PDA

View Full Version : Day ??? and still no huge gay hooker story


KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 06:48 PM
Damn, TJ and Duhnise with yet another on-spot prediction.

Cochise
02-28-2005, 06:49 PM
What was the gay hooker angle?

I have to admit I've been ignoring the story since the initial stages. No real story and didn't interest me.

siberian khatru
02-28-2005, 06:51 PM
How about a huge T.J. Hooker story?

http://www.kapowgifts.co.uk/acatalog/tj-hooker-photo.jpg

Michael Michigan
02-28-2005, 07:40 PM
How about a huge T.J. Hooker story?

http://www.kapowgifts.co.uk/acatalog/tj-hooker-photo.jpg

:)

You've been holding that awhile--haven't you?

Michael Michigan
02-28-2005, 07:47 PM
Well this doesn't help...

White House Correspondents Want No Role in Credentialing

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000818837

NEW YORK

The White House Correspondents Association announced Monday that it would not seek changes to the White House press-credentialing process, despite complaints from several members that controversial former reporter James Guckert had been able to gain the same access as any other reporter for two years.

Ron Hutcheson, WHCA president and a Knight Ridder White House correspondent, said the decision occurred during Monday's meeting of the WHCA board. It was the first such meeting of the board since Guckert, who uses the name Jeff Gannon, drew attention with his partisan questions and questionable past.

"The board felt like none of us were happy about Gannon being in the briefing room, but we all view it as the price we pay for a system that favors inclusion over keeping someone out," Hutcheson told E&P. "While not perfect, [the current system] is geared toward letting people in."

When asked if his view would change in the event that there was a sharp increase in the distribution of day passes for bloggers, writers affiliated with obscure Web sites, and those with obvious partisan leanings, like Guckert, Hutcheson said such a scenario could require a new look. "I do have that concern that we could end up there," he said. "I'll never say never. But I have no idea what the tipping point would be."

He also added that none of the board members at the meeting believed that Guckert was "a plant" by the Bush administration to insert "softball" questions into the daily briefings.

The decision effectively keeps the WHCA out of the credentialing process following talk during the past month that the 300-member group might take more of a role in deciding who gets press credentials. Currently, the Standing Committee of Correspondents on Capitol Hill, a committee of congressional reporters, has sole authority over who gets press passes there. But all White House press passes are distributed by the White House Press Office with no WHCA involvement.

During a two-hour board meeting Monday, in which about half the time was spent on White House credentialing issues, the WHCA leadership discussed the problems related to Guckert's access, but chose to keep the status quo.

"Since 1914, the White House Correspondents’ Association has operated independently of the White House and the White House credentialing process. We intend for the White House Correspondents’ Association to remain independent of that process," he board said in a statement. "Consistent with the First Amendment, the White House Correspondents’ Association stands for inclusiveness in the credentialing process so that the White House remains accessible to all journalists. We hope that individual episodes do not obscure the broader principles of a fair and evenhanded credentialing process that serves the goal of free and full exchange of information."

Mike Allen, a White House reporter for The Washington Post, told E&P: "We debated it bluntly for quite a bit more than an hour. There was a strong consensus that the current system generally works and that the association favors inclusion. That’s no sign of support for ‘Gannon.’ It’s a recognition that an individual case is no reason to change your principles.”

Guckert, 47, had obtained regular access to the White House briefings since February 2003, first as a representative of GOPUSA.com, a right-wing Web site with ties to the Texas Republican Party, then as a reporter for Talon News, a GOPUSA.com offshoot.

After being turned down last year for a congressional press pass, which is a requirement for a permanent White House "hard pass," which allows regular access to press briefings, Guckert continued to obtain daily passes, which do not require the extensive background checks of a hard pass, at the White House through early this year.

He gained notice in January when he asked President Bush what many considered a partisan question at a Jan. 26 press conference.

Once it was revealed that he had been using a pseudonym while at the White House, had ties to several pornographic Web sites, and allegedly had worked as a prostitute, Guckert resigned from Talon News several weeks ago, prompting widespread criticism of the White House press credential policy. Last week Talon News shut down, but with plans to revamp its operation and re-launch.

During the recent uproar over Guckert and White House press-credential policies, WHCA leaders met with Press Secretary Scott McClellan, who had said he was not involved in press pass distribution -- and did not want to be -- but would be glad to listen to WHCA concerns.

McClellan could not be reached for comment Monday.

During Monday's WHCA board meeting, several members hinted that they were troubled by the fact that Guckert could obtain regular access to press events without a hard pass. "The issue was raised of whether the day pass was an end run around permanent credentials," said Mark Smith, an AP Radio reporter and WHCA board member. "But the board decided not to take any particular action on it."

Hutcheson said he also had concerns about the extensive use of a day pass. "There is some discomfort with a system that lets people who can’t get a hard pass in with daily passes with some regularity," Hutcheson told E&P. "The whole reason that the daily pass system was set up was that hard passes have some exclusivity to them."

He also said the board discussed how problems could arise if the White House appeared to be limiting press access based on a reporter's ideology. "If we felt that the White House was applying an ideological screen, we would fight like hell," Hutcheson said. "But we don't see that happening at all."

"The bottom line is that none of us are comfortable with Jeff Gannon posing as a journalist," Hutcheson stated. "But none of us are comfortable with changing the system to keep him out."

Phobia
02-28-2005, 07:49 PM
Look at the above picture and explain this, please:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/heather.locklear/scansl/locklear/locklear.jpghttp://www.wchstv.com/abc/bostonlegal/williamshatner.jpg

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 08:19 PM
Look at the above picture and explain this, please:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/heather.locklear/scansl/locklear/locklear.jpghttp://www.wchstv.com/abc/bostonlegal/williamshatner.jpg
Money, you should know as it explains your situation as well.

memyselfI
02-28-2005, 08:47 PM
Maybe not from where you sit but I saw this was discussed on Fox News media program and amazingly no RWNJs were apologizing or excusing him on that channel.

And, I also saw this in the KC Star among others.

http://news.google.com/news?q=jeff+gannon&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-01,GGLD:en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d


Posted on Mon, Feb. 28, 2005

White House press corps flap is far from over

By DICK POLMAN

Philadelphia Inquirer


The White House correspondent formerly known as Gannon has quit his job and acknowledged his real name, which is Guckert.

And his employer, a conservative Web site operated by Texas Republican activists, having already erased all traces of "Gannon," announced Thursday that it was unplugging its Web site to "reevaluate operations."

But the Jeff Gannon/James Guckert saga is far from over. It remains unclear how a graduate of a conservative training program, someone with no previous journalism experience, someone whose writings were often lifted directly from White House press releases, still managed to gain access to the White House press room, where he spent two years lobbing gentle questions at the press secretary and the President.

And some political analysts who monitor President Bush's relations with the media insist that Gannon (who, referring to Democrats, recently asked Bush, "How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?") should not be viewed as an isolated case. Rather, they contend that Gannon is symptomatic of a broader White House strategy to undermine the traditional media by disseminating the Bush message in creative new ways.

Every president has sought to manipulate the media. But historians say that Bush, unhappy with what he calls "the filter," is courting controversy in his quest for innovative formats. Several conservative commentators have been paid to trumpet Bush policies in their work; one recipient, Armstrong Williams, is being investigated by the Federal Communications Commission. And two agencies have disseminated pro-Bush videos that look like TV newscasts, without disclosing the Bush sponsorship - a breach of federal law, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The White House has stated that these media decisions were made independently by the agencies. Nevertheless, former Republican strategist Jim Pinkerton, who later worked in the senior George Bush's administration, says: "It's quite clear this White House is exploring radical alternative ways to getting its message out - through the aggressive hiring of flacks like Williams, and the presence, or even planting, of friendly so-called journalists like Gannon.

"The Bush people are challenging all the old assumptions about how to work the press. They are ambitious - visionary, if you will - in ways that Washington has yet to fathom."

Larry Gross, who runs the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Southern California, says: "Richard Nixon hated the press, Bill Clinton hated the press - but they accepted the basic rules of the game. Bush has a strategy of discrediting, end-running, and even faking the news. Those prepackaged videos sent to local TV stations `looked' like news, much the way Gannon `looked' like a reporter. We're seeing something new: Potemkin-village journalism."

By contrast, the Bush administration and its defenders say that the mainstream press is generally hostile to Bush, and therefore, as the President said in 2003, "somehow you just got to go over the heads of the filter." Press secretary Scott McClellan denies that the administration planted Gannon, and says that Gannon sought access on his own: "In this day and age, when you have a changing media, it's not an easy issue to decide or try to pick and choose who is a journalist."

Gannon himself contends that he is a victim of a liberal conspiracy; anti-Bush bloggers, curious about his softball questions, dug into his past last month and quickly learned that he was working for partisan Republicans - and that he had previously worked as a gay escort for hire. Gannon, still using his alias, posted a statement Friday on his personal Web site: "The Left is engaging in 21st Century McCarthyism in an effort to blacklist conservative journalists, in order (to) protect their domination of the media."

Not surprisingly, given the current polarized climate, Gannon critics insist that his presence in the White House was part of a Bush master plan to undercut the mainstream media. But Rich Galen, a Republican strategist and Bush ally, scoffs, saying: "The notion of the White House somehow being involved in a conspiracy to control the news by planting someone like Gannon is just laughable. They (critics) are trying to connect the dots, but they're coloring outside the lines."

Nevertheless, Galen offers a significant admonition: "Partisan organizations properly belong at the Republican National Committee, and at the Democratic National Committee. I don't think the White House should have allowed him in. They knew perfectly well what was going on and who he was writing for."

Indeed, when Gannon first showed up in February 2003, seeking access, he was working for GOPUSA.com, a site run by Texas Republican Bobby Eberle, and dedicated "to spreading the conservative message throughout America." Gannon had never worked for a media outlet. He had attended the Leadership Institute, which is run by conservative leader Morton Blackwell (who helped mentor Bush strategist Karl Rove). The institute's stated mission is "to identify, recruit, train, and place conservatives in politics, government, and media."

Gannon was given a "day pass" - renewed virtually every day for two years - and therefore was exempted from Secret Service scrutiny. He used his real name while applying for his day pass; his tag carried his Gannon alias. As McClellan recently recalled, an aide checked the Internet and confirmed that GOPUSA.com "existed." That was the criterion for admittance. Two months later, Eberle created Talon News, which became Gannon's home. (Last year, already admitted to the White House, Gannon tried and failed to get a congressional pass.)

Gannon, on the job, repeatedly got McClellan out of jams. Last spring, for example, when McClellan was being hit with questions about the torture of Iraqis at the Abu Ghraib prison, Gannon changed the subject: "Will you have any adjectives left to adequately describe the pictures from Saddam's rape room and torture chambers?"

McClellan replied, "I'm glad you brought that up, Jeff."

A year ago, while McClellan was fielding questions about Bush's National Guard service, Gannon told McClellan that at least Bush didn't make any speeches "alongside Jane Fonda." Last summer, Gannon filed stories on Bush policies for Talon News that copied, almost word for word, White House and Republican Party talking points.

But it was a question to Bush last month that put Gannon in the limelight: "Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines. . . . How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?" It turned out that Senate Minority Leader Reid had never invoked soup lines. Gannon had borrowed the reference from Rush Limbaugh, who had fabricated it. Limbaugh later admitted on the air that "Harry Reid never said soup lines," but said he was "honored and proud" that Gannon had used it.

Martha Kumar, a political scientist at Towson University in Maryland, who monitors the White House press, says: "Jeff was the kind of person who saw the briefings as an opportunity to air his point of view. Looking back (at the Clinton era), I can't think of any analogous person on the Democratic side. There were no Democratic-trained partisans like Jeff. If there had been anyone like that, you would have heard an uproar on Capitol Hill," from the Republican majority.

Gannon's defenders see him as a martyr. Tim Graham, an analyst at the conservative Media Research Center, says that "conservative journalists ... have every bit as much right to sit in those chairs and ask their own questions as the everyday liberal partisans do." But Gannon's critics are not disputing the credentials of those conservatives with reportorial experience who work for outlets with conservative audiences - such as the National Review, the Washington Times, and Fox News.

Todd Gitlin, a liberal media analyst at Columbia University, sees the Gannon case in dark terms: "It's a psychological thing. Gannon was there, either as a plant or on his own, to deliver the larger message, to convince people that the liberal side is the losing side, that the country doesn't need the mainstream media, and that the administration message is the wave of the future."

Kumar isn't as bleak - she thinks that White House staffers admitted Gannon to err on the side of openness - but she explains why Gannon's story resonates: "The administration's attempts to control information is a hot issue - the sealing of government records, the secrecy of Dick Cheney's energy task force. For many people, the Gannon case fits right in."

Or perhaps Gannon's lack of subtlety is proof that he is an aberration. As he plaintively suggested on NBC the other day, "If the White House was going to use a plant, wouldn't they have picked someone better than me?"

Taco John
02-28-2005, 08:57 PM
Damn, TJ and Duhnise with yet another on-spot prediction.



The media is not what it used to be. Someone has got it by the nuts, and they're squeezing like hell. It's all in the interest of National Security.

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 09:07 PM
Maybe not from where you sit but I saw this was discussed on Fox News media program and amazingly no RWNJs were apologizing or excusing him on that channel.



D-enise - Most of America is not googling +Jeff +Gannon.

Good luck on the continual delusion.

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 09:08 PM
The media is not what it used to be. Someone has got it by the nuts, and they're squeezing like hell. It's all in the interest of National Security.
Karl Rove is just amazing how he can infilter every major newspaper and free television network, isn't he?

Michael Michigan
02-28-2005, 09:14 PM
The media is not what it used to be. Someone has got it by the nuts...

Maybe it's Gannon.

I hear that's the kind of stuff he charges for.

Cochise
02-28-2005, 09:18 PM
Maybe it's Gannon.

I hear that's the kind of stuff he charges for.

buh dum tish!

beavis
02-28-2005, 09:20 PM
The media is not what it used to be. Someone has got it by the nuts, and they're squeezing like hell. It's all in the interest of National Security.
Better safe than sorry.

go bowe
02-28-2005, 09:22 PM
Karl Rove is just amazing how he can infilter every major newspaper and free television network, isn't he?ok, quit bragging...

memyselfI
02-28-2005, 09:26 PM
ok, quit bragging...
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/kirk22505.jpg

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 09:30 PM
Isn't it time to go buy Catcher in the Rye?

http://www.poster.net/conspiracy-theory/conspiracy-theory-mel-gibson-julia-roberts-patrick-stewart-3700137.jpg

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2005, 09:42 PM
ok, quit bragging...

Russ IS Karl Rove? :eek:

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 09:44 PM
Russ IS Karl Rove? :eek:
Sure, after selling that crap to Dan Rather, I even duped jAZ.

go bowe
02-28-2005, 10:04 PM
Sure, after selling that crap to Dan Rather, I even duped jAZ.like either of those things might be hard to do...

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2005, 10:04 PM
Sure, after selling that crap to Dan Rather, I even duped jAZ.

Cool. Should we like, "kneel" in your presence?

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 10:06 PM
like either of those things might be hard to do...
LOL

go bowe
02-28-2005, 10:06 PM
Russ IS Karl Rove? :eek:no no...

russ was saying (sarcastically) that rove is into everything, etc. and i said (sarcastically) quit bragging (about karl rove's powers)...

where's go chiefs when you need him?

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 10:06 PM
Cool. Should we like, "kneel" in your presence?
Naw, I have already developed and altered illegal photos of you doing so.

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2005, 10:09 PM
Naw, I have already developed and altered illegal photos of you doing so.

ROFL

(sorry, I'm out of rep for the day :banghead: )

Radar Chief
03-09-2005, 03:21 PM
Just out of curiosity, where’d this go?
Did Denise and Taco just move on to juicier conspiracy theories?

Chief Henry
03-09-2005, 03:36 PM
Just out of curiosity, where’d this go?
Did Denise and Taco just move on to juicier conspiracy theories?


I was wondering about this earlier. But DUHknee's has been tracking her
Hesbola cousins from Syria. She's hoping that the Syrian's go wack a few more Lebonese.

KCWolfman
03-09-2005, 03:56 PM
So TJ and D-ehnise - are you now willing to admit the story doesn't have legs?

Frankly, I am hoping not. I don't mind reviving the old thread every now and then.

alanm
03-10-2005, 05:48 AM
So TJ and D-ehnise - are you now willing to admit the story doesn't have legs?

Frankly, I am hoping not. I don't mind reviving the old thread every now and then.
I can answer Russ. " Uh.... I guess that one didn't quite pan out like it was supposed to." What's next for those crazy, zany, mischief inspiring, damn it we'll find something to blame on Dub'ya, Hold our breaths untill we get our way, Peace loving bastions of liberal ideology? Let me guess? It's now time for George to have an affair. :hmmm: ROFL

Baby Lee
03-10-2005, 06:19 AM
Money, you should know as it explains your situation as well.
I think he's observing that one has aged incredibly well . . . and the other. . .

memyselfI
03-10-2005, 10:11 AM
So TJ and D-ehnise - are you now willing to admit the story doesn't have legs?

Frankly, I am hoping not. I don't mind reviving the old thread every now and then.

Nope.

The story has been covered on nearly all of the networks and written in many of the major newspapers. The Secret Service defended their actions and a blogger was admitted on a day pass this week. I think a great deal has happened in this story and perhaps may in the future.

homey
03-10-2005, 10:18 AM
A security breach in the white house isn't a big deal? Talk about blind devotion to a party…

This isn’t a bigger story because Republicans have the majority and the current neoconservative climate in America has a majority of its citizens asleep at the wheel.

Cochise
03-10-2005, 10:22 AM
Nope.

The story has been covered on nearly all of the networks and written in many of the major newspapers. The Secret Service defended their actions and a blogger was admitted on a day pass this week. I think a great deal has happened in this story and perhaps may in the future.

Sounds 'huge' and like it has to do with gay hookers to me :rolleyes:

Radar Chief
03-10-2005, 10:25 AM
A security breach in the white house isn't a big deal? Talk about blind devotion to a party…

This isn’t a bigger story because Republicans have the majority and the current neoconservative climate in America has a majority of its citizens asleep at the wheel.

So a reporter going to a press conference on a day pass is a “security breach”? Talk about blind devotion to a party. :rolleyes:
This isn’t a bigger story because no one is buying your paranoid delusional conspiracy theory.

KCWolfman
03-10-2005, 04:54 PM
Nope.

The story has been covered on nearly all of the networks and written in many of the major newspapers. The Secret Service defended their actions and a blogger was admitted on a day pass this week. I think a great deal has happened in this story and perhaps may in the future.
Really, when did ABC News and NBC Nightly News cover it?

You were going on like it was a groundbreaking story that would cover the world. I think we both know you were wrong, unfortunately, only one of us is admitting it, eh?

patteeu
03-10-2005, 05:11 PM
A security breach in the white house isn't a big deal? Talk about blind devotion to a party…

This isn’t a bigger story because Republicans have the majority and the current neoconservative climate in America has a majority of its citizens asleep at the wheel.

Do we really have to go through this again? There was no security breach.

patteeu
03-10-2005, 05:20 PM
It got some very limited coverage by mainstream media outlets, but I certainly wouldn't call it a huge story. It probably seems huge though if you frequent the sites that cater to the leftwing lunatic fringe. It's kind of funny, and pathetic at the same time, to watch the rabidly anti-Bush folks find what they think is a monster scandal only to later see it fizzle without signficant attention (much less outrage) from the general public.

Taco John
03-10-2005, 06:11 PM
Whatever Russ, you pussy.

How brave of you to raise this thread when I've castrated you in in this thread over here (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110835&page=1&pp=15). Until you find a pair of nuts and answer the question, you call me Mr. Taco John, boy.

KCWolfman
03-10-2005, 06:47 PM
Whatever Russ, you pussy.

How brave of you to raise this thread when I've castrated you in in this thread over here (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110835&page=1&pp=15). Until you find a pair of nuts and answer the question, you call me Mr. Taco John, boy.
Is that you're way of saying you were wrong, Mr. Boy?

Brock
03-10-2005, 07:48 PM
Whatever Russ, you pussy.

How brave of you to raise this thread when I've castrated you in in this thread over here (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110835&page=1&pp=15). Until you find a pair of nuts and answer the question, you call me Mr. Taco John, boy.

Hilarious. Miss Sandy Vagina herself calling someone else a pussy. ROFL

Radar Chief
03-11-2005, 06:26 AM
Whatever Russ, you pussy.

How brave of you to raise this thread when I've castrated you in in this thread over here (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110835&page=1&pp=15). Until you find a pair of nuts and answer the question, you call me Mr. Taco John, boy.

Hey Einstein, I’m the one that bumped it. :loser:
So you can take your "boy" shit and dangle off my left one, while ya thumb the right. 4321

Cochise
03-11-2005, 07:52 AM
Another day and the huge gay hooker story still can't bump Jacko out of the headlines.

Cochise
03-16-2005, 10:19 AM
Another day and the huge gay hooker story still can't bump Jacko out of the headlines.

I guess that post works for today too.

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 10:31 AM
Yes, I can always count on Chiefs Planet for up to the minute gay activist news.

Donger
03-17-2005, 01:20 PM
So TJ and D-ehnise - are you now willing to admit the story doesn't have legs?

Frankly, I am hoping not. I don't mind reviving the old thread every now and then.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=112452

Considering that the WHPC is done with it, I'd wager that this story's legs are equivalent to Stephen Hawkings' legs.

mikey23545
03-17-2005, 01:35 PM
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/kirk22505.jpg





How did you manage to get a picture of Dan Rather's office at CBS?