibits anyone from marrying anyone else? Yes or no? I realize I am answering a question with a question, but that seems to be the best tact to make you understand that definitions are a requirement before law can be established.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 08:38 PM
Wow... Now we're getting the squiggle... Strike two.

I asked you a question.

It's my contention that Uncle Sam shouldn't be concered with the sex involved with marital (or whatever, civil) unions. He just needs to be concerned about being fair in how they are taxed.

What problem do you have with that?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 08:44 PM
I wonder for what purpose the government has for making a distinction between a gay "marraige," and a straight one...

KC Dan
02-24-2005, 10:00 PM
Again, it's not about being gay, nice diversion. That is not the issue. The prostitution is. Please name one active journalist (other than JJGG) in the WH press corp who has disclosed they are a prostitute.

Please name one active journalist (other than JJGG) in the WH press corp who has no 'formal training'. In addition, please

Please name one active journalist (other than JJGG) who is in the press corps who is known by two different names in part to avoid a past as a hooker.
Sorry that I couldn't respond earlier, had work to do but I will answer these three points directly and to the point.
1) Never tried to divert the issue to gaydom. I don't give a rat's arse about this - NONISSUE
2) Don't care if any journalists have formal training - NONISSUE
3) Other known by different names - WHO REALLY CARES, NONISSUE

This whole thread is about something that means this much -- 0, zero, nada, nothing. It is a weak attempt to create a political issue. I wonder why some can't see this. Why, oh why do I ever answer mememymyiiii threads..... :banghead::banghead::banghead:

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 10:24 PM
Sorry that I couldn't respond earlier, had work to do but I will answer these three points directly and to the point.
1) Never tried to divert the issue to gaydom. I don't give a rat's arse about this - NONISSUE
2) Don't care if any journalists have formal training - NONISSUE
3) Other known by different names - WHO REALLY CARES, NONISSUE

This whole thread is about something that means this much -- 0, zero, nada, nothing. It is a weak attempt to create a political issue. I wonder why some can't see this. Why, oh why do I ever answer mememymyiiii threads..... :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Which is why there are two threads with over 1k views and more than 100 posts at the top of the board. :hmmm:

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 10:53 PM
Which is why there are two threads with over 1k views and more than 100 posts at the top of the board. :hmmm:
Actually, there are a bunch of threads started by you and John desperately trying to tell us how relevant this is.

Consider the source

Taco John
02-24-2005, 11:10 PM
You have no balls, thus no right to speak in this thread Russ...


Wow... Now we're getting the squiggle... Strike two.

I asked you a question.

It's my contention that Uncle Sam shouldn't be concered with the sex involved with marital (or whatever, civil) unions. He just needs to be concerned about being fair in how they are taxed.

What problem do you have with that?

memyselfI
02-25-2005, 08:12 AM
Actually, there are a bunch of threads started by you and John desperately trying to tell us how relevant this is.

Consider the source


And TJ and I are roundly criticized and condemned as being two of the most unwanted posters on the Planet thus one must wonder why anyone who believes this is a 'non-story' would spend time actually addressing a 'non-story' coming from two people like that... :hmmm:

KC Dan
02-25-2005, 10:02 AM
Which is why there are two threads with over 1k views and more than 100 posts at the top of the board. :hmmm:
Which is kinda sad but it makes sense when you consider that the reason so many bash Bush and bashed Clinton is that they are corrosive. Many people just live to hate them & bash them for whatever they do or have done. Which is my point - You are just as corrosive and probably disliked by so many on this board that you could start a thread about the color of a rose & there would be 1k views and 100 posts just to argue with you. What I find most sad is that every once in a while, I drag myself into it....:cuss:

memyselfI
02-25-2005, 11:31 AM
Which is kinda sad but it makes sense when you consider that the reason so many bash Bush and bashed Clinton is that they are corrosive. Many people just live to hate them & bash them for whatever they do or have done. Which is my point - You are just as corrosive and probably disliked by so many on this board that you could start a thread about the color of a rose & there would be 1k views and 100 posts just to argue with you. What I find most sad is that every once in a while, I drag myself into it....:cuss:

Which says more about the integrity of my adversaries than it does about me...

thank you. :thumb:

Baby Lee
02-25-2005, 12:44 PM
Which says more about the integrity of my adversaries than it does about me...

thank you. :thumb:
No, you neglect to acknowledge that your observations on the color of a rose will take the form of;

Roses are red because they are choked by RWNJ environmental policy.
Voilets are blue because they reflect hypocritical closeted HOMO RWNJs.

Taco John
02-25-2005, 12:52 PM
And TJ and I are roundly criticized and condemned as being two of the most unwanted posters on the Planet thus one must wonder why anyone who believes this is a 'non-story' would spend time actually addressing a 'non-story' coming from two people like that... :hmmm:



Speak for yourself.... Everybody loves da Taco...

SBK
02-26-2005, 01:02 AM
Speak for yourself.... Everybody loves da Taco...

Pink Taco. Not the Tootin Taco. ROFL

Baby Lee
02-26-2005, 09:52 AM
Pink Taco. Not the Tootin Taco. ROFL
Don't they already have a name for a tootin' taco? Isn't that a queef?